It's not so much "now", but for future posts you could capitalize the start of your sentences (and also "I" when referring to yourself).
Remember that your text is written once, but read many times, so the easier it is for people to read your text the better. Capitals help the sentences stand apart, and experienced readers will have a much easier time when you use standard conventions.
If it has patents attached that aren't royalty free, then it's not an open standard. There are many non-proprietary standards from the organizations you listed, like HTTP, HTML and the Internet Protocols, to name some of the most important ones. Just because some standards with patents are hosted by these bodies doesn't make them open.
As for stuff like Ethernet or USB, I'm not aware of their patent details, but then again I'm not writing code for Ethernet or USB. They can get replaced by some other network or port and I wouldn't care. I'm not sure what patents there are in POSIX, and a quick search didn't turn up anything. Can you provide details?
Moonlight (and Mono) are made by Novell, if you are using either, you are a downstream recipient. No, not based on the link you provided earlier. In particular are the definitions of "Downstream Recipient" [1] and "Intermediate Recipients" [2].
The point of GPL is that anybody can edit the source and do what they want with it, no matter who they received it from. Furthermore, open standards shouldn't have restrictions on their use. Microsoft only grants privileges for writing plugins [3].
And actually, it is released under the GPL. Saying "That's not GPL." doesn't change reality, just because it doesn't fit in with your world view. Microsoft states they aren't bound by third party licenses. They even mention GPL by name [4].
Given that the field is wide open for a new "rich internet application" platform, there's no way in hell anybody that believes in open standards should follow Microsoft's lead, given their past history and operating systems monopoly. It's just going to be Internet Explorer all over again, except this time with patents. Any effort devoted to Microsoft is effort not being spent on an open alternative. Stuff like Google Gears, SVG, JavaScript 2, new JVMs, etc, to name just a few. Anything is better than playing into the hands of Microsoft.
[1] '"Downstream Recipient" means an entity or individual that uses for its intended purpose a Moonlight Implementation obtained directly from Novell or through an Intermediate Recipient. An entity or individual is not a Downstream Recipient when such entity or individual resells, licenses, supplies, distributes or otherwise makes available to third parties the Moonlight Implementation. For avoidance of doubt, an entity or individual cannot qualify both as a Downstream Recipient and an Intermediate Recipient for use of the same copy of a Moonlight Implementation.
[2] '"Intermediate Recipients" means resellers, recipients, and distributors to the extent they are authorized (directly or indirectly) by Novell or its Subsidiaries to resell, license, supply, distribute or otherwise make available Moonlight Implementations (whether the resale, licensing, supplying, making available, or distribution is on a stand-alone basis, or on an OEM basis as bundled with hardware or other software of the reseller or distributor, or otherwise, so long as it is not bundled with a Linux operating system other than Novell-branded operating system software), except for resellers, recipients, or distributors who are in the business of offering their own branded operating system software.'
[3] 'only to the extent such Moonlight Implementations are used to provide Plug-In Functionality'
[4] 'Microsoft is not bound by, nor grants any rights under, any third party licenses with respect to the Moonlight Implementation (e.g., any versions of the General Public License).'
Given C#Âand the Common Language Infrastructure are ECMA and ISO standards I don't think you can credulously call them "proprietary formats". Any format that has patent strings attached is proprietary. Note that ECMA only provides for RAND (Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) licensing. That's not good enough to qualify as an open standard.
not to sue Downstream Recipients of Novell Novell != Linux. Microsoft expects people to buy Linux from companies that have entered into patent agreements with them. That's not GPL.
Everything Microsoft does is based on strengthening and extending their operating systems monopoly into other areas. They will always entangle their formats so that it runs best on Windows, or have patents as a backup should they need to use them. The open source world should run far, far away from Microsoft tech, and find non-proprietary solutions.
Frankly, I think having C# and the Common Language Infrastructure (i.e. run times) under ECMA and ISO standards - and a working (and highly functioning) Open Source implementation in the form of Mono does a lot more to undermine their monopoly. Dancing to Microsoft's tune would be an insanely stupid way to try to undermine Microsoft, unless you think paying patent royalties to Novell -> Microsoft is a good way to combat their monopoly. The only way to break the Microsoft monopoly is to stop using their proprietary formats.
