Firefox, again
-
lso, distributing the source with the app isn't actually as onerous a condition in many custom software development efforts as one thinks...
I was really thinking in terms of the distributed model of software development, which in retrospect is really an orthogonal issue to open source. The main problem with DSD projects is that they tend to lose focus unless a) the product in question is small and well-defined, b) the team is well-organized and funded, and/or c) change comes at very small increments with fast turn-around. All of the successful DSD projects have at least two of those qualities, or else are actually umbrellas for swarms of smaller projects that do. A subsidiary problem with DSD is that teams generally only maintain momentum if the developers are stakeholders in one fashion or another, meaning that useful but 'uninteresting' projects without a strong base of stakeholding developers tend to wither.
Mind you, all of these issues apply to bespoke development as well, but the element of salary and top-down organization ameliorates them (though it introduces other issues of politicking and management idiosyncrasy, which again exist in DSD but are usually less debilitating). Both approaches are equally (non)viable.
-
Or maybe the developers who are around then will jump at the chance to peek at the innards of something far more advanced than anything they managed to create themselves after the apocalypse. (Because you can bet lawyers will survive just about anything.)
-
Plenty of ideas are able to make it to market purely because a company can rely on the ability to recoup development costs
True
You wouldn't be able to just rely on Ford's testing and compliance, you'd have to do your own.
Yep
Not to mention that because of the volume Ford makes, they could seriously undercut your costs.
Yep
Your idea that we are destined to develop into a services based economy
I think it's a natural trend.
-
Don't be surprised if Lawrence Lessig is involved in a lawsuit against the Federal Government again if they extend it. He was the lawyer for the plaintiff in Eldred vs. Ashcroft.
-
I suggest you re-read the MDY Industries LLC, v. Blizzard Entertainment Inc
The Appeals court overturned everything except the DMCA violation part.
Meaning that the court in essence ruled against EULAs being valid.
(Side note: Wikipedia one-boxing doesn't work if the article name ends with a period).
-
Lessig is "running for President" so he can pass his awful "pay political campaigns from tax dollars" bill, then resign.
What an ass.
-
I heard about that. Waste of time.
He might as well just back one of the candidates who already support this.
-
I don't understand why anybody would support that.
-
I'm sure not enough people will support him to matter. I love the irony of a guy supposedly trying to get a return to "representative government" by asking people to vote for someone who wants to let someone else do the job.
-
Even if his plan made sense, and it doesn't, he's just changing it from a Presidential election into a Vice-Presidential election. When you resign the Presidency, it's not like there's a big mystery as to who then becomes President. The rules are clearly spelled-out.
Unless his running mate is Gandhi and Jesus combined, that ain't a winning strategy.
-
His whole premise about getting money out of politics is retarded to begin with. At least he (probably) hasn't been sending Top Secret emails, though, so he has that going for him.
-
Lessig is "running for President" so he can pass his awful "pay political campaigns from tax dollars" bill, then resign.
Wait, there's a place in the world they don't do that already?
-
3D printing is not a poison pill to IP. There are already license protected print files out there. If you want to print a given object, you have to pay for the file. Not only that, but some of the files are designed so that they can only be used a certain number of times. Bad print? Better call the IP owner's support line to have them unlock it for you.
Is this DRM any more robust than any of the other broken forms of DRM?
-
Wait, there's a place in the world they don't do that already?
There's a box on tax forms in the US that you can check to donate money to pay for campaigns. I've never checked it. Obama was the first major candidate to opt out since its inception, because it imposes limits on how much you can spend and he had more suckers lined up and didn't want to restrict himself.
-
Well, over here, we don't have a choice.
-
One wonders why you never see GPL software being sold, then. Might it be that whoever bought your program can later resell it in unlimited copies without you being given even a penny for it?
I think this is an exaggeration. For starters, every popular software product sold to the general public is already pirated and available for free. If I buy a game, for example, it's not because I can't get it for free from a torrent, but because I choose to pay. There's less chance of malware, it's more convenient, and it supports the people that do things I enjoy so they can continue to do them.For products that are not sold to the general public, you usually won't see a company buying from "repackagers" because when you need to report a bug, the company that actually built the software and has all the actual knowledge will just say "sucks to be you, you are not our customer until you buy it from us". And the other company is unlikely to have the know-how to fix the bugs, or their fixes might make the product incompatible with new releases, leading to regressions when you update.
