While I like this idea (a lot), I'm concerned that it wouldn't necessarily end abuse, just reshape it.
For example, it provides more opportunity for typosquatting, white.house has additional typos of whit.ehouse and whiteh.ouse.
In some sense, you've made the "whitehouse" domain even more scarce, since now it's just "white.house", not "whitehouse.{com,org,net,gov}"... You say they'd be "worthless except as a functional identifier of your enterprise", but this may be the whole problem - now there's essentially only one domain which represents you as "acme.ebusiness". If "acme.e.business" is also gone, and your company's name is "ACME eBusiness", then you're pretty fucked.
Hmmm and you could have wierd things like "w.h.i.t.e.h.o.u.s.e"... Definately needs quite a bit more thought, I think.
I do however love the idea of a.alt domain, where anything goes, just like on usenet.
If we had an interface that was as good as the Windows UI (and provided the same continuity! Important!), with the power and stability of Linux - the sky's the limit.
Actually, you're right - with such a system the sky would indeed be the LIMIT.
If you took the power and stability of Linux with a UI that's powerful, flexible and extensible, then maybe the sky can be the starting point, not the limit.
You could indeed buy the DVDs cheaper. But you would need some really serious equipment if you wanted to JUKEBOX them, that is, be able to play any one without having to manually load it into a drive. THAT'S the motivation behind buying these big disks - the jukeboxing.
Tons of people like MP3s for this single reason alone. I only have a single CD player (as opposed to a 6 or 50 stacker, for example), and so when I'm in the mood for a variety of music I play MP3s with shuffle mode on. I just can't do that with my CDs. I listen to CDs when I feel like listening a single artist or album, and even then I sometimes just do it with the MP3s.
Agreed, but there are at least two ways to handle that.
First, there exist people like Emmanuel Goldstein from 2600 who do have the beliefs, balls and financial backing (relatively speaking) to take these things as far as they're needed, that is, the courts.
Second, if you're very careful, it's possible to release stuff with quite a high degree of anonymity. You've got to be quite careful about it though, if you don't want to be traced.
Then there's also the issue of jurisdiction, if you do the effort in a country not hindered by crap like the DMCA, then it'll make life easier for you (not entirely risk-free, but better).
The "DeCSS fiasco", lawsuits included, has actually been quite beneficial in killing CSS. If CSS were cracked before it was everywhere, then undoubtedly DVD-CCA would have patched it up, and then released it. If the result of this was a CSS that was much harder to break, then we'd all be screwed. The lawsuits are an annoyance, to be sure, but a far smaller one than if we were stuck with a more secure CSS scheme.
The fact is, however, that it is more damaging to SDMI if it's cracked once it's in hardware, particularly consumer equipment. When dealing with technology like CSS and SDMI, which aims to control my actions in unjust ways, I am very happy to see it released being weaker than it otherwise could be. In such cases I'd rather see it cracked after it's in hardware, followed by a legal fiasco, than it be cracked (and fixed) early in the piece, and then be stuck with less rights and unjust restrictions.
Who gives a shit about the public opinion of hackers? Hackers would rather have their freedoms and rights than be popular. Only a sellout would compromise their beliefs in order to make friends with the public.
The problem not the hackers, it is the public, and the media. They are the ones with the incorrect perceptions and stereotypes, and I'll be damned if I'm going to change my beliefs, actions or words just to butter up to their stupid asses. I couldn't care less whether or not they like me.
You are both twits. Maybe you should ACTUALLY READwww.gnu.org instead of spreading bullshit about the GNU and free software movements. It really shows that you've just let your gums flap without caring what dribbles out from between them. The authoritative tone when you clearly haven't anything resembling a clue makes me want to wretch. Take a real, serious look at free software, and try opening your minds a little, rather than rejecting it out of hand based on your flawed views and stereotypes.
"GNU and others never released office suites, operating systems during those times"
"Redefined what's moral and free"
"to make a living i'd have to become a consultant"
"one group more deserving than another"
"GNU pushes GPL, not public domain"
"They've decided that no one should profit from the programs they write"
"they believe pirating movies, music and software is perfectly moral and just"
ALL THOSE STATEMENTS ARE COMPLETE BULLSHIT at worst, or at best, disgusting sweeping statements with no substance.
You just don't get it. You think you dislike free software, but what you appear to be talking about is not free software or the free software movement. With your warped view, no wonder you don't like it.
I could rebut all the points above (and more, like some flaws in the science analogy), but I haven't the time or energy. Fuck off and read www.gnu.org. Now.
there are more important things to worry about. Health care. Education. Defense. Ecology. Et cetera
And what do all of these rely heavily on? Software. Thus if software is threatened, for example by stupid copyright/patent laws, then so are all the other important issues. To pick an example, what good is getting funding for health care if it's going to go into buying stupid software licenses for buggy programs from the Evil Empire?
Just because copyright plays a role in our livlihoods does not, by that very connection, make it the most important issue on the docket
Because software is affected by intellectual property laws, the connection is stronger than that. Copyright and patent's role in our livelihoods is pivotal, because they allow and disallow many other things, most notably software. If the ability to create software effectively is lost, then have no doubt, tons of other stuff will suffer as a result of their dependency on software.
I do agree that it's not necessarily the biggest issue around, but I think that you've definately understated its importance.
