New Scientist Tries Out Copyleft 175
uchian writes: "New Scientist has an article about The GPL, open source, and how attempts are being made to apply the philosopy to areas other than software. Little new ground is covered, but it is interesting that the article itself is "Copyleft", so you are free to redistribute, modify and copy as long as long as your derivative work is also copyleft."
copy (Score:1, Funny)
@Intro: Good ideas are worth money. So why are hard headed operators giving them away for free? Join our experiment to find out says Graham Lawton
@Body: IF YOU'VE BEEN to a computer show in recent months you might have seen it: a shiny silver drinks can with a ring-pull logo and the words "opencola" on the side. Inside is a fizzy drink that tastes very much like Coca-Cola. Or is it Pepsi?
There's something else written on the can, though, which sets the drink apart. It says "check out the source at opencola.com". Go to that Web address and you'll see something that's not available on Coca-Cola's website, or Pepsi's--the recipe for cola. For the first time ever, you can make the real thing in your own home.
OpenCola is the world's first "open source" consumer product. By calling it open source, its manufacturer is saying that instructions for making it are freely available. Anybody can make the drink, and anyone can modify and improve on the recipe as long as they, too, release their recipe into the public domain. As a way of doing business it's rather unusual--the Coca-Cola Company doesn't make a habit of giving away precious commercial secrets. But that's the point.
OpenCola is the most prominent sign yet that a long-running battle between rival philosophies in software development has spilt over into the rest of the world. What started as a technical debate over the best way to debug computer programs is developing into a political battle over the ownership of knowledge and how it is used, between those who put their faith in the free circulation of ideas and those who prefer to designate them "intellectual property". No one knows what the outcome will be. But in a world of growing opposition to corporate power, restrictive intellectual property rights and globalisation, open source is emerging as a possible alternative, a potentially potent means of fighting back. And you're helping to test its value right now.
The open source movement originated in 1984 when computer scientist Richard Stallman quit his job at MIT and set up the Free Software Foundation. His aim was to create high-quality software that was freely available to everybody. Stallman's beef was with commercial companies that smother their software with patents and copyrights and keep the source code--the original program, written in a computer language such as C++--a closely guarded secret. Stallman saw this as damaging. It generated poor-quality, bug-ridden software. And worse, it choked off the free flow of ideas. Stallman fretted that if computer scientists could no longer learn from one another's code, the art of programming would stagnate (New Scientist, 12 December 1998, p 42).
Stallman's move resonated round the computer science community and now there are thousands of similar projects. The star of the movement is Linux, an operating system created by Finnish student Linus Torvalds in the early 1990s and installed on around 18 million computers worldwide.
What sets open source software apart from commercial software is the fact that it's free, in both the political and the economic sense. If you want to use a commercial product such as Windows XP or Mac OS X you have to pay a fee and agree to abide by a licence that stops you from modifying or sharing the software. But if you want to run Linux or another open source package, you can do so without paying a penny--although several companies will sell you the software bundled with support services. You can also modify the software in any way you choose, copy it and share it without restrictions. This freedom acts as an open invitation--some say challenge--to its users to make improvements. As a result, thousands of volunteers are constantly working on Linux, adding new features and winkling out bugs. Their contributions are reviewed by a panel and the best ones are added to Linux. For programmers, the kudos of a successful contribution is its own reward. The result is a stable, powerful system that adapts rapidly to technological change. Linux is so successful that even IBM installs it on the computers it sells.
To maintain this benign state of affairs, open source software is covered by a special legal instrument called the General Public License. Instead of restricting how the software can be used, as a standard software license does, the GPL--often known as a "copyleft"--grants as much freedom as possible (see http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html). Software released under the GPL (or a similar copyleft licence) can be copied, modified and distributed by anyone, as long as they, too, release it under a copyleft. That restriction is crucial, because it prevents the material from being co-opted into later proprietary products. It also makes open source software different from programs that are merely distributed free of charge. In FSF's words, the GPL "makes it free and guarantees it remains free".
Open source has proved a very successful way of writing software. But it has also come to embody a political stand--one that values freedom of expression, mistrusts corporate power, and is uncomfortable with private ownership of knowledge. It's "a broadly libertarian view of the proper relationship between individuals and institutions", according to open source guru Eric Raymond.
But it's not just software companies that lock knowledge away and release it only to those prepared to pay. Every time you buy a CD, a book, a copy of New Scientist, even a can of Coca-Cola, you're forking out for access to someone else's intellectual property. Your money buys you the right to listen to, read or consume the contents, but not to rework them, or make copies and redistribute them. No surprise, then, that people within the open source movement have asked whether their methods would work on other products. As yet no one's sure--but plenty of people are trying it.
Take OpenCola. Although originally intended as a promotional tool to explain open source software, the drink has taken on a life of its own. The Toronto-based OpenCola company has become better known for the drink than the software it was supposed to promote. Laird Brown, the company's senior strategist, attributes its success to a widespread mistrust of big corporations and the "proprietary nature of almost everything". A website selling the stuff has shifted 150,000 cans. Politically minded students in the US have started mixing up the recipe for parties.
OpenCola is a happy accident and poses no real threat to Coke or Pepsi, but elsewhere people are deliberately using the open source model to challenge entrenched interests. One popular target is the music industry. At the forefront of the attack is the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco group set up to defend civil liberties in the digital society. In April of last year, the EFF published a model copyleft called the Open Audio License (OAL). The idea is to let musicians take advantage of digital music's properties--ease of copying and distribution--rather than fighting against them. Musicians who release music under an OAL consent to their work being freely copied, performed, reworked and reissued, as long as these new products are released under the same licence. They can then rely on "viral distribution" to get heard. "If the people like the music, they will support the artist to ensure the artist can continue to make music," says Robin Gross of the EFF.
It's a little early to judge whether the OAL will capture imaginations in the same way as OpenCola. But it's already clear that some of the strengths of open source software simply don't apply to music. In computing, the open source method lets users improve software by eliminating errors and inefficient bits of code, but it's not obvious how that might happen with music. In fact, the music is not really "open source" at all. The files posted on the OAL music website http://www.openmusicregistry.org so far are all MP3s and Ogg Vorbises--formats which allow you to listen but not to modify.
It's also not clear why any mainstream artists would ever choose to release music under an OAL. Many bands objected to the way Napster members circulated their music behind their backs, so why would they now allow unrestricted distribution, or consent to strangers fiddling round with their music? Sure enough, you're unlikely to have heard of any of the 20 bands that have posted music on the registry. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Open Audio amounts to little more than an opportunity for obscure artists to put themselves in the shop window.
