First they're "bandwagon jumping", and then then later in the same sentence they're not trying to "play nice"? Well the fact that they're picking the same license as the majority of the Free Software community will be means that they actually are playing nice with everyone else.
It makes sense for Free Software developers to want the patent clauses in GPLv3. Who would want to get sued for patent infringement and then still allow the company that sued them to use software that they sued over in the first place?!
I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand, it would make the case more difficult. Once Microsoft learns of someone infringing their patents, they have to act on it within a reasonable amount of time.
So get a player that does both. Pretty much anything that plays Theora will play a Vorbis sound file. VLC, for example. Windows Media Player does both once the codecs are installed.
Either that or just ask the user. You'd hope that even the idiot users would know whether they want just audio or video as well as audio.
The worst thing for Ogg Vorbis right now would be a bunch of different file extensions it comes under. We've already picked ogg. Imagine if some people kept calling it ogg, some called it og3, and others picked a completely different extension. It would just confuse people. The extension doesn't matter too much as long as it is consistent.
Ogg is free of needing to license patents. Unfortunately it won't prevent companies from being stupid enough to license patents that they don't need, though. It's also possible the chip does MP3 in addition to Ogg, in which case the licensing of the MP3 patent has nothing to do with Ogg being playable using the chip.
So, yes, usually when you buy Ogg hardware you are also usually paying for an MP3 license since most hardware Ogg players will also play MP3. The important part about Ogg is that we can distribute Free/OpenSource Software without being tied down by patents. Even if they want to, Free Software distributors can't pay for patent licenses since they have little idea about how many copies of the software have been made.
No, don't mod Jobs up. Artists have been approached by iTunes to have their music included, have said "okay, but only if the DRM doesn't apply to our songs" and then been denied that request by Apple.
Even if the music industry wanted to switch to something DRM-free, *Apple* might not let them. This essay is just marketing spin taking advantage of the fact that the industry doesn't currently want to sell DRM-free tracks. Apple don't want to either.
It means what we knew already. Apple will blame anyone but themselves and try to spin it so that they don't look bad. For example, iTunes doesn't work on Vista at the moment and might cause data corruption on the iPod. Does Apple apologise to their customers for not having a Vista version of their software yet? No, they take jabs at Microsoft for breaking compatibility, instead.
If the FSF has the power to do this, I wouldn't necessarily oppose them doing it, but do they have the power to do this with GPLv2? I'm aware that GPLv3 wouldn't allow Novell to enter into a patent swap deal with Microsoft.
Considering that the software is still all under the GPLv2 and not GPLv3, on what grounds could the FSF revoke Novell's right to distribute copyrighted FSF software?
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great thing that those developers have the freedom to work on whatever they want. I just think it's unfortunate that the community is so divided rather than everyone choosing to work on the same thing. It would certainly be a worse situation if everyone was forced to work on the same thing, though.
I fully support Microsoft (in fact, I wish they would...) preventing people from illegally running Windows. Activation doesn't do that, though. Activation just bugs the people who already paid for Windows. I don't particularly care because I want Microsoft to bug their customers as much as possible, but I am just expressing my opinion on activation in general.
Microsoft could detect machines running copied versions of Windows and deny those machines updates, or send them updates that shut down the operating system. They're stupid for instead bugging the legitimate customers who call them, though.
If anything, I think this might be a good thing for Linux on Dell computers. Michael Dell has previously gone on record as saying: "We love Linux, and we're doing our best to support the Linux community. We see lots of opportunity there. If the Linux desktops could converge at their cores, such a common platform would make it easier to support. Or, if there was a leading or highly preferred version that a majority of users would want, we'd preload it."
Ubuntu needs Debian and vice-versa. However, I agree with you that developers should focus on Ubuntu and Debian. They're very well established, value Free Software, and tend to work better than a lot of other distros do. I don't really see why anyone would want to devote their time elsewhere.