If for example I were to write a song and openly release it on the Internet I would forfeit much of my legal ownership over the property irrespective of any paper legal claims I may have filed claiming ownership.
This is total bullshit, you don't know your copyrights from your patents. If I write a song, then I FUCKING OWN IT, and more to the point, I get to stipulate under what conditions it is distributed. Copyright is the legal mechanism which recognises that fact, I forfeit nothing in distributing it "freely" or otherwise.
If I specify that you may only download my song if you pay me money, then you must pay me the money in exchange for the song, or else I can sue you. If I say that you're not allowed to make a copy for your friends (fair use excepted), and you do, then I can sue you for copyright infringement. If I say that you can make copies freely to all and sundry, then fine, you can copy it for your friends. But at all points in time, I am recognised as the creator and owner of the song, and as such can determine the conditions of distribution.
Noone has illegally opened the source to closed source DVD players (well, if they have, it's not what the current trials are about). What HAS been opened is the algorithm used to scramble the content, and it was reverse-engineered, not "illegally opened" (eg. by breaking into the offices of Xing and stealing some paper/disks).
To fix your analogy, consider the Photoshop FILE FORMAT, not Photoshop itself. The Gimp can read/write Photoshop format files, and it doesn't even matter if this is because Adobe published the file format or because the Gimp coders figured it out (I don't even know which is the case).
Your question should be "is it ok to open the Photoshop file format so that OTHER programs (notably, ones running on Linux or whatever) may read/write them?" The answer is a resounding "Fuck yes!"; if the format isn't published then it can legally be reverse-engineered. Federal courts have ruled that reverse-engineering for the purposes of interoperability (ie. read/write.psd files in the Gimp) is perfectly legal. The same should be true of DVDs.
Of course, the DMCA aims to remove that right, and the MPAA is rabid about getting it enforced, so that you lose your rights and they get more money. Ain't corporate life grand?
Who gives a shit about the amount of code? The value of a piece of software is not linearly proportional to its size. gcc is easily the single most valuable piece of free software, because it allows so much other free software to be created. I mean, Apache is nice, but it's not like it's a C compiler or anything.
without turning people off or away from OSS
The people who get turned off by RMS are those who listen to how he says his message, not what the message is. Can you really not see past the abrasiveness? Can you only like what someone says if they say it nicely?
I draw analogy to rock music, for instance. There are bands whose antics (like trashing hotel rooms, etc) I object to, yet I still buy their CDs. I like their music, but I don't like them. Most of my non-geek friends think I'm a hypocrite, but it's really nothing more than being able to separate people from their products. Also a bit like defending one's right to speak, whilst disagreeing with their speech.
To those people who think they can make friends by making free software friendly to the masses: you may make more friends, but you'll make better friends if you stick to your morals and never sway an inch from what you believe in.
People act like RMS is the leader of OSS. He isn't; noone is and noone should be. He is just the most (by far) vocal, while being one of the least productive in terms of completed/successful projects from the people that do stand out.
RMS is the self-appointed leader of the free software movement. He is because he has the drive, ambition, and guts to do it, particularly at the time when he made the initial decision. He is also a particularly good one, because nothing will corrupt him and he will always tell you where to go when you need to be told; people who are honest in their actions and words are a rare thing these days.
He's also highly productive, you should check to see what he's actually written and helped to write before writing sweeping statements. Besides, people "that stand out" is a relative term, it depends on which circles you hang out it.
To create the GNU project, the most critical GNU tools, and the FSF is no mean feat, perhaps you may complain about RMS when you have acheived all that he has. Perhaps if you do, you will be as abrasive as he, from having to deal with all the twits who don't get it. (Yes, I know he was always like that. Just trying to make the point that he can be however he likes; he's earned it. You should like him for what he's done, his personality shouldn't come into it.)
ObGripe: When will people learn that it's not about how many people you recruit, or how popular free software is? It doesn't matter if 90% of the population hates free software, because it's free, those who do believe in it may continue to use it, and may continue to improve it. There is no "win" or "lose" with free software, by its nature it's already won. It doesn't need to be popular. Those who like it can use it and nothing can stop that. You just can't say that about non-free software.
I wouldn't worry even if the FCC ruled in favour of the MPAA on this one. We all know what the MPAA thinks is involved in technologically protecting works, just look at CSS. I'd be SO scared if the MPAA chose to use CSS or an equivalently inept strategy to protect digital broadcasts. Wouldn't it be fun to go through the whole DeCSS shit all over again with VCRs?
*sigh*
(For the humour impaired, this is a joke, I'm as concerned about these issues as you.)
The trackball could be the 3-axis type which would allow some interesting 3D navigation.
If you mean a Spaceball kind of thing (6 degrees of freedom, translation and rotation in each space axis), then this would probably suck for what you want. About the only thing these are good for is manipulating 3D models or scenes, and even then they're questionable.
The problem is that to rotate, for example, you twist and then hold the thing in its twisted state. The same goes for translation, you displace the ball in the right direction and then hold it there. For broad scrolling stuff, like you mentioned above, this would be worse than a mouse.:) Even for 3D stuff, a 3D mouse might be better if you want broad navigation (though of course 3D mice have their own set of problems).
But that is the nice thing about X: you are not tied to a particular window manager (or any at all, really)
Yes, and the nice thing about free software is that you can base it on an existing one. (I know you know this, I'm just pointing it out, of course.)