The problems with open music, however, haven't put people off trying open source methods elsewhere. Encyclopedias, for example, look like fertile ground. Like software, they're collaborative and modular, need regular upgrading, and improve with peer review. But the first attempt, a free online reference called Nupedia, hasn't exactly taken off. Two years on, only 25 of its target 60,000 articles have been completed. "At the current rate it will never be a large encyclopedia," says editor-in-chief Larry Sanger. The main problem is that the experts Sanger wants to recruit to write articles have little incentive to participate. They don't score academic brownie points in the same way software engineers do for upgrading Linux, and Nupedia can't pay them.
It's a problem that's inherent to most open source products: how do you get people to chip in? Sanger says he's exploring ways to make money out of Nupedia while preserving the freedom of its content. Banner adverts are a possibility. But his best hope is that academics start citing Nupedia articles so authors can earn academic credit.
There's another possibility: trust the collective goodwill of the open source community. A year ago, frustrated by the treacle-like progress of Nupedia, Sanger started another encyclopedia named Wikipedia (the name is taken from open source Web software called WikiWiki that allows pages to be edited by anyone on the Web). It's a lot less formal than Nupedia: anyone can write or edit an article on any topic, which probably explains the entries on beer and Star Trek. But it also explains its success. Wikipedia already contains 19,000 articles and is acquiring several thousand more each month. "People like the idea that knowledge can and should be freely distributed and developed," says Sanger. Over time, he reckons, thousands of dabblers should gradually fix any errors and fill in any gaps in the articles until Wikipedia evolves into an authoritative encyclopedia with hundreds of thousands of entries.
Another experiment that's proved its worth is the OpenLaw project at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. Berkman lawyers specialise in cyberlaw--hacking, copyright, encryption and so on--and the centre has strong ties with the EFF and the open source software community. In 1998 faculty member Lawrence Lessig, now at Stanford Law School, was asked by online publisher Eldritch Press to mount a legal challenge to US copyright law. Eldritch takes books whose copyright has expired and publishes them on the Web, but new legislation to extend copyright from 50 to 70 years after the author's death was cutting off its supply of new material. Lessig invited law students at Harvard and elsewhere to help craft legal arguments challenging the new law on an online forum, which evolved into OpenLaw.
Normal law firms write arguments the way commercial software companies write code. Lawyers discuss a case behind closed doors, and although their final product is released in court, the discussions or "source code" that produced it remain secret. In contrast, OpenLaw crafts its arguments in public and releases them under a copyleft. "We deliberately used free software as a model," says Wendy Selzer, who took over OpenLaw when Lessig moved to Stanford. Around 50 legal scholars now work on Eldritch's case, and OpenLaw has taken other cases, too.
"The gains are much the same as for software," Selzer says. "Hundreds of people scrutinise the 'code' for bugs, and make suggestions how to fix it. And people will take underdeveloped parts of the argument, work on them, then patch them in." Armed with arguments crafted in this way, OpenLaw has taken Eldritch's case--deemed unwinnable at the outset--right through the system and is now seeking a hearing in the Supreme Court.
There are drawbacks, though. The arguments are in the public domain right from the start, so OpenLaw can't spring a surprise in court. For the same reason, it can't take on cases where confidentiality is important. But where there's a strong public interest element, open sourcing has big advantages. Citizens' rights groups, for example, have taken parts of OpenLaw's legal arguments and used them elsewhere. "People use them on letters to Congress, or put them on flyers," Selzer says.
The open content movement is still at an early stage and it's hard to predict how far it will spread. "I'm not sure there are other areas where open source would work," says Sanger. "If there were, we might have started it ourselves." Eric Raymond has also expressed doubts. In his much-quoted 1997 essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, he warned against applying open source methods to other products. "Music and most books are not like software, because they don't generally need to be debugged or maintained," he wrote. Without that need, the products gain little from others' scrutiny and reworking, so there's little benefit in open sourcing. "I do not want to weaken the winning argument for open sourcing software by tying it to a potential loser," he wrote.
But Raymond's views have now shifted subtly. "I'm more willing to admit that I might talk about areas other than software someday," he told New Scientist. "But not now." The right time will be once open source software has won the battle of ideas, he says. He expects that to happen around 2005.
And so the experiment goes on. As a contribution to it, New Scientist has agreed to issue this article under a copyleft. That means you can copy it, redistribute it, reprint it in whole or in part, and generally play around with it as long as you, too, release your version under a copyleft and abide by the other terms and conditions in the licence. We also ask that you inform us of any use you make of the article, by e-mailing copyleft@newscientist.com.
One reason for doing so is that by releasing it under a copyleft, we can print the recipe for OpenCola without violating its copyleft. If nothing else, that demonstrates the power of the copyleft to spread itself. But there's another reason, too: to see what happens. To my knowledge this is the first magazine article published under a copyleft. Who knows what the outcome will be? Perhaps the article will disappear without a trace. Perhaps it will be photocopied, redistributed, re-edited, rewritten, cut and pasted onto websites, handbills and articles all over the world. I don't know--but that's the point. It's not up to me any more. The decision belongs to all of us.
@Furtherreading: The source code of this article plus details of the conditions can be found at http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/copyleft
For a selection of copylefts, see http://www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/open_alternat
The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric Raymond is available at http://tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/
@BoxTitle: Copyright © 2002 Reed Business Information Ltd, England
@BoxBody:THE INFORMATION IN THIS ARTICLE IS FREE. It may be copied, distributed and/or modified under the conditions set down in the Design Science License published by Michael Stutz at http://dsl.org/copyleft/dsl.txt
DESIGN SCIENCE LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
Copyright © 1999-2001 Michael Stutz Verbatim copying of this document is permitted, in any medium.
0. PREAMBLE.
Copyright law gives certain exclusive rights to the author of a work, including the rights to copy, modify and distribute the work (the "reproductive," "adaptative," and "distribution" rights).
The idea of "copyleft" is to willfully revoke the exclusivity of those rights under certain terms and conditions, so that anyone can copy and distribute the work or properly attributed derivative works, while all copies remain under the same terms and conditions as the original.
The intent of this license is to be a general "copyleft" that can be applied to any kind of work that has protection under copyright. This license states those certain conditions under which a work published under its terms may be copied, distributed, and modified.
Whereas "design science" is a strategy for the development of artifacts as a way to reform the environment (not people) and subsequently improve the universal standard of living, this Design Science License was written and deployed as a strategy for promoting the progress of science and art through reform of the environment.