Why is that if Adobe has a monopoly on a web item that in the end will be monstrously profitable that it's perfectly ok? Adobe has finally opened up the spec for Flash. That means anybody can write a player for any platform. Before they opened up the spec it wasn't "perfectly ok", though I'll grant you the proprietary problems of Flash weren't as well known as the problems with Microsoft's proprietary formats.
If Microsoft wants to move in and give them competition it's a mortal sin. Microsoft has a long history of creating formats tied to Windows. The whole point of the Net is not to be tied to a particular platform. It's good to hate these attempts, and resist them vigorously.
I don't think Berners-Lee had commercial usage in mind when he invented the Web - I may be wrong, but commercial considerations probably aren't top of the list at CERN. Google makes money by helping people do what the Web was meant to do -- share information that was intended to be shared. The Pirate Bay makes money by facilitating copyright infringement. That's a world of difference.
How does Pirate Bay make money from other peoples work? [...] It isn't, any more than Google providing a search service then selling advertising space is. That's a bad analogy. The Web's founding principle was to provide a way for content publishers to openly distribute. Google just rides on top of that open model, providing an additional service.
The Pirate Bay is a key link in a distribution network that focuses on "pirating" material that was never meant for open distribution. They make money by facilitating copyright infringement.
The company that spends millions making a movie for profit is not the same as somebody that just wants their work to be read by lots of people.
There is no difference between different kinds of information. If intellectual property could be controlled, all information could be controlled. This includes any information any government would declare "illegal". Please repeat this whenever somebody mentions data privacy laws, like those they have in Europe, or the medical privacy laws in the US. It is, as you say, Controlling information.
And if you think data privacy is not worth fighting for, then say so. If you think it is worth fighting for, then please explain your inconsistent stance.
A pirated version of the game becomes, in essence, just a free demo since buying the game keeps giving you more. So it's stealth copy protection. Get a demo, but get the product you actually want to pay for by registering.
(Some of) the source code is, but the protocols and technologies it uses aren't, and those are what really matter. An OS X box plays just as nicely on the network as a Linux or BSD box, as a client or as a server. It's rather disingenuous to call Apple "non-proprietary" when comparing it to Linux. If all you want to do is stick a Windows box on a network, it'll play nicely over the internet protocols too. Linux can be installed on tons of different platforms, does not need to be bought from Apple, and is open source.
As for your claims about Apple's "protocols and technologies" being non-proprietary, Apple strongly disagrees with you:
"Regardless of whether your product will be sold, used internally, or bundled with other products, if you wish to use Apple software and/or technologies, you need to obtain a license from Apple to do so. Apple's Software Licensing Department works with developers, user groups, and others to ensure they are properly licensed for many of Apple technologies."
Ok, maybe you think that only applies to their software? How about the QuickTime format?
I couldn't find any agreement for writing software (it says to email them), but the agreement for creating a consumer device is online, and it has stuff like:
'1.7 "QuickTime File Format" means Apple's proprietary File Format [...]'
'2.2 Exclusivity. [...] Licensee agrees that the QuickTime File Format will be the exclusive file format used [...]'
'2.3 Apple's Ownership. Licensee acknowledges that the QuickTime File Format is proprietary to Apple and that Apple retains all right, title, and interest in the QuickTime File Format, including without limitation all copyrights and other proprietary rights. Licensee may not use, reproduce, sublicense, distribute or dispose of the QuickTime File Format, in whole or in part, other than as permitted under this Agreement.
You need to spend some time away from the Jobs Reality Distortion Field.
Go read the ruling, they really didn't abuse monopoly powers, and even the EU findings were based on 'potential monopoly predatory' practices. Go read the rulings yourself. They were smacked down for actual abuses, using their dominant position to drive other players out of the market.
They play well with standards, considering they have written a large chunk of the standards people use. You're a riot. Read the Halloween Documents. Their strategy is always to create proprietary extensions. Internet Explorer, Windows Media, Outlook/Exchange, their Java extensions from the 90s, the list goes on and on. C# and.NET is an obvious patent trap designed to wed people to Windows. Everything Microsoft does is tied to Windows in some way or another.
Software patents? MS has NEVER pursued a patent claim against anyone, ever. Yet they are quite publically rattling their patent saber, threatening people into Microsoft-licensed versions of Linux.