Normally I hate the way twm iconifies stuff, both those little boxes, the way they appear where the minimise button is clicked, and the way they can't gravitate. But I think that it might actually be fairly good on the ipaq; they look to be a nice size, and dragging them around is probably nice too. I also like twm's lightweight menus, and think they'd be good on the ipaq.
When will the programmers realise that all we want is a simple browser that supports industry standards such as CSS, XHTML, DHTML, JavaScript, VBScript and XML? We don't need an integrated browser/mail reader/newsreader/coffee maker.
In that case, you want Galeon, a subset (so to speak) of Mozilla.
Also, the programmers don't have to realise anything. They do what they want, when they want, and for their own reasons. If you don't like that, get the source and do it yourself. The coders aren't working for you, you know.
Re:The above comment missed the point
on
Hacker Crackdown?
·
· Score: 1
No. That is exactly the attitude which makes crimes against humanity possible: "I was just following orders". It doesn't stand up. Each individual is responsible for his or her own actions.
Okay, point taken. As you could probably see, my argument worked on me when I saw it on TV.:)
But how then does the military manage to get anything done at a low-level? With committees?
As for the nuclear bomb, it was the scientists who should have stopped it
I was talking about standard village-grade bombs, not nuclear bombs. Weapons of mass destruction are different, I fail to see how you could attempt to justify them the way I tried to justify small bombs in my previous post.
As for technology in general, yes we do have a responsibility. As above, you can't just say you are a part of the chain, you will have to take responsibility for what you do.
Whoa, slow down. I was talking about armies and stuff, not technology.
To answer, though, a responsibility to society is not the same thing as liability for another's (or society's) actions. I might be willing to take some responsibility for society if society agreed not to hold me responsible for things done by others which are out of my control. I fundamentally cannot stop people from using something I make in a malicious way, even if that wasn't my intended usage and I took steps to try and prevent malicious usage. By fundamentally, I mean I can't control their muscles. This is what bothers me about taking responsibility for the actions of others, my lack of control over them.
The creators are hiding behind copyright laws, not assuming the responsibility for something so bad they should have said "no, this stuff is not good, I won't make it".
The MPAA have clearly shown that they define "good" in a typically infantile and greedy way: "Good means good for me, and me alone". They, and probably the CCA, honestly believe that what they were doing with CSS was right, because it protected their own interests (read: profit margins, control, etc). It's entirely possible that all the developers felt this way, too. Assuming this is so, since they personally saw nothing objectionable with what they were doing, does this absolve any personal responsibility they may have? Doesn't this imply the need to define a "common good"?
Re:The above comment missed the point
on
Hacker Crackdown?
·
· Score: 2
In fact, would my parents not also be responsilbe for encouraging my interest in computers and technology when I was a teenager, and wouldn't those around me encouraging me to progress my careers also be responsible?
Only if they were encouraging you to write malicious stuff, or were aware that you were writing malicious stuff but turned a blind eye.
As for the soldier, well he really is just a link in the chain, since that's the way the military works. He just follows orders, he doesn't need to worry about them. He can't decide which are the "real" orders and to which ones he should say "That's immoral/unethical, I'm not going to do that". And yes, this IS straight out of "A Few Good Men".
Similarly, the scientist doesn't know a priori whether the bomb he develops will be used to wipe out a small village of innocents, or to wipe out an ammunitions dump (and possibly enemy soldiers) which is a threat to many innocents. Their "malicious" bomb may be used to save the lives of innocents just the same as it may be used to end their lives. It's "just the same" because in both cases its function is the same - it blows up.
IMHO, the commander(s) issuing the order to drop the bomb should take the responsibility, since they decide what gets used, and how.
If you think programmers can really escape liability for their products (or should)
When I write free software and release it under the GPL, or any other major free software license, I expressly disclaim any warantee or fitness for any purpose. In effect, I'm saying that my software may not work as advertised, and that if it doesn't, it's your problem, not mine. In short, don't hold me liable. If that's not acceptable to you, don't use it, it's as simple as that. This is why you won't see things like perl at nuclear reactors, to pick a single example. Heck, they're only allowed to use accredited software to even _design_ the places, let alone run them.
If I wanted to, I could offer a warantee. However, for this I'd need to invest time, effort and probably money into unit testing, formal proofs and so on. I doubt I'd be willing to do that unless someone was willing to reimburse me for that, and for the risk of having my ass hauled into court over it. If I did offer such a warantee, and then my software sucked, fine, sue away to your heart's content. But when I expressly disclaim any warantee or liability, forget it.
Further, this stuff is fine where public safety and other "mission-critical" stuff is involved, but things like copyright infringement (eg. napster, DeCSS) are simply frivolous in comparison.
To say that the DeCSS coders are liable for DeCSS's use in copyright infringements is the equivalent of holding VCR makers liable for pirated videos. Or CD-R drive and media manufacturers liable for pirated software and music made with their devices.
Another potent analogy to draw is coding with writing (novels, for example). If a psycho goes out and commits a crime as laid out in some novel (fiction), you wouldn't hold the author responsible for the psycho's actions, would you? If the novel could be shown to be incitive or otherwise encouraging, well, maybe, but on the merits of only what I describe above, I fail to see how one person can be blamed to be responsible for another's actions.