1. DEFINITIONS.
"License" shall mean this Design Science License. The License applies to any work which contains a notice placed by the work's copyright holder stating that it is published under the terms of this Design Science License.
"Work" shall mean such an aforementioned work. The License also applies to the output of the Work, only if said output constitutes a "derivative work" of the licensed Work as defined by copyright law.
"Object Form" shall mean an executable or performable form of the Work, being an embodiment of the Work in some tangible medium.
"Source Data" shall mean the origin of the Object Form, being the entire, machine-readable, preferred form of the Work for copying and for human modification (usually the language, encoding or format in which composed or recorded by the Author); plus any accompanying files, scripts or other data necessary for installation, configuration or compilation of the Work.
(Examples of "Source Data" include, but are not limited to, the following: if the Work is an image file composed and edited in PNG format, then the original PNG source file is the Source Data; if the Work is an MPEG 1.0 layer 3 digital audio recording made from a WAV format audio file recording of an analog source, then the original WAV file is the Source Data; if the Work was composed as an unformatted plaintext file, then that file is the Source Data; if the Work was composed in LaTeX, the LaTeX file(s) and any image files and/or custom macros necessary for compilation constitute the Source Data.)
"Author" shall mean the copyright holder(s) of the Work.
The individual licensees are referred to as "you."
2. RIGHTS AND COPYRIGHT.
The Work is copyrighted by the Author. All rights to the Work are reserved by the Author, except as specifically described below. This License describes the terms and conditions under which the Author permits you to copy, distribute and modify copies of the Work.
In addition, you may refer to the Work, talk about it, and (as dictated by "fair use") quote from it, just as you would any copyrighted material under copyright law.
Your right to operate, perform, read or otherwise interpret and/or execute the Work is unrestricted; however, you do so at your own risk, because the Work comes WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY -- see Section 7 ("NO WARRANTY") below.
3. COPYING AND DISTRIBUTION.
Permission is granted to distribute, publish or otherwise present verbatim copies of the entire Source Data of the Work, in any medium, provided that full copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty, where applicable, is conspicuously published on all copies, and a copy of this License is distributed along with the Work.
Permission is granted to distribute, publish or otherwise present copies of the Object Form of the Work, in any medium, under the terms for distribution of Source Data above and also provided that one of the following additional conditions are met:
(a) The Source Data is included in the same distribution, distributed under the terms of this License; or
(b) A written offer is included with the distribution, valid for at least three years or for as long as the distribution is in print (whichever is longer), with a publicly-accessible address (such as a URL on the Internet) where, for a charge not greater than transportation and media costs, anyone may receive a copy of the Source Data of the Work distributed according to the section above; or
(c) A third party's written offer for obtaining the Source Data at no cost, as described in paragraph (b) above, is included with the distribution. This option is valid only if you are a non-commercial party, and only if you received the Object Form of the Work along with such an offer.
You may copy and distribute the Work either gratis or for a fee, and if desired, you may offer warranty protection for the Work.
The aggregation of the Work with other works that are not based on the Work -- such as but not limited to inclusion in a publication, broadcast, compilation, or other media -- does not bring the other works in the scope of the License; nor does such aggregation void the terms of the License for the Work.
4. MODIFICATION.
Permission is granted to modify or sample from a copy of the Work, producing a derivative work, and to distribute the derivative work under the terms described in the section for distribution above, provided that the following terms are met:
(a) The new, derivative work is published under the terms of this License.
(b) The derivative work is given a new name, so that its name or title cannot be confused with the Work, or with a version of the Work, in any way.
(c) Appropriate authorship credit is given: for the differences between the Work and the new derivative work, authorship is attributed to you, while the material sampled or used from the Work remains attributed to the original Author; appropriate notice must be included with the new work indicating the nature and the dates of any modifications of the Work made by you.
5. NO RESTRICTIONS.
You may not impose any further restrictions on the Work or any of its derivative works beyond those restrictions described in this License.
6. ACCEPTANCE.
Copying, distributing or modifying the Work (including but not limited to sampling from the Work in a new work) indicates acceptance of these terms. If you do not follow the terms of this License, any rights granted to you by the License are null and void. The copying, distribution or modification of the Work outside of the terms described in this License is expressly prohibited by law.
If for any reason, conditions are imposed on you that forbid you to fulfill the conditions of this License, you may not copy, distribute or modify the Work at all.
If any part of this License is found to be in conflict with the law, that part shall be interpreted in its broadest meaning consistent with the law, and no other parts of the License shall be affected.
7. NO WARRANTY.
THE WORK IS PROVIDED "AS IS," AND COMES WITH ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
8. DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS WORK, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong! (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess I'm nit-picking a bit, but there is a subtlety they missed in the article: you only have to release the modified code under copy left if you plan to release it. So if I were to, say, fix all of the problems with the 2.5 series Linux distros, I don't have to release the source code. If I release it, then it has to be copyleft, but the choice to release it is still mine.
I guess it would be pointless to modify an article and not redistribute it, but the phrasing above misrepresents copy-left.
BlackGriffen
Re:Wrong, Wrong, Wrong! (Score:2, Funny)
Well, it is open source, so feel free to correct it.
Open Company (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Open Company (Score:1)
Are there many small open source companies, say developing open source customised applications using open source, out there to learn off/francise off to set up ones own small open source venture, leveraging open source code to give one the code backing only available otherwise in large companies?
http://www.feratech.com/ is one company web site I have come across.
Re:Open Company (Score:2)
I think that rather than manifestoes, you need to be the right guy in the right place to make this kind of thing work: in the end, sharing information and power is a natural thing, and closing those things and aggressively protecting them are just animalistic tendencies that can't stand up to their more peaceful alternative.
Proof of this is that Semco survived the terrible 80s inflation in Brazil, simply through the advantage that everyone in the company actually was enthusiastic about the company and was 100% committed to it's survival. You don't need reams of management theory to do this, just a bit of common sense.
Ale
Legal Protection (Score:1, Interesting)
greg@pd.net
Re:Legal Protection (Score:3, Interesting)
In their words - "We haven't given up our copyright on this article, but we have agreed to waive many of the exclusive rights a copyright normally bestows."
So if you abuse their copyleft notion then you will find out that they do still have a legal copyright.
I personally think that copyleft is silly. It should be copyfree but I guess that isn't as catchy as copyleft.
Re:Legal Protection (Score:4, Insightful)
/Janne
Re:Legal Protection (Score:1)
There is a very good reason I chose Copyfree and not copyright. Also, remember the difference between freedom and free beer.