Also, the source may be open but different kinds of assets could be licensed, or it may rely on online services, etc.
Additionally, reselling something takes quite a bit of effort. Hosting, sales, etc. Is it any saner to do all that just to sell on the slimmest margins possible, since others could do it too? Programmers' salaries are rarely the biggest cost in a company's balance.
Finally, there's the difficulty in getting the product in the first place (when not selling to the general public). If I build software for banks, my customers are banks. I'm only required to provide the source to my clients. Why would a bank try to start a business as a software repackaging company? Who in the company would want to risk a healthy professional relationship with someone they trust to break off and try to undercut their providers? Who'd go and purchase the software from them just to save some cash?
I'd have to check, too, since now I'm wondering if selling the software to a company gives anyone who sees it in the company the right to redistribute it.
And that's a problem particularly to companies who absolutely cannot disclose their codebase to protect their business secrets.
Well, don't use GPL software then. I mean, if keeping code secret is so important to you, you should relish the chance to rewrite all that stuff from scratch, or purchase binary releases from others.No one is forcing you to use GPL software, but if you want to keep your stuff secret, don't complain that you can't use freely available stuff to build it. It's like your complaint is that you should be allowed to profit from the efforts of others, but no one should be allowed to profit from your effort.
-
-
Wait, there's a place in the world they don't do that already?
Of all the things I want my tax money to go towards, political ads for Chris Christie is at the absolute bottom of the list.
-
I think this is an exaggeration.
Oh yeah? Then please link to some GPL'd program that's more than $0 per license. Anything will do.For starters, every popular software product sold to the general public is already pirated and available for free.
And that's relevant how?If I buy a game, for example, it's not because I can't get it for free from a torrent, but because I choose to
payobey the law out of good heart or fear of getting jailed.
FTFY.There's less chance of malware, it's more convenient, and it supports the people that do things I enjoy so they can continue to do them.
Only one of those three reasons are applicable to GPL. It's not a coincidence you listed it at the end - people tend to put most important things on top of lists.For products that are not sold to the general public, you usually won't see a company buying from "repackagers" because when you need to report a bug, the company that actually built the software and has all the actual knowledge will just say "sucks to be you, you are not our customer until you buy it from us". And the other company is unlikely to have the know-how to fix the bugs, or their fixes might make the product incompatible with new releases, leading to regressions when you update.
Or the original developers might show you a middle finger and it would be the resellers who are actually maintaining it now, since the original developers don't have/want to spend their resources on this piece of shit and resellers do. Both scenarios are equally likely.Also, the <component A> may be open but <component B> could be licensed, or it may rely on <component C>, etc.
That's hardly the Stallman's vision of copyleft. Maybe this is why such business plan actually makes sense?Additionally, reselling something takes quite a bit of effort. Hosting, sales, etc. (...) Programmers' salaries are rarely the biggest cost in a company's balance.
I have no idea what takes how much money in a typical project, but you forget that if you have a ready-made application, not only was programming done, but also market research, quality assurance, etc. If people are going to buy the product from the original developers, you might be absolutely sure they will be going to buy the same product from you too if you offer better price. So the only actual cost is one license, advertising your product to a point where everyone interested in buying knows you offer better price, and download server. Of course, I'm talking about a situation where both providers provide just the product, without tech support or other services - because then, quality of those services matter too. But that's besides the point I'm making here.Is it any saner to do all that just to sell on the slimmest margins possible, since others could do it too?
WoW farmers don't care that there are millions of other farmers trying to sell the same items they do, which drops the item price, and thus profitability, by 90% and more.Finally, there's the difficulty in getting the product in the first place (when not selling to the general public). If I build software for banks, my customers are banks. I'm only required to provide the source to my clients. Why would a bank try to start a business as a software repackaging company?