If someone robs a bank, and then gets away on a bus, does that put the bus driver at fault? I guess it depends on whether or not the bus driver knows the robber has just robbed a bank and is making his getaway. If he knows, he's legally and morally obliged to refuse the robber admission, to stop the bus, drive to the police station, whatever. But if he doesn't know the robber's identity, I fail to see how he could be guilty of aiding and abetting the robber.
On the other hand, you wouldn't want a bus service setup which has routes from banks to state lines avoiding police stations, and drivers who don't ask questions. So I guess it also depends on how well the service lends itself to helping the illegal activity, and the proprietor's knowledge of this.
To drag the analogy back into reality, whether or not Napster is guilty of aiding and abetting copyright infringement depends on whether or not they are aware their service is being used as such, and that it may lend itself well to copyright infringement. Based on what their current attitude appears to be, it seems as though they're aware that their system is being used for copyright infringement, despite their service agreement, and that they're not interested in fixing it.
This is just like when pgp was deemed to be a dangerous munition in the USA and forbidden for export. But it was still fully accessable to everyone on the internet, wasn't it?
This is the result of SUBSTANTIAL effort, and exploited a loophole in the cryptographic munions laws, which is a little different from the issues in the current case.
However, your point is still valid and taken - DeCSS is here to stay. The MPAA can complain until they're blue in the face, but they can't make it go away.
We, the people of the world, have already spoken on the matter and we find the defendant innocent.
Unfortunately, we can't stop the legal system from providing "justice" against the defendants, and I suspect that the defendants care at least a little.:)
If using the tool means your car can go much faster and to places other cars can't do, then yes, the tool was important.
To make a gross generalisation, Microsoft is only concerned with keeping its market share, profits, etc, and most of the time would rather use insidious methods than innovation.
MS doesn't need to "extend its monopoly" with IE. The extensions to IE allow web developers to do things that they couldn't do otherwise.
Yes, but what about non-MS web developers?
If they are right and these are things that developers wanted to do, they will use the extensions and MS will succeed. If they are wrong, they won't. It's that simple.
No, it's not quite that simple.
There may be many ways of doing things that developers want to do (but currently can't). By not going through formal standards processes, or consulting the community at large, MS is more likely to implement an MS or Windows centric solution. Never mind that there may exist a nice general platform independant solution, which could have come to the surface if MS consulted the community.
Just because developers want to do these things doesn't mean MS will do them in the best possible way for the community at large. In fact, it's rather unlikely, as MS only really cares about its community.
The real question, then, is did the tools serve some real purpose, or were they there just to obfuscate things, be a nuisance or have otherwise ulterior motives? If the former, fine, if the latter, it's a problem. I know which I suspect Microsoft of.
Two examples spring to mind. I take the steering wheel off my 1967 Valiant VE using a specialist tool, consisting of a bar and two bolts which when screwed into the steering wheel center will prise it away from the column. It's homemade, out of necessity, but the sockets in the steering wheel it screws into indicate that that's the intended way of taking it off, and that Chrysler probably sold them once upon a time. That's fine because it's basically the only way to get the steering wheel off; I'd have no problem paying for one if I needed it and one was available.
The other is those triangular and hex-star screws they use on Gameboys and heaps of other consumer electronics when they don't want you to get inside. It's merely obnoxious, because the screwdrivers are still available, just harder to get.
I also think I remember seeing photocopier and other technicians having vast arrays of specialist bizarre looking tools to open and prise things open. Dunno if they had to pay for them or not, but still reminds me of the "car hood welded shut" analogy.
Gosh! your answer was so pedestrian! And yet, as usual, plenty of nitwits around to moderate you up.
Flattery will get you nowhere.
Philosophy of Computer Science 101: what is the philosophical difference between running a program on a single computer, and running it in a client-server configuration where it runs on the server. In both cases, you are running the program. My question, far more insightful than your answer, was why draw this arbitrary distinction called "distribution"?
I thought I made this clear in my reply - obviously not. The distinction is that computing resources are owned. When things are run on the net, you are running them on someone else's hardware, by their grace. I actually agree with you, that a license making source available in theis situation could be useful, but the situation of running a program remotely is vastly different from getting a binary and running it yourself. There's a different level of access with causing it to be run, and "holding it in your hand" so to speak, where you can analyse or reverse engineer the binary, if you wished. This different level of access is why I don't think the same rights can be assumed.
Stallman got started when he wasn't allowed to change a program he was using. Note: he was running it, not just receiving the output.
Running a program you have been given access to on a remote computer feels a lot more like a service than does running a binary you've downloaded.
The thing is, you need to be careful to not restrict the right to private modifications. If you required that all derivatives of your website which are put on the net at large have source available, then you deny me the right to make my own private modifications and then put it up for only my (and maybe my friends) use. And given the nature of the web, I might argue that my home page is my place, and that I should be allowed to make a private modification which is put onto my home page.
Webservers don't just deliver output either; it's different than if I hand you a sheet of paper printed by Excel, because you can tweak the inputs and receive new outputs at will.
That's true, but I don't see how J. Random Web Surfer can lay claim to seeing the code to produce the output. It's more of a service than anything else.
Having a license that requires software to remain free and open even in a client server enviroment is not ridiculous.
Yeah, I'll concede this point. The ability to extend "distribution" to mean utilisation of servers would probably be a good thing. However there are still issues which I think haven't properly been considered, namely the ones I outline above.