The OLPC? Microsoft partnered with Intel to create the Classmate PC, in direct competition with OLPC. This undermined the efforts of OLPC, when they really needed scale to get things going and couldn't afford big players torpedoing them.
MS's biggest mistake was being too successful. I agree, though it's hardly a "mistake", as it has reaped them billions on insane profit margins. I don't think Microsoft is different from most companies, in that they try to lock-in customers if at all possible and try to thwart competitors. That's nothing new and has been the name of the game forever. They just stand out as being a successful monopoly, so their behavior is magnified.
If someone really want to kill Microsoft, they first need to beat them at making an OS better than Windows, and to date the OSS world play mimic and catch up more than anything. The biggest problem with Linux adoption is device support and proprietary formats, not technical excellence.
I realize you're probably trolling Yeah, because everybody who says something that disagrees with your world view is a troll.
because all three of those companies -- yes, including Apple -- are vending non-proprietary systems! Get real. Apple isn't proprietary? Where can I download the source for their OS X so I can install it on my generic x86 box?
There is also the older Gates that gives away more money than the US and Europe combined (sadly), and works hard for economic policy to help poor people and provide aid to places that need it. That's nice of him, and since he probably sees death coming up in the rearview mirror it's understandable why he does it. However, don't forget where all that money came from. It came from obtaining and abusing monopoly power, and he still shows no signs of wanting Microsoft to stop their abuses.
He's had the chance, for a very, very long time now, to play nice with open standards, to stop playing dirty tricks against open source, to stop abusing software patents, and to stop fucking with projects like OLPC because they didn't ship Windows. He just doesn't care because he wants his Microsoft empire to continue, no matter who suffers.
My interpretation is different than yours. Genesis is a creation myth invented by people to explain their existence. There are other creation myths out there invented by other people. You are fixated on Genesis because it just happened to spread more than the other creation myths, and you were likely raised to believe in this particular myth.
I wish Slashdot would just collapse the Interesting/Informative/Insightful into a single +Something, not sure what to call it. The distinction between the three are meaningless when it comes to reading, and "Insightful" is way overused.
I appreciate your honesty, and understand where you are coming from. It's good to have a drive for personal excellence. However, I hope you outgrow your attitude somewhat, because acting like an elitist asshole is ultimately counter-productive. It alienates people, and will give you a blind spot caused by caring more about yourself and unable to accept legitimate criticism.
When I read your comments I'm reminded a lot of Dr. Moon.
It's just an old Slashdot joke. From Wikipedia:
(Invoked frequently after a poster complains of a common Slashdot issue such as duplicate stories or perceived bias by certain editors) In this case, noting that people on Slashdot in general don't read the articles. Don't take it personally -- the joke isn't meant to be at your expense.
Given the choice between Kanye West and Nine Inch Nails, which do you think has a higher piracy-to-purchase ratio? I don't even know who Kanye West is, but if he's popular today and NiN was last really popular in the 90s, I'd assume the NiN fans would be older and more dedicated, and hence more likely to pay for their music. Doesn't mean that NiN is better.
What I do know is that people tend to think that their music is good while looking down at what other people like. There's also this elitist attitude that if it's popular, it must not be good.
On the other hand, there are plenty of people who can't tell the difference between something being "a piece of crap" and "not to my tastes". Indeed, so now can you tell me how my opinion about NiN is any different than yours about:
"the preppies who have no qualms about stealing their bubblegum pop. And why should they when they have to listen to such crap?"
My point there was that if you're a lot better at something than most people, you may underestimate how hard it is and have unrealistic ideas about how well most people would do at it. I think the people who say it isn't hard either don't have the experience, are fooling themselves, or are being intellectually dishonest. Ultimately I don't think it's because they're so great that they find it easy, and appealing to that logic amounts to pandering and spreading of misinformation.
We've heard this line of thinking time and time again about how "good coders" don't need their hands held, that their should be more focus on "good coders", and not on the tools they use. C is good enough, they say.
I don't mean to be harsh -- it's just that I think the approach you are taking encourages the elitist attitude instead of addressing real problems. Programmers are often smart and prideful, and don't want to use tools if they think they are only for the mediocre.