They know that people won't like this. They know in advance that there could be a public outcry. Why are they trying to screw the public with a defective product until they scream?
When you say it's "easy", are you aware that previous versions of Windows didn't even need a special key that depended on hardware, and that you didn't need to call Microsoft to ask "can I please install the copy of Windows I purchased from you a couple of years ago?" only to be interrogated about why you need a new key.
I'm sure it's easy relative to what they could put you through, but can we please be absolute when using the word "easy"? Especially when Microsoft have gone out of their way to make it more complicated than it needs to be.
Most of the Vista DRM that we hear about involves applications requesting from Vista that the quality of audio/video be crippled unless the user has special DRM hardware and special DRM ("signed by microsoft") drivers installed. It's difficult to envisage how that functionality could be useful to malware, but there also must be more to Vista's DRM than just that. If it were nothing more than I just described, someone wanting to crack the system could disassemble the application being used to play DRM-encumbered media, remove the DRM-requesting code, and then happily use unsigned drivers to collect the decrypted audio/video. This suggests that there must be some way in which Vista prevents tampering of such programs.
If Vista prevents tampering of programs, that would certainly be useful to malware. It could even make it immune to virus scanners. If an arbitrary program (aka a virus scanner) can be used to circumvent the DRM, that would make the DRM rather useless too, wouldn't it?
I'm speculating a lot. Could anyone who knows specific details shed some light, please?
"Supporting" Linux under all circumstances, versions, and distros isn't really possible if "support" is meant to be a guarantee that the device will work. Chances are, the device will work if there's a free software driver for it and it's being used under reasonable circumstances (Ubuntu or Debian, not tinylittleunheardofdistro).
Really, we don't want "support". We just want a guarantee that they don't know of any reason why things shouldn't work. If Dell gives us a PC that will work with Linux, they shouldn't include any hardware that there isn't a driver for. If Logitech gives us a mouse that will work with Linux, they shouldn't not release the specifications.
What's so special about the phone? It can't run 3rd party applications, so the only interesting things it can do are: - Play music crippled by DRM - Surf the net - A few features that all PDAs have, such as calendar and notes
The interface is nice because it's a big touch screen, but if my experience with Apple hardware is anything to go by, it won't be very durable.
The only thing the iPhone has over other PDA phones is Steve Jobs and Apple marketing it. By the time it comes out there will probably already be a different PDA phone with similar capabilities that can run 3rd party applications. That will lead to interesting possibilities while the completely proprietary Apple fanatics lock themselves into DRM hell.
Work is what makes games fun. The player invests time and energy, and then the game (if it's a good one) will reward the player. Doing something and being rewarded for it is fun.
My stance is more or less the same as yours. If someone comes to me with spyware related problems, I describe it to them as a flaw in Windows and offer them a no-cost alternative (Ubuntu) that doesn't have that problem. I used to recommend Apple, but I'm sour towards them now that they're the biggest pusher of DRM.
While I could probably make their problem disappear for a while, it would probably only be a matter of days before it comes back.
I'm happy to pay a dollar or two if I can download an episode of 24 straight after it airs. The only reason I don't do this at the moment is because Apple (Apple fanboys: note that Apple has refused to sell songs without DRM when requested by the artist - Apple loves DRM) and Fox have decided that they will only sell me encrypted media.
I think there's a huge market for "put your CC details into this website and we'll give you an unencrypted file download link". The iTunes Store was around by the time AllofMP3 started getting popular, but enough people use AllofMP3 for it to bother the RIAA significantly. Why don't these people just use iTunes? Because AllofMP3 give their customers exactly what they want.
Slashdot Mirror
First they're "bandwagon jumping", and then then later in the same sentence they're not trying to "play nice"? Well the fact that they're picking the same license as the majority of the Free Software community will be means that they actually are playing nice with everyone else.
It makes sense for Free Software developers to want the patent clauses in GPLv3. Who would want to get sued for patent infringement and then still allow the company that sued them to use software that they sued over in the first place?!