Conclusion? To the unwashed, any sufficiently advanced question is indistinguishable from ridiculous.
The same can of course be said of advanced answers. Don't be so damn presumptuous.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, org.dot@atdot.org would be even better. :)
Sadly, it's already taken, along with all the other good ones like dot, atdot, atat, etc.
While I like this idea (a lot), I'm concerned that it wouldn't necessarily end abuse, just reshape it.
.alt domain, where anything goes, just like on usenet.
For example, it provides more opportunity for typosquatting, white.house has additional typos of whit.ehouse and whiteh.ouse.
In some sense, you've made the "whitehouse" domain even more scarce, since now it's just "white.house", not "whitehouse.{com,org,net,gov}"... You say they'd be "worthless except as a functional identifier of your enterprise", but this may be the whole problem - now there's essentially only one domain which represents you as "acme.ebusiness". If "acme.e.business" is also gone, and your company's name is "ACME eBusiness", then you're pretty fucked.
Hmmm and you could have wierd things like "w.h.i.t.e.h.o.u.s.e"... Definately needs quite a bit more thought, I think.
I do however love the idea of a
Obviously, the same way you tell someone your email is atdot@atdot.org :)
If we had an interface that was as good as the Windows UI (and provided the same continuity! Important!), with the power and stability of Linux - the sky's the limit.
Actually, you're right - with such a system the sky would indeed be the LIMIT.
If you took the power and stability of Linux with a UI that's powerful, flexible and extensible, then maybe the sky can be the starting point, not the limit.
You could indeed buy the DVDs cheaper. But you would need some really serious equipment if you wanted to JUKEBOX them, that is, be able to play any one without having to manually load it into a drive. THAT'S the motivation behind buying these big disks - the jukeboxing.
Tons of people like MP3s for this single reason alone. I only have a single CD player (as opposed to a 6 or 50 stacker, for example), and so when I'm in the mood for a variety of music I play MP3s with shuffle mode on. I just can't do that with my CDs. I listen to CDs when I feel like listening a single artist or album, and even then I sometimes just do it with the MP3s.
Agreed, but there are at least two ways to handle that.
First, there exist people like Emmanuel Goldstein from 2600 who do have the beliefs, balls and financial backing (relatively speaking) to take these things as far as they're needed, that is, the courts.
Second, if you're very careful, it's possible to release stuff with quite a high degree of anonymity. You've got to be quite careful about it though, if you don't want to be traced.
Then there's also the issue of jurisdiction, if you do the effort in a country not hindered by crap like the DMCA, then it'll make life easier for you (not entirely risk-free, but better).
The "DeCSS fiasco", lawsuits included, has actually been quite beneficial in killing CSS. If CSS were cracked before it was everywhere, then undoubtedly DVD-CCA would have patched it up, and then released it. If the result of this was a CSS that was much harder to break, then we'd all be screwed. The lawsuits are an annoyance, to be sure, but a far smaller one than if we were stuck with a more secure CSS scheme.
The fact is, however, that it is more damaging to SDMI if it's cracked once it's in hardware, particularly consumer equipment. When dealing with technology like CSS and SDMI, which aims to control my actions in unjust ways, I am very happy to see it released being weaker than it otherwise could be. In such cases I'd rather see it cracked after it's in hardware, followed by a legal fiasco, than it be cracked (and fixed) early in the piece, and then be stuck with less rights and unjust restrictions.
repair public opinion of hackers
Who gives a shit about the public opinion of hackers? Hackers would rather have their freedoms and rights than be popular. Only a sellout would compromise their beliefs in order to make friends with the public.
The problem not the hackers, it is the public, and the media. They are the ones with the incorrect perceptions and stereotypes, and I'll be damned if I'm going to change my beliefs, actions or words just to butter up to their stupid asses. I couldn't care less whether or not they like me.
ALL THOSE STATEMENTS ARE COMPLETE BULLSHIT at worst, or at best, disgusting sweeping statements with no substance.
You just don't get it. You think you dislike free software, but what you appear to be talking about is not free software or the free software movement. With your warped view, no wonder you don't like it.
I could rebut all the points above (and more, like some flaws in the science analogy), but I haven't the time or energy. Fuck off and read www.gnu.org. Now.
there are more important things to worry about. Health care. Education. Defense. Ecology. Et cetera
And what do all of these rely heavily on? Software. Thus if software is threatened, for example by stupid copyright/patent laws, then so are all the other important issues. To pick an example, what good is getting funding for health care if it's going to go into buying stupid software licenses for buggy programs from the Evil Empire?
Just because copyright plays a role in our livlihoods does not, by that very connection, make it the most important issue on the docket
Because software is affected by intellectual property laws, the connection is stronger than that. Copyright and patent's role in our livelihoods is pivotal, because they allow and disallow many other things, most notably software. If the ability to create software effectively is lost, then have no doubt, tons of other stuff will suffer as a result of their dependency on software.
I do agree that it's not necessarily the biggest issue around, but I think that you've definately understated its importance.
If for example I were to write a song and openly release it on the Internet I would forfeit much of my legal ownership over the property irrespective of any paper legal claims I may have filed claiming ownership.