Did it ever occur to you... (Score:1)
Kjella
Re:Did it ever occur to you... (Score:1)
Can be misconstrued (Score:2, Informative)
BlackGriffen
Re:Can be misconstrued (Score:1)
Re:Legal Protection (Score:2)
You, my friend, have a very poor grasp of the issues, and are part of the problem. The big problem with "copyleft" (e.g. GPL) at the moment is that far too many people simply don't understand that it is fully copyrighted, and that to use it you must follow completely the very strict and explicit terms given. One of those terms might be "credit the author", but that's usually the least of the terms you have to comply with to not be engaged in theft, which is grounds for both criminal and civil action. The GPL for example lists many many more terms than "credit the author" and you need to go and read it before contributing any further to this debate.
If you can't be bothered reading or comprehending the GPL, then just stop there and back the fuck off, because you are probably engaged in stealing copyrighted work, and that's a criminal offence. I am sick and tired of explaining this to the programmers in my department, and sooner or later I'm going to let one of them slip GPL code into our closed source product with their name all over it, them I'm going to contact the copyright owner and suggest that they contact our legal department regarding the theft of their work, and I'll not shed one tear for any thieving developers who get strung up by the balls.
Let me spell this out to you: copyfree is a worse term than copyanything-else because it encourages people to not read the license terms. I have heard "But it's free!" from professional software developers engaged in theft of GPL code so often now that it makes my blood boil. Anything that makes it even easier for lazy idiots to become thieves is a bad thing.
Re:Legal Protection (Score:1)
Remember that the original idea was thought up by an American. Where "copyright" is intended as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.
I personally think that copyleft is silly. It should be copyfree but I guess that isn't as catchy as copyleft.
Maybe it's an attempt to indicate that "copyright" dosn't do what it was ment to do as well as it could. Also "copyfree" isn't a good term. Because you restricted in what you can do with the code. Just that the restrictions are rather different from those associated with propriatary code.
Re:Legal Protection (Score:1)
No, they have retained copyright so they can force people who copy the article to distribute it and derived works under the same licence. Basicly the same as GPL'ed things.
Re:Legal Protection (Score:1)
A copyright is the exclusive right of the author to copy, modify and distribute the work. By allowing other people to copy, modify and distribute your work you are effectively waiving the rights granted to you by the copyright.
You are correct that they retain the copyright, though.
Re:Legal Protection (Score:1)
I personally think that copyleft is silly. It should be copyfree but I guess that isn't as catchy as copyleft.
Nor does it have the political connotations.
Re:Legal Protection (Score:1)
Re:Legal Protection (Score:2)
Cheers, Joshua
Re:Legal Protection (Score:5, Funny)
<snip>
Stallman's move DID NOT resonate round the computer science community and now there are NOT thousands of similar projects. The star of the movement is NOT Linux, RATHER WINDOWS XP, an operating system created by MIT student BILL GATES in the early 1990s and installed on around 180,000 million computers worldwide.
What sets open source software apart from commercial software is the fact that it HAS A VIRAL NATURE, in both the political and the economic sense. If you want to use a commercial product such as Windows XP you WILL BE HAPPY FOREVER. But if you want to run Linux or another open source package, you can do so without paying a penny--although IT WILL BE EQUIVALENT TO SUPPORTING THE COMMUNIST PARTY.
</snip>
Re:Legal Protection (Score:1)
Re:Legal Protection (Score:2)
My first reaction was to turn it into a Slashdotism filled rehash (Trolling Goats, Beowulf Clusters, Cowboy Neal, and Natalie Portman...)-- but since the idea is CopyLeft, I'm sure that'll be done before this is all over with. Perhaps, by more than one person.
GNUArt !!! (Score:3, Informative)
They actually forgot to mention GNUArt [gnuart.org] which is my attempt to apply the GNU General Public License to Art.
We also opened a Gallery [gnuart.net] which we slowly fill with whatever quality stuff (mostly music and photographs but, hey, the one who criticize are supposed to help too
That's it, hope it'll raise some interest.
Language negotation (Score:2)
However, you might want to look at Language Negotation [apache.org]. It is very useful when you develop multilingual sites. It is excellently implemented on Debian's site [debian.org]
See also the babel site [alis.com]
THANKS (Score:1)
If you are looking forward to host these, then you'll find the space and bandwidth you need on gnuart.net
Thanks.
Re:GNUArt !!! (Score:1)
Damn, no patch tool. How about this anyway? (Score:1, Insightful)
Replace the last sentence with:
The files posted on the OAL music website http://www.openmusicregistry.org so far are all MP3s and Ogg Vorbis. Although the files are easy to play and listen to, they are harder to modify.
Re:Damn, no patch tool. How about this anyway? (Score:2)
How about:
Although the files are easy to play and listen to, they are not the "source" of the music, but rather its end result. Even in electronically composed music, where it is easier to distribute the "source" files from which the listenable end product is derived, there are relatively few musicians making those "source" files available.
I couldn't quite figure out how to work in the phraseology about "source" being the form preferred for modification of the work.
Also, there is at least one open-source musician who does make his source files available: Void Main [mp3.com].
Does Open Source Make a Dent? (Score:1)
Re:Does Open Source Make a Dent? (Score:1)
Actually, I didn't provide any commentary on my question, simply some numbers. Personally, I think that if 40% of my car is gone, it's a little more than a dent. :-)
-jbn
New Scientist not always good guys (Score:2, Offtopic)
on a similar topic... (Score:1)
http://www.salon.com/tech/letters/2002/01/29/st
"open source" cola-- whatever. (Score:3, Informative)
An important note: this is *not* the recipe for "OpenCola" -- that is, the canned beverage from OpenCola that you may have received at a trade show, or other venue or outlet. Making canned cola requires millions of dollars in abstruse gear and manufacturing gizmos. It's easier to make nerve gas than manufacture cola. This is a kitchen-sink recipe that you can make all on your own. It is *our* kitchen-sink recipe. We figured it out somewhere between coding the COLA SDK and debugging the Linux build of the clerver.
OpenCola (Score:1)
Never aware of the OpenSource idea can get to the drink business. Can we find any local distributor of this OpenCola instead of order online?
Under the essence of this, we should soon have OpenSource Burger, OpenSource Sandwich, ... Anyone dare to try some OpenSource Mediine?
Re:OpenCola (Score:1, Funny)
Re:OpenCola (Score:1)
ThinkGeek [thinkgeek.com] for all your caffeine needs [thinkgeek.com].