Of course, they're really rewriting history when they try such stunts. I've looked at the 2000 interview with Lars and the latest interview, and the only people rewriting history are those who are misinterpreting their views.
"Hey, we're poster boys for the anti-RIAA now! Right? " Where did they say anything about being anti-RIAA? Back in 2000, they said:
"We really felt that it was time for somebody, an artist, with a potential of a public platform, to get involved with this. What the RIAA has been doing has obviously been strong, but it has been sort of in a closed legal forum"
Did they speak out against RIAA in the latest interview? Or are people just projecting their own views onto them?
"That's what is trendy now? OK! So buy our CD!" They were always about selling their music, as long as they were the ones selling it. If the "give it away, hope they pay" model works, they'll go along with it. Also from the 2000 interview:
"So of course there will be at some point -- we are not stupid, of course we realize the future of getting music from Metlalica to the people who are interested in Metallica's music is through the Internet. But the question is, on whose conditions, and obviously we want it to be on our conditions. We don't want these 3rd party services like Napster taken for granted, taken for granted that we want to be part of their system."
Slashdot Mirror
It's not so much "now", but for future posts you could capitalize the start of your sentences (and also "I" when referring to yourself).
Remember that your text is written once, but read many times, so the easier it is for people to read your text the better. Capitals help the sentences stand apart, and experienced readers will have a much easier time when you use standard conventions.
That's way too much to read without capitalization.
As for stuff like Ethernet or USB, I'm not aware of their patent details, but then again I'm not writing code for Ethernet or USB. They can get replaced by some other network or port and I wouldn't care. I'm not sure what patents there are in POSIX, and a quick search didn't turn up anything. Can you provide details? Moonlight (and Mono) are made by Novell, if you are using either, you are a downstream recipient. No, not based on the link you provided earlier. In particular are the definitions of "Downstream Recipient" [1] and "Intermediate Recipients" [2].
The point of GPL is that anybody can edit the source and do what they want with it, no matter who they received it from. Furthermore, open standards shouldn't have restrictions on their use. Microsoft only grants privileges for writing plugins [3]. And actually, it is released under the GPL. Saying "That's not GPL." doesn't change reality, just because it doesn't fit in with your world view. Microsoft states they aren't bound by third party licenses. They even mention GPL by name [4].
Given that the field is wide open for a new "rich internet application" platform, there's no way in hell anybody that believes in open standards should follow Microsoft's lead, given their past history and operating systems monopoly. It's just going to be Internet Explorer all over again, except this time with patents. Any effort devoted to Microsoft is effort not being spent on an open alternative. Stuff like Google Gears, SVG, JavaScript 2, new JVMs, etc, to name just a few. Anything is better than playing into the hands of Microsoft.
[1] '"Downstream Recipient" means an entity or individual that uses for its intended purpose a Moonlight Implementation obtained directly from Novell or through an Intermediate Recipient. An entity or individual is not a Downstream Recipient when such entity or individual resells, licenses, supplies, distributes or otherwise makes available to third parties the Moonlight Implementation. For avoidance of doubt, an entity or individual cannot qualify both as a Downstream Recipient and an Intermediate Recipient for use of the same copy of a Moonlight Implementation.
[2] '"Intermediate Recipients" means resellers, recipients, and distributors to the extent they are authorized (directly or indirectly) by Novell or its Subsidiaries to resell, license, supply, distribute or otherwise make available Moonlight Implementations (whether the resale, licensing, supplying, making available, or distribution is on a stand-alone basis, or on an OEM basis as bundled with hardware or other software of the reseller or distributor, or otherwise, so long as it is not bundled with a Linux operating system other than Novell-branded operating system software), except for resellers, recipients, or distributors who are in the business of offering their own branded operating system software.'
[3] 'only to the extent such Moonlight Implementations are used to provide Plug-In Functionality'
[4] 'Microsoft is not bound by, nor grants any rights under, any third party licenses with respect to the Moonlight Implementation (e.g., any versions of the General Public License).'
Everything Microsoft does is based on strengthening and extending their operating systems monopoly into other areas. They will always entangle their formats so that it runs best on Windows, or have patents as a backup should they need to use them. The open source world should run far, far away from Microsoft tech, and find non-proprietary solutions.