This is total bullshit, you don't know your copyrights from your patents. If I write a song, then I FUCKING OWN IT, and more to the point, I get to stipulate under what conditions it is distributed. Copyright is the legal mechanism which recognises that fact, I forfeit nothing in distributing it "freely" or otherwise.
If I specify that you may only download my song if you pay me money, then you must pay me the money in exchange for the song, or else I can sue you. If I say that you're not allowed to make a copy for your friends (fair use excepted), and you do, then I can sue you for copyright infringement. If I say that you can make copies freely to all and sundry, then fine, you can copy it for your friends. But at all points in time, I am recognised as the creator and owner of the song, and as such can determine the conditions of distribution.
Your analogy is flawed.
.psd files in the Gimp) is perfectly legal. The same should be true of DVDs.
Noone has illegally opened the source to closed source DVD players (well, if they have, it's not what the current trials are about). What HAS been opened is the algorithm used to scramble the content, and it was reverse-engineered, not "illegally opened" (eg. by breaking into the offices of Xing and stealing some paper/disks).
To fix your analogy, consider the Photoshop FILE FORMAT, not Photoshop itself. The Gimp can read/write Photoshop format files, and it doesn't even matter if this is because Adobe published the file format or because the Gimp coders figured it out (I don't even know which is the case).
Your question should be "is it ok to open the Photoshop file format so that OTHER programs (notably, ones running on Linux or whatever) may read/write them?" The answer is a resounding "Fuck yes!"; if the format isn't published then it can legally be reverse-engineered. Federal courts have ruled that reverse-engineering for the purposes of interoperability (ie. read/write
Of course, the DMCA aims to remove that right, and the MPAA is rabid about getting it enforced, so that you lose your rights and they get more money. Ain't corporate life grand?
have given as much or more code to the community
Who gives a shit about the amount of code? The value of a piece of software is not linearly proportional to its size. gcc is easily the single most valuable piece of free software, because it allows so much other free software to be created. I mean, Apache is nice, but it's not like it's a C compiler or anything.
without turning people off or away from OSS
The people who get turned off by RMS are those who listen to how he says his message, not what the message is. Can you really not see past the abrasiveness? Can you only like what someone says if they say it nicely?
I draw analogy to rock music, for instance. There are bands whose antics (like trashing hotel rooms, etc) I object to, yet I still buy their CDs. I like their music, but I don't like them. Most of my non-geek friends think I'm a hypocrite, but it's really nothing more than being able to separate people from their products. Also a bit like defending one's right to speak, whilst disagreeing with their speech.
To those people who think they can make friends by making free software friendly to the masses: you may make more friends, but you'll make better friends if you stick to your morals and never sway an inch from what you believe in.
People act like RMS is the leader of OSS. He isn't; noone is and noone should be. He is just the most (by far) vocal, while being one of the least productive in terms of completed/successful projects from the people that do stand out.
RMS is the self-appointed leader of the free software movement. He is because he has the drive, ambition, and guts to do it, particularly at the time when he made the initial decision. He is also a particularly good one, because nothing will corrupt him and he will always tell you where to go when you need to be told; people who are honest in their actions and words are a rare thing these days.
He's also highly productive, you should check to see what he's actually written and helped to write before writing sweeping statements. Besides, people "that stand out" is a relative term, it depends on which circles you hang out it.
To create the GNU project, the most critical GNU tools, and the FSF is no mean feat, perhaps you may complain about RMS when you have acheived all that he has. Perhaps if you do, you will be as abrasive as he, from having to deal with all the twits who don't get it. (Yes, I know he was always like that. Just trying to make the point that he can be however he likes; he's earned it. You should like him for what he's done, his personality shouldn't come into it.)
ObGripe: When will people learn that it's not about how many people you recruit, or how popular free software is? It doesn't matter if 90% of the population hates free software, because it's free, those who do believe in it may continue to use it, and may continue to improve it. There is no "win" or "lose" with free software, by its nature it's already won. It doesn't need to be popular. Those who like it can use it and nothing can stop that. You just can't say that about non-free software.
I wouldn't worry even if the FCC ruled in favour of the MPAA on this one. We all know what the MPAA thinks is involved in technologically protecting works, just look at CSS. I'd be SO scared if the MPAA chose to use CSS or an equivalently inept strategy to protect digital broadcasts. Wouldn't it be fun to go through the whole DeCSS shit all over again with VCRs?
*sigh*
(For the humour impaired, this is a joke, I'm as concerned about these issues as you.)
This guy has also built a Lego Tux.
:)
Any question of the coolness of Lego is now removed.
The trackball could be the 3-axis type which would allow some interesting 3D navigation.
:) Even for 3D stuff, a 3D mouse might be better if you want broad navigation (though of course 3D mice have their own set of problems).
If you mean a Spaceball kind of thing (6 degrees of freedom, translation and rotation in each space axis), then this would probably suck for what you want. About the only thing these are good for is manipulating 3D models or scenes, and even then they're questionable.
The problem is that to rotate, for example, you twist and then hold the thing in its twisted state. The same goes for translation, you displace the ball in the right direction and then hold it there. For broad scrolling stuff, like you mentioned above, this would be worse than a mouse.
But that is the nice thing about X: you are not tied to a particular window manager (or any at all, really)
Yes, and the nice thing about free software is that you can base it on an existing one. (I know you know this, I'm just pointing it out, of course.)