Why not? Money is money.Who in the company would want to risk a healthy professional relationship with someone they trust to break off and try to undercut their providers? Who'd go and purchase the software from them just to save some cash?
You put too much faith in humanity.I'd have to check, too, since now I'm wondering if selling the software to a company gives anyone who sees it in the company the right to redistribute it.
Well, yes. The company that bought the license can only distribute it to its employees under GPL.Well, don't use GPL software then. I mean, if keeping code secret is so important to you, you should relish the chance to rewrite all that stuff from scratch, or purchase binary releases from others.
No one is forcing you to use GPL software, but if you want to keep your stuff secret, don't complain that you can't use freely available stuff to build it. It's like your complaint is that you should be allowed to profit from the efforts of others, but no one should be allowed to profit from your effort.
I have no reply to this since it all is a valid argument.
-
Of all the things I want my tax money to go towards, political ads for Chris Christie is at the absolute bottom of the list.
And you think I'm any different in this regard?
-
And you think I'm any different in this regard?
Well you're happily tolerating it. So apparently.
-
Well you're happily tolerating it. So apparently.
I can either tolerate it or emmigrate. And the latter isn't the option for me right now. Actively protesting is pointless because majority of people don't give a fuck as long as they can buy vodka (and they can), and in democracy you need majority of population support you to enforce your demands.
-
And that's relevant how?
Your argument is that GPL is risky because your program can be resold for free. But in practice, almost everything people use (Windows, Office, Photoshop, most games, whatever) already is available for free. That's why it's relevant.
Only one of those three reasons are applicable to GPL. It's not a coincidence you listed it at the end - people tend to put most important things on top of lists.
How is only one applicable? Say WidgetCorp sells WidgetMaker under the GPL for $X. Some other guy takes the code, repackages, and sells WidgetMakerFree for less. What's stopping them from sticking malware in WidgetMakerFree exactly? Surprisingly, people who cheat systems don't feel compelled to obey the rules.Convenience? That depends on the service that the maker of WidgetMakerFree provides over WidgetMaker. It could go either way, some real companies have terrible customer service.
So 2.5 of 3 apply.
Or the original developers might show you a middle finger and it would be the resellers who are actually maintaining it now, since the original developers don't have/want to spend their resources on this piece of shit and resellers do. Both scenarios are equally likely.
Not really. The repackagers by definition would try to have no programming skill. Why would you hire good programmers to resell someone else's software? The whole point is to sell something with minimal effort.If people are going to buy the product from the original developers, you might be absolutely sure they will be going to buy the same product from you too if you offer better price. So the only actual cost is one license, advertising your product to a point where everyone interested in buying knows you offer better price, and download server.
For your repackaging company to get started, you first need to learn the original exists. By the time you learn they exist, and bought a license, they will already have other clients and such. Then you need to make the superficial changes required to re-brand the program. And then you need to overcome their marketing, which by definition was already successful because you learned of them and decided they were valuable enough to repackage. "The same, but we sell it slightly cheaper" might not be the best marketing slogan. Price is not the only variable people look at, despite how economists might want people to behave.WoW farmers don't care that there are millions of other farmers trying to sell the same items they do, which drops the item price, and thus profitability, by 90% and more.
Wow farmers provide an ongoing service, which is a supply of gold in exchange for money. Users don't just buy gold once, they continue to purchase over time. Services are already a perfect fit for GPL software. There already are service companies like Red Hat profiting from that model.Why not? Money is money.
If that were true, companies wouldn't split divisions off to "focus on core competencies". It's not enough that something is profitable, it has to be more profitable than your alternatives. There's an opportunity cost to trying to spin up a business you have no experience in, which is investing in the business you actually know about and makes you more money.I have no reply to this since it all is a valid argument.
K. I'm not trying to evangelize about the GPL. I don't personally like it. But I don't think it's quite as terrible as it's made out to be by some who disagree with it. As I see it, the cost of GPL software is the GPL terms. Not everything is paid for with money.
-
Is this DRM any more robust than any of the other broken forms of DRM?
Unknown. It isn't used widely enough yet for there to be a conclusive answer.