Re:OpenCola (Score:1)
Re:OpenCola (Score:2)
Hey dummy. You are sadly misinformed. In a bitter twist of irony, it was the ostensibly pro-regulation Clinton administration that decided to be slack in enforcing regulations against "herbal supplements" some of which are in fact potent drugs. If you don't believe me, just search for "penny royal"+"abortion". Several women have had severe problems with it, and I recall reading an article in The Washington Post about a woman who died from it. Other supplements have recently been shown to cause liver damage.
Why was the Clinton admin slack against these supplements? The only thing I can figure is that at the time "alternative medecine" was fashionable among the academic elite circles in which the Clintons traveled.
Now, I'm not suggesting that the government ban all of these things. I certainly wouldn't want to have to get a prescription for aspirin. OTOH, when pitchmen are touting products that can put you in the hospital after 10 years of normal use, or even a single use, something needs to be done. What do you suggest as an alternative to regulation?
Re:OpenCola (Score:2)
Education. The government is not a $6 trillion nanny
LOL!!! Where does most education take place? Who pays for it? And what do teachers spend most of their time doing?
Copyright vs Copy Left (Score:2)
Also, I wonder about grandfathering older works into changes in copyright law, but I can see both sides of this one.
Re:Copyright vs Copy Left (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a noble idea, but you really need to go and have a careful read about what copyleft is. The most important thing about copyleft is that it is fully copyrighted. Everything else depends on that. If it's not copyrighted, you can't enforce the rest of the terms, which allow very specific exceptions to the copyright.
For copyrighted work to change into copyleft, you have to add license terms. There is, in fact, nothing to stop any copy right holder adding copyleft terms to any existing copyright work. Copyleft adds rights.
What would be a problem is enforcing it on all copyrighted works in general, because that punishes rights holders. To enforce the copyleft, you'd have to keep the sanctity of copyright, while adding a whole new set of mandatory licensing terms. We could do it with a determined enough political will, but it'd be a hard one to explain to your average Jane Voter or Joe Politico, let alone Karl Corporate, who would vomit blood at the very thought of having any of his precious rights diluted one second before the final expiry.
I do honestly think that we're better of just having copyright expire after a fixed term and having the work enter the public domain. We'd be better off campaiging for our current Disney whoring politicians to stop extending copyright time limits than to try for a hard to understand, hard to enforce compromise.
Things other than software? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Things other than software? (Score:1)
Re:Things other than software? (Score:2)
The article is speaking mainly about Copyleft because that's more interesting to the writer.. Most articles/publications are copyrighted. This could become a problem if you want to publicize something based on that article because you would have to need the original authors consent. If articles are copylefted they can be used without having to ask for that consent provided that they give credit where credit is due.
It seems fair that the derivative article needs to be copylefted as well. After all, if they prohibit future derivative work they essentially rip off the original author of his brainchild. By using his work they are morally obliged to use the same kind of license.
Re:Things other than software? (Score:2)
It seems fair that the derivative article needs to be copylefted as well.
It seems fair, but it also seems like this would exert an undue influence on future research. If I do work based on an article, I will give citations where necessary (as is required in scientific publishing), but my work is my own, and I want to be able to distribute it however I please. I'm concerned that researchers might copyleft their work, which would force me to copyleft my work if I cite them, or use their ideas ... and because my work is copyleft, subsequent works have to be copyleft, and so on, until the ultimate research is only tangentially related to the original, but still carries the same copyleft. I would probably refuse to go along with such a scheme.
Fair Use (Score:2)
I'm not sure I'd like to be the first person to take that one through the courts tho.
Re:Things other than software? (Score:2)
If your research is important to others, why not grant them the right to use your work to further their goals. As long as they abide by the fact that you grant them this right based on copyleft and have to copyleft their research as well..
It is of course YOUR choice to release your work under the copyleft. And if you use someone else's work that has been copylefted you know what the consquences are. You don't HAVE to use their work.. you can always try to find another way to come up with the same solution or information. I understand that you are required to give citations, but if the original author does not allow you to use his work.. what then?
I thought, and correct me if i'm wrong, that science was to benefit humanity as a whole, not just some parts of it... If you dicovered something that you only want to use for your own ends you rob the rest of the world of something that might enable them to conquer certain situations just because they could have come up with a solution based on something you published. Maybe even something you would have never thought of before.
It happens al too often that a medicine for some disease does not work as they wanted only to find out by accident that it does work for other things. This might have implications to other peoples lives. What if they did never find out by accident that a intended cure for the flu actually cures someone with ebola. The companie throws away their research without knowing it could probaly save thousands of lives.
Re:Things other than software? (Score:2)
Re:Things other than software? (Score:2)
I will give citations where necessary (as is required in scientific publishing), but my work is my own, and I want to be able to distribute it however I please.
A properly written copyleft will still allow you to distribute your derivitive work as you please. What it won't allow is for you to sue others for infringing copyright on that derivitive work.
Re:Things other than software? (Score:2)
and they follow all other licence terms, e.g. for the GPL: provide source; do not remove or modify the GPL license; add the GPL license to any including or deriving works; and any other terms, no matter how minor.
I know it was probably just a slip, but it's exactly that kind of sloppiness that leads to me having to ream a developer once every few months for trying to sneak full GPL code into our closed source product because "It's OK, it's free, I kept the copyright notice and I was going to tell tech pubs to put a credit in the documentation."
Re:Things other than software? (Score:3, Informative)
On the other hand, there are well-established fair use rights in published materials which you have regardless of whether the author specifically grants them to you. Since it is already legal for you to cite the work or create a device based on the work, the author has no legal basis from which to require you to do anything you don't want with your own work. Conversely, since you don't have the right to modify and redistribute the author's work, he/she can ask something further from you.
The biggest issue I have with copyleft of written materials is that I don't really think many of the same needs apply. I can see how a GPL'd piece of documentation might possibly be useful, since it could be helpful to have a large number of people working on the documentation. As far as other types of writing goes, though, I personally would not want someone else to have the right to take what I said and distort those words to their own use. Of course, that's just my opinion and other individuals are free to copyleft their written works as they like.
Re:Things other than software? (Score:3, Informative)
Copyleft is a bad word to use. It's too vague and open to misinterpretation. If we're talking specifically about the GPL, then yes, that's exactly what it means.
The GPL is an extremely powerful tool. Like most tools, it can hurt the ignorant. I have seen professional software developers sneaking GPL code in closed source projects, then looking at me with hurt puppy dog expressions when I tear into them for trying to steal other people's copyrighted work. "But it's free!" they explain, never having actually read (or understood) the GPL.