I agree, competition has its benefits, though I can still hate Microsoft as the worst company in the competition.
GOTO is the most powerful of them all.
The Pirate Bay is a key link in a distribution network that focuses on "pirating" material that was never meant for open distribution. They make money by facilitating copyright infringement.
The company that spends millions making a movie for profit is not the same as somebody that just wants their work to be read by lots of people.
And if you think data privacy is not worth fighting for, then say so. If you think it is worth fighting for, then please explain your inconsistent stance.
As for your claims about Apple's "protocols and technologies" being non-proprietary, Apple strongly disagrees with you:
http://developer.apple.com/softwarelicensing/index.html:
"Regardless of whether your product will be sold, used internally, or bundled with other products, if you wish to use Apple software and/or technologies, you need to obtain a license from Apple to do so. Apple's Software Licensing Department works with developers, user groups, and others to ensure they are properly licensed for many of Apple technologies."
Ok, maybe you think that only applies to their software? How about the QuickTime format?
http://developer.apple.com/softwarelicensing/agreements/quicktime.html:
I couldn't find any agreement for writing software (it says to email them), but the agreement for creating a consumer device is online, and it has stuff like:
'1.7 "QuickTime File Format" means Apple's proprietary File Format [...]'
'2.2 Exclusivity. [...] Licensee agrees that the QuickTime File Format will be the exclusive file format used [...]'
'2.3 Apple's Ownership. Licensee acknowledges that the QuickTime File Format is proprietary to Apple and that Apple retains all right, title, and interest in the QuickTime File Format, including without limitation all copyrights and other proprietary rights. Licensee may not use, reproduce, sublicense, distribute or dispose of the QuickTime File Format, in whole or in part, other than as permitted under this Agreement.
You need to spend some time away from the Jobs Reality Distortion Field.
He's had the chance, for a very, very long time now, to play nice with open standards, to stop playing dirty tricks against open source, to stop abusing software patents, and to stop fucking with projects like OLPC because they didn't ship Windows. He just doesn't care because he wants his Microsoft empire to continue, no matter who suffers.
My interpretation is different than yours. Genesis is a creation myth invented by people to explain their existence. There are other creation myths out there invented by other people. You are fixated on Genesis because it just happened to spread more than the other creation myths, and you were likely raised to believe in this particular myth.
I wish Slashdot would just collapse the Interesting/Informative/Insightful into a single +Something, not sure what to call it. The distinction between the three are meaningless when it comes to reading, and "Insightful" is way overused.
I appreciate your honesty, and understand where you are coming from. It's good to have a drive for personal excellence. However, I hope you outgrow your attitude somewhat, because acting like an elitist asshole is ultimately counter-productive. It alienates people, and will give you a blind spot caused by caring more about yourself and unable to accept legitimate criticism.
When I read your comments I'm reminded a lot of Dr. Moon.
Howdy Doody?
What I do know is that people tend to think that their music is good while looking down at what other people like. There's also this elitist attitude that if it's popular, it must not be good.
"the preppies who have no qualms about stealing their bubblegum pop. And why should they when they have to listen to such crap?"
We've heard this line of thinking time and time again about how "good coders" don't need their hands held, that their should be more focus on "good coders", and not on the tools they use. C is good enough, they say.
I don't mean to be harsh -- it's just that I think the approach you are taking encourages the elitist attitude instead of addressing real problems. Programmers are often smart and prideful, and don't want to use tools if they think they are only for the mediocre.
"We really felt that it was time for somebody, an artist, with a potential of a public platform, to get involved with this. What the RIAA has been doing has obviously been strong, but it has been sort of in a closed legal forum"
Did they speak out against RIAA in the latest interview? Or are people just projecting their own views onto them? "That's what is trendy now? OK! So buy our CD!" They were always about selling their music, as long as they were the ones selling it. If the "give it away, hope they pay" model works, they'll go along with it. Also from the 2000 interview:
"So of course there will be at some point -- we are not stupid, of course we realize the future of getting music from Metlalica to the people who are interested in Metallica's music is through the Internet. But the question is, on whose conditions, and obviously we want it to be on our conditions. We don't want these 3rd party services like Napster taken for granted, taken for granted that we want to be part of their system."