Normally I hate the way twm iconifies stuff, both those little boxes, the way they appear where the minimise button is clicked, and the way they can't gravitate. But I think that it might actually be fairly good on the ipaq; they look to be a nice size, and dragging them around is probably nice too. I also like twm's lightweight menus, and think they'd be good on the ipaq.
When will the programmers realise that all we want is a simple browser that supports industry standards such as CSS, XHTML, DHTML, JavaScript, VBScript and XML? We don't need an integrated browser/mail reader/newsreader/coffee maker.
In that case, you want Galeon, a subset (so to speak) of Mozilla.
Also, the programmers don't have to realise anything. They do what they want, when they want, and for their own reasons. If you don't like that, get the source and do it yourself. The coders aren't working for you, you know.
No. That is exactly the attitude which makes crimes against humanity possible: "I was just following orders". It doesn't stand up. Each individual is responsible for his or her own actions.
:)
Okay, point taken. As you could probably see, my argument worked on me when I saw it on TV.
But how then does the military manage to get anything done at a low-level? With committees?
As for the nuclear bomb, it was the scientists who should have stopped it
I was talking about standard village-grade bombs, not nuclear bombs. Weapons of mass destruction are different, I fail to see how you could attempt to justify them the way I tried to justify small bombs in my previous post.
As for technology in general, yes we do have a responsibility. As above, you can't just say you are a part of the chain, you will have to take responsibility for what you do.
Whoa, slow down. I was talking about armies and stuff, not technology.
To answer, though, a responsibility to society is not the same thing as liability for another's (or society's) actions. I might be willing to take some responsibility for society if society agreed not to hold me responsible for things done by others which are out of my control. I fundamentally cannot stop people from using something I make in a malicious way, even if that wasn't my intended usage and I took steps to try and prevent malicious usage. By fundamentally, I mean I can't control their muscles. This is what bothers me about taking responsibility for the actions of others, my lack of control over them.
The creators are hiding behind copyright laws, not assuming the responsibility for something so bad they should have said "no, this stuff is not good, I won't make it".
The MPAA have clearly shown that they define "good" in a typically infantile and greedy way: "Good means good for me, and me alone". They, and probably the CCA, honestly believe that what they were doing with CSS was right, because it protected their own interests (read: profit margins, control, etc). It's entirely possible that all the developers felt this way, too. Assuming this is so, since they personally saw nothing objectionable with what they were doing, does this absolve any personal responsibility they may have? Doesn't this imply the need to define a "common good"?
In fact, would my parents not also be responsilbe for encouraging my interest in computers and technology when I was a teenager, and wouldn't those around me encouraging me to progress my careers also be responsible?
Only if they were encouraging you to write malicious stuff, or were aware that you were writing malicious stuff but turned a blind eye.
As for the soldier, well he really is just a link in the chain, since that's the way the military works. He just follows orders, he doesn't need to worry about them. He can't decide which are the "real" orders and to which ones he should say "That's immoral/unethical, I'm not going to do that". And yes, this IS straight out of "A Few Good Men".
Similarly, the scientist doesn't know a priori whether the bomb he develops will be used to wipe out a small village of innocents, or to wipe out an ammunitions dump (and possibly enemy soldiers) which is a threat to many innocents. Their "malicious" bomb may be used to save the lives of innocents just the same as it may be used to end their lives. It's "just the same" because in both cases its function is the same - it blows up.
IMHO, the commander(s) issuing the order to drop the bomb should take the responsibility, since they decide what gets used, and how.
If you think programmers can really escape liability for their products (or should)
When I write free software and release it under the GPL, or any other major free software license, I expressly disclaim any warantee or fitness for any purpose. In effect, I'm saying that my software may not work as advertised, and that if it doesn't, it's your problem, not mine. In short, don't hold me liable. If that's not acceptable to you, don't use it, it's as simple as that. This is why you won't see things like perl at nuclear reactors, to pick a single example. Heck, they're only allowed to use accredited software to even _design_ the places, let alone run them.
If I wanted to, I could offer a warantee. However, for this I'd need to invest time, effort and probably money into unit testing, formal proofs and so on. I doubt I'd be willing to do that unless someone was willing to reimburse me for that, and for the risk of having my ass hauled into court over it. If I did offer such a warantee, and then my software sucked, fine, sue away to your heart's content. But when I expressly disclaim any warantee or liability, forget it.
Further, this stuff is fine where public safety and other "mission-critical" stuff is involved, but things like copyright infringement (eg. napster, DeCSS) are simply frivolous in comparison.
To say that the DeCSS coders are liable for DeCSS's use in copyright infringements is the equivalent of holding VCR makers liable for pirated videos. Or CD-R drive and media manufacturers liable for pirated software and music made with their devices.
Another potent analogy to draw is coding with writing (novels, for example). If a psycho goes out and commits a crime as laid out in some novel (fiction), you wouldn't hold the author responsible for the psycho's actions, would you? If the novel could be shown to be incitive or otherwise encouraging, well, maybe, but on the merits of only what I describe above, I fail to see how one person can be blamed to be responsible for another's actions.
If someone robs a bank, and then gets away on a bus, does that put the bus driver at fault? I guess it depends on whether or not the bus driver knows the robber has just robbed a bank and is making his getaway. If he knows, he's legally and morally obliged to refuse the robber admission, to stop the bus, drive to the police station, whatever. But if he doesn't know the robber's identity, I fail to see how he could be guilty of aiding and abetting the robber.