The GPL means exactly what it says. Copyleft, free beer, free speech, all of those are irrelevant buzzwords. It says, and it means:
This work is copyrighted. It belongs to the people that wrote it. You can't copy or use it [important pause ] unless you agree to follow these very strict restrictions on how you use it: provide source, do not remove this license, do not modify this license, apply this license to any derivative work including a much larger work that directly includes this work in any way.Those are the cost of using GPL code. If the cost is too high, don't use it. Pay a different cost to source the information/code/text elsewhere.
In your case, if you find some GPL research that you want to build on, but without making your research GPL, then treat the GPL work as a fully copyrighted work. You can quote selectively from it using the existing fair use defence, put your nuts on the line, and release your work as an original non-GPL (and non-copyrighted, or explicitely "copy without restrictions" work) work. If you want to include the entire GPL work, then you can do that, if you pay the cost, which is to GPL your derivation. If the GPL work is by a single author, hey, feel free to approach them and negotiate for a version of their work without a GPL license, just as you'd do right now to obtain the right to make a substantial copy. The GPL gives you more options, not fewer.
It never fails to amaze me how many people are unaware of the implications of the GPL. Microsoft calls it viral, a cancer. Love it or loathe it, it's absolutely true. That's the point of it! Rejoice in that. You can't strip the GPL off a piece of work, but you can extend it to other works. The body of GPL licensed work will only grow, never shrink.
The only debate is whether that's a bad thing or a good thing. I view it as a good thing, because right now it's giving more options, and you can choose to use non-GPL sources. When we reach the point where there are no non-GPL sources, we might have to start thinking about how this impinges on a few very, very narrow issues, like national security (but not on protecting corporations). That's a long way off though. Until then, the GPL means what it says, and it says: "There's a cost to using this. Pay it, or find another way."
Nicely explained ... but misleading at first? (Score:3, Informative)
I found one aspect of your post confusing, though, at first.
Q. If, for example, research results are published under copyleft, would that mean that any subsequent work that cites the research would also have to be copyleft? [...]
A. [...] If we're talking specifically about the GPL, then yes, that's exactly what it means.
In fact, that isn't what it means. (Although you may have been mostly referring in your response to the latter part of the original poster's question, which I omitted above, I didn't realize it at first.)
As you explained later for those who took the time to read your full post --
In your case, if you find some GPL research that you want to build on, but without making your research GPL, then treat the GPL work as a fully copyrighted work. You can quote selectively from it using the existing fair use defence [...].
IMHO, this is exactly right. The license, GPL or otherwise, is a copyright license and as such, restricts only what copyright will allow. If normal copyright would permit the citation, (i.e., footnotes/bibliographies/appropriately-brief quotations), then you have nothing to fear from copyleft.
Re:Things other than software? (Score:2)
Re:Sidesteps the issue (Score:2)
"You are free to use this product as you please, as long as you wash it down the drain afterwards."
Re:Things other than software? (Score:2)
Only in so far as there is value in copying beyond fair use.
Many people use copy machines to make copies of documents that under copyright laws they should not. From a liability perspective, a library would find value in using "copylefted" documents in these cases. Signs over copy machines reminding us not to make copies of copyrighted materials could instead suggest copying of "copylefted" materials is permitted.
Publishers of compilations, such as magazines or journals, might find some value in not having to purchase copyrights to material where the author is only interested in wide distribution. The "copyleft" would indicate the author's intentions with hopefully more legal weight than a disclaimer somewhere in the text.
Distributors of digital products such as cable companies and broadband provider's may find some value in a source of unencumbered content to provide to their customers.
"It's a Wonderful Life" is one of the few feature films that has entered the public domain. Its popularity can probably be attributed to the ability of broadcasters to show it without royalties.
The question might be what incentive, other than the aforementioned wide distribution, the author would see from copyleft?
Things other than software? Sure. (Score:2)
A. Only in so far as there is value in copying beyond fair use.
On the question of utility, (and supposing for the moment that we like the viral aspect of copyleft/GPL), I think I would amend the answer above to:
It does, to the extent there are (potentially) valuable uses of your content which would not be covered by the doctrine of 'fair use'.
Copyleft not only removes restrictions on copying and redistribution, but also for modification and redistribution. It is a license for collaboration.
So, if you can think of any way that someone else might build off copyrightable content you have created, (be it research/writings, music, art, maps
and if you want to allow them to do so freely and without reliance upon permissions from you, (i.e., you don't care about having the right to veto changes you disapprove of),
and you can live with the possibility of them getting paid and you not,
BUT you feel that in return for your giving them these extra rights to make use of your work, they should agree to continue to give these rights to whomever else wants to work on the result (the combined product of your original work and their modifications/additions to it),
then, YES, Copyleft makes sense.
Examples? (I don't know, I never said I create content.)
Off the top of my head:
Maybe you made a wonderful map of a region, but you want to leave open the chance that others will improve on specific areas and pass the whole thing along. (and you're willing to take the risk that they botch the whole thing up)
Maybe you don't mind if people take your song, add an extra verse, (or change a person's name), and pass it on. (and you're willing to take the risk that some bozo will fill that verse with beowulf clusters and profanity)
Maybe you've made a simple customized textbook and you'd be pleased as punch if people drop out the half where you didn't really know what you were talking about and replace it with something really informative. (and you're willing to take the chance that they drop out the half where you did really know what you were talking about and leave the junk half).
Copyleft makes as much sense in the non-software world as it does the software world... But maybe (original thought coming on?) in the non-software world giving away these freedoms is harder to take.
Actually, now that I think of it: it's not that coders are less sensitive, but could it be that in software the functional aspect of code is a built-in bozo filter for ill-conceived changes? (If the modifications break it they probably won't get far. Few people, (MSFT jokes aside), will have a strong/ideological attachment to broken/malfunctioning code. In changing writings/music/art I see more liklihood of offending the original author. (and now wait to be corrected by protective coders and/or those mercilessly flamed by them.)
Re:Things other than software? (Score:2)
Does the idea of copyleft make sense for things other than software?
Certainly. Imagine if Slashdot was copylefted, and required all submissions to be copylefted. Then anyone could take the writeups, images, posts, moderation results, etc. and create his/her own Slashdot. Maybe they'll make Anonymous Cowards get an automatic +2 bonus. Maybe they'll let you moderate the stories. Maybe they'll have their own moderation system. The possibilities are endless.
This message is licensed under the Qing Public License [inbox.org].
Re:Things other than software? (Score:2)
Frankly I'd call them a freeloader.