-
Your argument is that GPL is risky because your program can be resold for free. But in practice, almost everything people use (Windows, Office, Photoshop, most games, whatever) already is available for free. That's why it's relevant.
Except in case of proprietary software, the license explicitly prohibits you from redistributing, and in case of GPL, the license explicitly allows it.How is only one applicable? Say WidgetCorp sells WidgetMaker under the GPL for $X. Some other guy takes the code, repackages, and sells WidgetMakerFree for less. What's stopping them from sticking malware in WidgetMakerFree exactly? Surprisingly, people who cheat systems don't feel compelled to obey the rules.
Exercising your laws is hardly cheating the system - it's more like exploiting glitches in multiplayer game, as opposed to using external tools to cause glitches that normally aren't there. In my experience, people who "cheat" within the bounds of rulebook are just as honest as every average Joe. There's nothing very wrong with redistributing GPL'd software, and piracy is a crime, so you cannot say both groups of people have the same morals.Convenience? That depends on the service that the maker of WidgetMakerFree provides over WidgetMaker. It could go either way, some real companies have terrible customer service.
You just took down your own argument. Thank you.Not really. The repackagers by definition would try to have no programming skill.
Why? I see no connection between these two.Why would you hire good programmers to resell someone else's software?
Because it needs bug fixing first? Or because you are the programmer so it costs you nothing?The whole point is to sell something with minimal effort.
Remember that minimal doesn't imply low. Coldest place on the Earth is still over 200 calvins.Wow farmers provide an ongoing service, which is a supply of gold in exchange for money. Users don't just buy gold once, they continue to purchase over time.
Did I say gold? No, I said items. For example, a cool Epic +5 Hand Trebuchet a player needs only one of.If that were true, companies wouldn't split divisions off to "focus on core competencies".
They split off to make more money.As I see it, the cost of GPL software is the GPL terms. Not everything is paid for with money.
The GPL terms make you not earn money. So yes, it's still all about money.
-
I suggest you re-read the MDY Industries LLC, v. Blizzard Entertainment Inc
The Appeals court overturned everything except the DMCA violation part.
Meaning that the court in essence ruled against EULAs being valid.
(Side note: Wikipedia one-boxing doesn't work if the article name ends with a period).
I'm reading the appellate opinion right now -- and it says basically what I said:
To recover for copyright infringement based on breach of a license agreement, (1) the copying must exceed the scope of the defendant’s license and (2) the copyright owner’s complaint must be grounded in an exclusive right of copyright (e.g., unlawful reproduction or distribution).
Also see:
(that's the case the CAFC opinion cites in support of that passage)
-
Actively protesting is pointless because majority of people don't give a fuck as long as they can buy vodka
Believe it or not, people do care about it and they support current system.
-
Say WidgetCorp sells WidgetMaker under the GPL for $X. Some other guy takes the code, repackages, and sells WidgetMakerFree for less. What's stopping them from sticking malware in WidgetMakerFree exactly?
As long as they make the source to the malware also available under the GPL (or other compatible license), nothing at all.
-
The FSF would argue that the freedom so denied is simply not as important as the freedom of all people to inspect, understand and modify the software that runs on their own devices (or, by implication, the freedom of trusted agents skilled in the dark arts to do so on their behalf).
Yeah, great, the right of secretaries to fix the shit that doesn't work in their word processors?!?When I first read RMS's GNU Manifesto back in '95, I was struck even then by the fatuosity of that concept. But of course your qualifying statement, on trusted agents, is the key. No, nobody expects the secretary to fix a bug in LibreOffice, but the licenses aim to permit someone of her choice to fix it. In most cases, of course, people like the putative secretary probably don't even have a concept of fixing bugs, much less of finding a programmer and asking him to fix the bug.
The fact that RMS put it like that in the GNU Manifesto tells me that he is (was at the time, anyway, maybe he's a bit more worldly now) living in an ivory tower that's so tall that all he can see is the tops of everyone else's ivory towers.
-
-
The only thing that ever upset Richard Mean Stallman is the idea that anyone might choose not to show their source code to said Richard. End users never entered into the equation.
The thing that annoys me about the fsf is that all of their lawyering relies on the legality of software licenses, so any precedents that they to set are going in the exact wrong direction.