I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand, it would make the case more difficult. Once Microsoft learns of someone infringing their patents, they have to act on it within a reasonable amount of time.
I think the "I'm alright, thank you, fuck off" response pretty much sums it up...
So get a player that does both. Pretty much anything that plays Theora will play a Vorbis sound file. VLC, for example. Windows Media Player does both once the codecs are installed.
Either that or just ask the user. You'd hope that even the idiot users would know whether they want just audio or video as well as audio.
The worst thing for Ogg Vorbis right now would be a bunch of different file extensions it comes under. We've already picked ogg. Imagine if some people kept calling it ogg, some called it og3, and others picked a completely different extension. It would just confuse people. The extension doesn't matter too much as long as it is consistent.
Ogg is free of needing to license patents. Unfortunately it won't prevent companies from being stupid enough to license patents that they don't need, though. It's also possible the chip does MP3 in addition to Ogg, in which case the licensing of the MP3 patent has nothing to do with Ogg being playable using the chip.
So, yes, usually when you buy Ogg hardware you are also usually paying for an MP3 license since most hardware Ogg players will also play MP3. The important part about Ogg is that we can distribute Free/OpenSource Software without being tied down by patents. Even if they want to, Free Software distributors can't pay for patent licenses since they have little idea about how many copies of the software have been made.
No, don't mod Jobs up. Artists have been approached by iTunes to have their music included, have said "okay, but only if the DRM doesn't apply to our songs" and then been denied that request by Apple.
Even if the music industry wanted to switch to something DRM-free, *Apple* might not let them. This essay is just marketing spin taking advantage of the fact that the industry doesn't currently want to sell DRM-free tracks. Apple don't want to either.
It means what we knew already. Apple will blame anyone but themselves and try to spin it so that they don't look bad. For example, iTunes doesn't work on Vista at the moment and might cause data corruption on the iPod. Does Apple apologise to their customers for not having a Vista version of their software yet? No, they take jabs at Microsoft for breaking compatibility, instead.
Am I the only person who noticed that the link goes to an article about "who really won the superbowl"?
Correct article.
If you want people to RTFM, write a better FM.
If the FSF has the power to do this, I wouldn't necessarily oppose them doing it, but do they have the power to do this with GPLv2? I'm aware that GPLv3 wouldn't allow Novell to enter into a patent swap deal with Microsoft.
Considering that the software is still all under the GPLv2 and not GPLv3, on what grounds could the FSF revoke Novell's right to distribute copyrighted FSF software?
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great thing that those developers have the freedom to work on whatever they want. I just think it's unfortunate that the community is so divided rather than everyone choosing to work on the same thing. It would certainly be a worse situation if everyone was forced to work on the same thing, though.
I fully support Microsoft (in fact, I wish they would...) preventing people from illegally running Windows. Activation doesn't do that, though. Activation just bugs the people who already paid for Windows. I don't particularly care because I want Microsoft to bug their customers as much as possible, but I am just expressing my opinion on activation in general.
Microsoft could detect machines running copied versions of Windows and deny those machines updates, or send them updates that shut down the operating system. They're stupid for instead bugging the legitimate customers who call them, though.
I think it is an interrogation. It's none of their business why I am reinstalling a legally purchased piece of software.
Besides, the whole thing is a pointless exercise because if I would want to install Windows illegally I would just get a crack.
If anything, I think this might be a good thing for Linux on Dell computers. Michael Dell has previously gone on record as saying:
"We love Linux, and we're doing our best to support the Linux community. We see lots of opportunity there. If the Linux desktops could converge at their cores, such a common platform would make it easier to support. Or, if there was a leading or highly preferred version that a majority of users would want, we'd preload it."
Ubuntu needs Debian and vice-versa. However, I agree with you that developers should focus on Ubuntu and Debian. They're very well established, value Free Software, and tend to work better than a lot of other distros do. I don't really see why anyone would want to devote their time elsewhere.