That's why I release everything I write (as limited as the list is) under the GPL. You're perfectly welcome to take it and use it, hopefully someone new to programming can learn from it as I learned from open code (predating the GPL license, but not the mentality).
However if you want to take what I've done and then sell it as closed source you're cheating the customer. They're getting less, being charged more, and not rewarding the real author. The same feelings would apply if I were a scientist researching anti-cancer drugs, or anything else.
In other news : (Score:2, Funny)
Just minutes after signing this groundbreaking deal, the McDonalds CEO Jack Greenberg ran through the conference hall wearing a pair of bikini briefs apparantly made of 100$ bills, screaming something about salad dressing and kraft singles. More details at 11.
I hereby (Score:5, Funny)
If any cute Geekgirl wishes to gain access to my DNA, please send a picture and an essay on the effects of GPL and the software industry and what effects this will have on humanity in whole.
Redheads with green eyes can skip the essay.
Thank you.
A Symbol to mark Open Content (Score:3, Informative)
Its high time that there was a unique, instantly recognisable symbol for everything that is released under one of the new copyright licences.
The article in question does not have a symbol to mark it as Open Content or Copyleft or Free Content. Unmarked articles are by default, copyrighted upon creation according to the Berne Convention, so if the article was not about copyleft content, one would immediately assume that it was copyrighted if you were to come across it. You would immediately refrain from using it for fear of being sued, and they could claim that it was not freed, because it is not marked as freed.
If this idea of freed content and the freed content itself are to spread, then all content released under these licences needs to be clearly marked as freed; as clearly as the IP that is traditionally copyrighted.
At this page [ibmpcug.co.uk] we have created a set of graphic devices to solve this problem.
Using the old © inverted is about as inelegant a solution as you could dream up. It sends the wrong signals, that in some way, Open Content or Copyleft is "upside down", "wrong way around" or the polar opposite of Copyright, which it is not. Copyright is seen, almost universally, as A Good Thing®. The opposite of a good thing is a bad thing. The use of the inverted © conveys a kind of "upside down crucifix" vibe which is counterproductive.
The new symbol solves this problem, scales graphically for both print and web, and conveys the idea that the properties that it is attached to are licenced content.
Re:A Symbol to mark Open Content (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyleft authors just choose to openly license their work. If you give up the copyright, you can't keep others from taking your work, stealing it, and making it "closed source".
-jbn
Re:A Symbol to mark Open Content (Score:2)
Works released under the GPL are completely free in all ways, except for allowing you to close-source them. Nobody really cares though because if you're the type to want to do that, you're not likely to be the type they care to help.
In part, you're right, the idea of the GPL is to spread the GPL. To reach a point where it's become so much easier to create new works based on the existing library of GPLed works (thus meaning that almost everything is copyrighted) that copyright law gets reformed to something that serves the people.
(BTW, part of the reason that few people buy software for Linux is because the bar is MUCH higher. Nobody will buy a half-assed compiler when GCC is free. Nobody will pay for someone's VB traceroute program when 'mtr' is free. If you want people to buy your software, offer someone better than what comes installed by default. (And better enough to warrant the money - MS Office may be nicer than Star Office 6, but not $600 nicer.))
Re:A Symbol to mark Open Content (Score:1)
The first would be the O in a circle that I don't recognise. The 2nd is the © that is familiar.
Therefore I would assume that this mean something new as well as traditional copyright instead of your intended 1 new thing.
Re:A Symbol to mark Open Content (Score:2)
Possibly. They were bound together in the container to unify them. The fact that the "O" is not immedately recognised of course will change if the symbol spreads everywhere.
Whatever symbol is eventually adopted, what is certain is that some graphic device has to be used to mark content as freed, otherwise, for reasons that I've stated, content that is not marked will not be freed, and in fact, can be possibly "revoked".
Re:A Symbol to mark Open Content (Score:1)
Re:A Symbol to mark Open Content (Score:2)
We will change it over; this is important.
Re:A Symbol to mark Open Content (Score:3)
Um, look, that's exactly what copyleft is. First and foremost, it's copyright, completely and fully under traditional copyright laws. There are also licensing terms which allow very specific exemptions from copy restriction, as long as the costs are paid.
It makes complete sense to retain the © symbol in any copyleft document, as it helps to stop lazy or ignorant derivers ignoring your licensing terms and just passing copies around left right and centre, eventually making the work (illegally) public domain after a few copies. That doesn't help the copyleft cause at all.
Re:A Symbol to mark Open Content (Score:3, Interesting)
Apart from the backward © symbol in what must be about 144pt type. (This is in the paper edition).
I'd suggest ©++ for copyleft symbol. And this is not an entirely facetious suggestion either - the © is commonly available (and so are +) (unlike your "oc" symbol), and it clues up people that there is something over and above the usual copyright going on.
Re:A Symbol to mark Open Content (Score:2)
Great idea, but how about this - (Score:2)
Therefore I would suggest that the open source/content "industry" should exercise some compromise and come up with a standard set of licenses based on the existing pantheon - as few as possible - and then seek to enshrine them in law alongside the more conventional copyright. The resulting copyright and various OC rights should have an easily recognizable and distinguishable family of symbols (letters in circles I imagine). This tactic also invites the re-examination of the purpose and implementation of copyright law, which as we've all been griping about has been steadily eroded in favor of corporations lately. Sounds like a job for EFF and openlaw to me. Who in congress is sympathetic to this cause?
Re:A Symbol to mark Open Content (Score:2)
I would have suggested using a pair of open handswith their palms up, similar to the charades sign (sign language as well?) for a book. The open hands imply openness, of course, but also convey the impression of a gift, which is a much more positive idea.
As copylefted material is explicitly copyrighted as well, this symbol could still be used in conjunction with the traditional copyright symbol, and it would signify that there is more than just copyright to this work.
Just a thought.
Open source Tomato (Score:5, Funny)
I just spotted an open source tomato. Inside are little seeds, that contain all the code to construct the tomato yourself. You can do this, but you have to include the little seeds yourself as well. You can even modify it, but the seeds will have to be modified also!
The whole thing was produced by "Nature". It can be used in open source sandwiches, open source burgers etc. as well!
Re:Open source Tomato (Score:4, Insightful)
-jbn
GMO patents (Score:2)
This is funny considering that the big agribusinesses are now "patenting" their genetically modified organisms, making them sterile, or otherwise forcing farmers and others to go to THEM for what would otherwise be in nature an "open source" organism. Hmm...maybe instead of "funny" I should have said "sickening".