And the fact that Firefox, an open source project, prompted this whole discussion I think really helps to illustrate how worthless the whole open-source movement is to the end user. Because we are still dependent on the people who write the code, regardless of whether we are able to read what they've written so far.
The way I see it ‘run whatever you want on your own system’ is a fallacy. The ability to add plugins to Firefox is a feature, not a right, so if they don't want to support that feature any more, why should they?
And honestly, I just don't see what value publishing my code under an open source license really offers me. I mean, if someone wants to use my source code in one of their projects, asking them to send me an email first to get my ‘express, written’ approval hardly seems onerous.
-
The only thing that ever upset Richard Mean Stallman is the idea that anyone might choose not to show their source code to said Richard. End users never entered into the equation.
It's more that his view is that everyone should be a hacker, and that only lazy slobs would run code they don't intimately understand. I wish I were kidding.
However, you also have to keep in mind that this is someone who, in his heyday, was able to replicate the work of the entire Symbolics dev team on LMI LispMs in his spare time with a one-day turnaround, while also working a full-time admin and maintenance position at MIT. He simply cannot understand that most people are not the same sort of instinctive software engineers as him, or comprehend that anyone would not have the time or experience to grovel through 10K+ LoC on a regular basis, the sort of thing he does as casually as most people watch TV. He's the sort of over-focused super-genius that is so brillant in his own narrow field that his own intelligence leads him to astoundingly stupid conclusions.
Hmmn, maybe the comparisons to Karl Marx are more apt than I thought*. Which is really funny when you consider that RMS is a staunch Libertarian with heavy anarchist leanings (and seems to be completely unaware of the contradictions inherent in his legal gymnastics versus his political philosophy).
Interestingly, that same 'everyone a programmer' mentality was a key factor in both the successes and failures of the Xerox PARC research team, and specifically was the fundamental design concept enshrined in the design of Smalltalk. Funny stuff, in light of how that ended up; if you ever wondered why it has such a strange (lack of) syntax, that's it right there. I'll admit that it's there in my own designs as well, but at least I'm not trying to force the question - I am well aware that a) my stuff will never be more than a research project slash hobby, and b) that most people simply don't have any interest, time or inclination to dig into the details of the system. Neither RMS nor Alan Kaye ever got that, so they keep expecting everyone to want to do exactly that, and get sniffy about it when 99.9999% of them say they CBA.
- Well, except that I'm not sure that Marx wasn't running a smear campaign against labor agitators a la The Protocols of the Elders of Zion that ended up backfiring on him - RL Poe's Law in action! - or, conversely, that he wasn't just being a 'I-hate-my-rich-factory-owner-daddy' type overgrown teenager - yeah, Karl came from exactly the same Capitalist class that he said were inherently parasitic on the working man and fundamentally incapable of honesty. Seriously, if he was even a little bit sincere, then all I can conclude is that the guy had issues.
-
Believe it or not, people do care about it and they support current system.
Half of Poles don't even vote, and majority of those who vote, don't vote for someone but against someone - and usually due to imaginary reasons invented by media like "Duda will force everyone into churches!" or "Komorowski is hunting cute animals for fun!".
-
Actually, that's pretty much what happens in the Yoo-Sah, too.
Actually, I take that back, those reasons would be an improvement over the ones people here base their voting choices on.
Actually, I don't think that the polls in the US have seen anywhere near 50% turnout since the 1950s (and even then they were there more because their employers told them who to vote for than out of real civic duty), and in 'off years' (i.e., everything except Presidential elections and the mid-term Congressional runs) it's closer to 15%.
Actually, I have completely lost faith in the democratic process...
-
And the fact that Firefox, an open source project, prompted this whole discussion I think really helps to illustrate how worthless the whole open-source movement is to the end user. Because we are still dependent on the people who write the code, regardless of whether we are able to read what they've written so far.
But that seems like throwing out the baby with the bath water. Even if you don't directly use open source software, it provides alternatives and competition with non open software.
And honestly, I just don't see what value publishing my code under an open source license really offers me.