They know that people won't like this. They know in advance that there could be a public outcry. Why are they trying to screw the public with a defective product until they scream?
When you say it's "easy", are you aware that previous versions of Windows didn't even need a special key that depended on hardware, and that you didn't need to call Microsoft to ask "can I please install the copy of Windows I purchased from you a couple of years ago?" only to be interrogated about why you need a new key.
I'm sure it's easy relative to what they could put you through, but can we please be absolute when using the word "easy"? Especially when Microsoft have gone out of their way to make it more complicated than it needs to be.
Most of the Vista DRM that we hear about involves applications requesting from Vista that the quality of audio/video be crippled unless the user has special DRM hardware and special DRM ("signed by microsoft") drivers installed. It's difficult to envisage how that functionality could be useful to malware, but there also must be more to Vista's DRM than just that. If it were nothing more than I just described, someone wanting to crack the system could disassemble the application being used to play DRM-encumbered media, remove the DRM-requesting code, and then happily use unsigned drivers to collect the decrypted audio/video. This suggests that there must be some way in which Vista prevents tampering of such programs.
If Vista prevents tampering of programs, that would certainly be useful to malware. It could even make it immune to virus scanners. If an arbitrary program (aka a virus scanner) can be used to circumvent the DRM, that would make the DRM rather useless too, wouldn't it?
I'm speculating a lot. Could anyone who knows specific details shed some light, please?
"Supporting" Linux under all circumstances, versions, and distros isn't really possible if "support" is meant to be a guarantee that the device will work. Chances are, the device will work if there's a free software driver for it and it's being used under reasonable circumstances (Ubuntu or Debian, not tinylittleunheardofdistro).
Really, we don't want "support". We just want a guarantee that they don't know of any reason why things shouldn't work. If Dell gives us a PC that will work with Linux, they shouldn't include any hardware that there isn't a driver for. If Logitech gives us a mouse that will work with Linux, they shouldn't not release the specifications.
What's so special about the phone? It can't run 3rd party applications, so the only interesting things it can do are:
- Play music crippled by DRM
- Surf the net
- A few features that all PDAs have, such as calendar and notes
The interface is nice because it's a big touch screen, but if my experience with Apple hardware is anything to go by, it won't be very durable.
The only thing the iPhone has over other PDA phones is Steve Jobs and Apple marketing it. By the time it comes out there will probably already be a different PDA phone with similar capabilities that can run 3rd party applications. That will lead to interesting possibilities while the completely proprietary Apple fanatics lock themselves into DRM hell.
Work is what makes games fun. The player invests time and energy, and then the game (if it's a good one) will reward the player. Doing something and being rewarded for it is fun.
My stance is more or less the same as yours. If someone comes to me with spyware related problems, I describe it to them as a flaw in Windows and offer them a no-cost alternative (Ubuntu) that doesn't have that problem. I used to recommend Apple, but I'm sour towards them now that they're the biggest pusher of DRM.
While I could probably make their problem disappear for a while, it would probably only be a matter of days before it comes back.
Microsoft is crippling Windows and making life harder for their customers? Good. I welcome this change and hope to see more changes like this one!
I'd really like it if Microsoft could deny OS updates to anyone running an unlicensed Windows, too. Does anyone know if Vista does that?
I'm happy to pay a dollar or two if I can download an episode of 24 straight after it airs. The only reason I don't do this at the moment is because Apple (Apple fanboys: note that Apple has refused to sell songs without DRM when requested by the artist - Apple loves DRM) and Fox have decided that they will only sell me encrypted media.
I think there's a huge market for "put your CC details into this website and we'll give you an unencrypted file download link". The iTunes Store was around by the time AllofMP3 started getting popular, but enough people use AllofMP3 for it to bother the RIAA significantly. Why don't these people just use iTunes? Because AllofMP3 give their customers exactly what they want.