On the other hand, you wouldn't want a bus service setup which has routes from banks to state lines avoiding police stations, and drivers who don't ask questions. So I guess it also depends on how well the service lends itself to helping the illegal activity, and the proprietor's knowledge of this.
To drag the analogy back into reality, whether or not Napster is guilty of aiding and abetting copyright infringement depends on whether or not they are aware their service is being used as such, and that it may lend itself well to copyright infringement. Based on what their current attitude appears to be, it seems as though they're aware that their system is being used for copyright infringement, despite their service agreement, and that they're not interested in fixing it.
This is just like when pgp was deemed to be a dangerous munition in the USA and forbidden for export. But it was still fully accessable to everyone on the internet, wasn't it?
:)
This is the result of SUBSTANTIAL effort, and exploited a loophole in the cryptographic munions laws, which is a little different from the issues in the current case.
However, your point is still valid and taken - DeCSS is here to stay. The MPAA can complain until they're blue in the face, but they can't make it go away.
We, the people of the world, have already spoken on the matter and we find the defendant innocent.
Unfortunately, we can't stop the legal system from providing "justice" against the defendants, and I suspect that the defendants care at least a little.
If using the tool means your car can go much faster and to places other cars can't do, then yes, the tool was important.
To make a gross generalisation, Microsoft is only concerned with keeping its market share, profits, etc, and most of the time would rather use insidious methods than innovation.
MS doesn't need to "extend its monopoly" with IE. The extensions to IE allow web developers to do things that they couldn't do otherwise.
Yes, but what about non-MS web developers?
If they are right and these are things that developers wanted to do, they will use the extensions and MS will succeed. If they are wrong, they won't. It's that simple.
No, it's not quite that simple.
There may be many ways of doing things that developers want to do (but currently can't). By not going through formal standards processes, or consulting the community at large, MS is more likely to implement an MS or Windows centric solution. Never mind that there may exist a nice general platform independant solution, which could have come to the surface if MS consulted the community.
Just because developers want to do these things doesn't mean MS will do them in the best possible way for the community at large. In fact, it's rather unlikely, as MS only really cares about its community.
The real question, then, is did the tools serve some real purpose, or were they there just to obfuscate things, be a nuisance or have otherwise ulterior motives? If the former, fine, if the latter, it's a problem. I know which I suspect Microsoft of.
Two examples spring to mind. I take the steering wheel off my 1967 Valiant VE using a specialist tool, consisting of a bar and two bolts which when screwed into the steering wheel center will prise it away from the column. It's homemade, out of necessity, but the sockets in the steering wheel it screws into indicate that that's the intended way of taking it off, and that Chrysler probably sold them once upon a time. That's fine because it's basically the only way to get the steering wheel off; I'd have no problem paying for one if I needed it and one was available.
The other is those triangular and hex-star screws they use on Gameboys and heaps of other consumer electronics when they don't want you to get inside. It's merely obnoxious, because the screwdrivers are still available, just harder to get.
I also think I remember seeing photocopier and other technicians having vast arrays of specialist bizarre looking tools to open and prise things open. Dunno if they had to pay for them or not, but still reminds me of the "car hood welded shut" analogy.
Gosh! your answer was so pedestrian! And yet, as usual, plenty of nitwits around to moderate you up.
Flattery will get you nowhere.
Philosophy of Computer Science 101: what is the philosophical difference between running a program on a single computer, and running it in a client-server configuration where it runs on the server. In both cases, you are running the program. My question, far more insightful than your answer, was why draw this arbitrary distinction called "distribution"?
I thought I made this clear in my reply - obviously not. The distinction is that computing resources are owned. When things are run on the net, you are running them on someone else's hardware, by their grace. I actually agree with you, that a license making source available in theis situation could be useful, but the situation of running a program remotely is vastly different from getting a binary and running it yourself. There's a different level of access with causing it to be run, and "holding it in your hand" so to speak, where you can analyse or reverse engineer the binary, if you wished. This different level of access is why I don't think the same rights can be assumed.
Stallman got started when he wasn't allowed to change a program he was using. Note: he was running it, not just receiving the output.
Running a program you have been given access to on a remote computer feels a lot more like a service than does running a binary you've downloaded.
The thing is, you need to be careful to not restrict the right to private modifications. If you required that all derivatives of your website which are put on the net at large have source available, then you deny me the right to make my own private modifications and then put it up for only my (and maybe my friends) use. And given the nature of the web, I might argue that my home page is my place, and that I should be allowed to make a private modification which is put onto my home page.
Webservers don't just deliver output either; it's different than if I hand you a sheet of paper printed by Excel, because you can tweak the inputs and receive new outputs at will.
That's true, but I don't see how J. Random Web Surfer can lay claim to seeing the code to produce the output. It's more of a service than anything else.
Having a license that requires software to remain free and open even in a client server enviroment is not ridiculous.
Yeah, I'll concede this point. The ability to extend "distribution" to mean utilisation of servers would probably be a good thing. However there are still issues which I think haven't properly been considered, namely the ones I outline above.
Conclusion? To the unwashed, any sufficiently advanced question is indistinguishable from ridiculous.
The same can of course be said of advanced answers. Don't be so damn presumptuous.