That's fair, but not necessarily different than not seeing value in purchasing a book instead of borrowing it from a library.
-
Mozilla got back to me:
I see the add-on on the review queue, and it has the correct status. The problem is that the queues are extremely slow at the moment, so many add-ons are waiting for unusually longer times. We're in the process of addressing this problem, but it might take some time before the change is noticeable. For now, all I can do is ask you to be patient.
Resolution: --- → INVALID
-
I can decide if I want to breathe this particular moment or not just fine
And you can keep that power to decide operative until you turn grey and fall over, at which point it will be removed from you (one way or another).
-
Only if I decided not to breathe at all, which is just one of countless possibilities given to me.
-
Half of Poles don't even vote, and majority of those who vote, don't vote for someone but against someone
Voting has nothing to do with it. If abolishing public funding for campaigns had any significant popularity, it would be proposed by at least one of bigger parties. It's not, because people are afraid that 'rich people/big business/foreigners will manipulate campaigns', as stupid as that claim is.
-
However, you also have to keep in mind that this is someone who, in his heyday, was able to replicate the work of the entire Symbolics dev team on LMI LispMs in his spare time with a one-day turnaround, while also working a full-time admin and maintenance position at MIT.
Ok, first of all: I don't believe he ever had a job.
Secondly, if he's such an "instinctive software engineer" (whatever that means), how come everything he's been involved with in the last 20 years has been an enormous failure?
Maybe he was brilliant once, then completely burned-out and started eating toe-jam. Who knows. But he's not going to impress anybody under the age of 35 with his super-productive code output, because it no longer exists.
He's the sort of over-focused super-genius that is so brillant in his own narrow field that his own intelligence leads him to astoundingly stupid conclusions.
Huh? He's such a super-genius, what has he accomplished? Like, really accomplished!?
Is this just blind hero-worship for you, or are you just really delusional?
-
Voting has nothing to do with it.
Voting is a great counter of how much people care about politics.If abolishing public funding for campaigns had any significant popularity, it would be proposed by at least one of bigger parties.
It was proposed. And it was voted down in parliament.
-
Voting is a great counter of how much people care about politics.
It isn't.
.@Gaska said:
It was proposed. And it was voted down in parliament.
I meant "proposed" as "one of highlighted points of political program", not "used to fill 2 minutes of evening news once, maybe".
-
It was proposed. And it was voted down in parliament.
People who receive public money vote to continue receiving public money! Full story at 11:00!
-
I meant "proposed" as "one of highlighted points of political program", not "used to fill 2 minutes of evening news once, maybe".
I'm pretty sure this happened too. Don't have time right now to look it up though; maybe later.Anyway, do you really care about declarations of what the politicians do more than what they actually do?
-
Anyway, do you really care about declarations of what the politicians do more than what they actually do?
What makes you think I do?
-
People who receive public money vote to continue receiving public money! Full story at 11:00!
Your comment would make sense if I was even the least bit surprised about the outcome. But I don't, so it doesn't. Besides, it was the people who receive public money that proposed to not receive public money. I mean, they surely wouldn't if there was even a slightest chance of the bill getting passed, but still.
-
What makes you think I do?
That you dismissed the voting as less important than political programs?
-
That you dismissed the voting as less important than political programs?
I don't know how you managed to draw that conclusion from what I wrote.
-
Ok, first of all: I don't believe he ever had a job.
Sure, he worked at MIT. Oh, well, on second thought, I guess that's not exactly a refutation.
-
I don't know how you managed to draw that conclusion from what I wrote.
Oh?If abolishing public funding for campaigns had any significant popularity, it would be proposed by at least one of bigger parties.
And when I said there is one major party that actually proposed it (presented the project on a parliamentary session and tried to get it all the way through legislative way [which they failed to, but still]), you refuted it as irrelevant because:I meant "proposed" as "one of highlighted points of political program", not "used to fill 2 minutes of evening news once, maybe".
Which clearly shows where your priorities are.
Eldred v. Ashcroft - Wikipedia
421 F3d 1307 Storage Technology Corporation v. Custom Hardware Engineering & Consulting Inc | OpenJurist