Re:Open source Tomato (Score:2)
No you don't. [google.com]
-
CopyLEFT? (Score:2, Interesting)
Sometimes, I don't know what to thing (Score:1)
As someone who involves himself in a lot of these activities, (I write code, I make music, I make art, no cola yet) I'm really excited and at the same time uncumfortable. I mean, of all these things, only code has shown a reasonable business model, and even that is up for debate.
I really appreciate the concept in code and I agree with it whole-heartedly (to the extent that I tried to talk my company into an open-source production model, but they went with flash instead.) But the thing is, I'm to old to go back to working at coffee shops and flogging my stuff in my off-hours. I'd really like to make a living at something productive that I enjoy. Until we get some clear ideas of how that's going to work for music and art, I'm going to stick to the Fugazi [dischord.com] model of distribution
Oh No! (Score:2)
Does that mean the GPL is impossible, too?
open cola actually closed (Score:2, Informative)
Even so, it would be fun to try making some. But there's nothing new here: cola recipes have been around for decades, and the folklore process that propagates them is the original form of open source.
The significance of this (Score:1)
Open Content? (Score:1)
Re:Open Content? (Score:2)
- "Music and most books are not like software, because they don't generally need to be debugged or maintained...I do not want to weaken the winning argument for open sourcing software by tying it to a potential loser," (ESR quote)
or a failureFrom reading the article, you wouldn't have any idea that there were many [theassayer.org] successful open-source book projects, and many more [theassayer.org] that are free as in beer.
ESR and Sanger are both referring to the relative lack of success the bazaar model, but that doesn't mean that copyleft itself is a failure outside of the software world.
I think Nupedia's problems also have less to do with the issue Sanger discusses than with poor design of the project. I tried writing a Nupedia article, and it was a horrendous experience. Many of the reviewers were excellent, but among them were some who were just very difficult to deal with, and I spent weeks and weeks going around in circles trying to satisfy them, just to get my 5-paragraph article through the system. Most of these people had never even bothered to fill out their bio forms, so it wasn't even clear whether they were qualified to review the article for content.
It's not even true that the bazaar model is a complete failure outside of software. For instance, this [biophysics.org] book was written using the bazaar model. And even when it comes to doftware, I think ESR's ideas are more of an idealization than a realistic description of how open source works.
Open Audio License - meant for rave (Score:2)
What I think should be teemed up with the OAL is the 'source code' of the music. If I make a song and release just the finished
Counter-copyright and dedicate to public domain (Score:2)
is an alternative to copyright. The sign [cc] indicates not copyright, but shows support for the public domain and stands for a willingness to share information the way traditional science has always operated. New Scientist ought to consider it instead of their license.
Please consider [cc] along with licenses for open or free works, which depend on copyright. As you know, all works are now copyrighted when first created and will not enter the public domain until the copyright term expires (if it ever does), some 70 or 50 years after your death. We need the public domain in order freely to recycle old works into new, now.
The OpenLaw site (http://openlaw.org) shows how Open Source or Free Software principles can be applied to legal projects, traditionally the domain of well-paid individual attorneys.
anti-plagiarism software and copyright (Score:2)
The recent scandal by several historians shows that it becomes increasingly difficult to steal someone else's work and claim it as your own. The net makes it easy to find and copy other people's work. At the same time improved search engines make it easier to detect that this has happened.
What this doesn't address is money. Though it is easier to maintain authorship priority on the net, it doesn't prevent people from making free copies.
Let's fix the article (Score:2, Funny)
However, this situation is different. Since the article is copylefted, rather than complain about it, let's just fix it!
So if anyone posts a criticism about the article here, post a "show me the source" reply.
Couple of minor points.. (Score:3, Interesting)
And also, from the article: "[Linux source code] contributions are reviewed by a panel and the best ones are added to Linux." (emphasis mine)
Yeah, reviewed by a panel of one [slashdot.org]?
This page is illegal (Score:4, Funny)
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2002 OSDN.
I'm afraid that the numerous reproductions of the article in comments on this page can't both be "owned by the Poster" and meet the conditions of the New Statesman licence regarding redistribution. Sue each other at will.
Open source music is live and well (Score:2)
Only nerds would confuse the medium (MP3, Ogg ) with the music. To see Open Source Music in action go to a Folk Music Festival or Jazz Club. What you'll see is late-night jam sessions full of old-timers demonstrating licks for neophytes who then incorporate them into new music. You'll also see older musicians excited to learn a new style from younger musicians. These venues are hothouses of creativity where everyone is borrowing, adapting and perfecting. Sounds pretty much like Open Source to me!
OS music with computers (Score:2)
Of course it is possible to convert these into mp3 or whatever, if you want to distribute them in 'binary only'.
Re:Wow... News for nerds (Score:2, Interesting)
Incidently, German c't (computer mag, as you might know) ran a similar, long article in one of their past issues, describing how the open source could affect other parts of the social and economic world.
Re:Woo Hoo! (Score:2)
Nevermind where they are getting the value from, the bottom line is: are
they getting it?
As a customer, I look at a product and say: Does it do what I want? Is the
price reasonable?
If the answer to both these questions is YES, I buy the product.
The only way Free Software loses is by failing the 1st question, and that
happens quite a bit. Either a system is efficient at answering my two
questions, or it isn't, and Free Software is not the efficient system that
its advocates would like you to think it is. It's like, I want to buy eggs,
and the guy at the supermarket says:
"we have no eggs, but we have chickens. You can take the eggs for free when
they lay".
There is a long line for the free eggs, and the guy estimates the wait will
be 6 hours. Do you sit around waiting in line for eggs, or do you go next
door and buy them? Then this guy walks in and says:
"Hi, I'm Mr. IBM. I'd like to buy a chicken".
"Fine" says the clerk. "That'll be $1500."
So, Mr. IBM gets fresh eggs every day any way he likes them.
"This is ridiculous" you say. "I'm going next door".
"No" says the clerk. "selling eggs for money is evil. Eggs want to be
free".
"But you just sold a chicken for $1500. How is that any less evil than
selling eggs?".
"Don't ask me to explain it" says the clerk. "There is this bearded guy who
comes around preaching every day at 11 and he has a lot of followers. I'm
afraid to upset them".
The clerk had a wild look in his eye, so I stayed the full 6 hours. Quite
frankly, I was afraid what he might do with the meat cleaver.
I never went back to that market.
--$teve
Re:Woo Hoo! (Score:2)
That's ridiculous, eggs are scarce, physical goods, software is non-scarce, abstract.
Software is a representation of labor on the part of the developer, which is not abstract or non-scarce at all. People who make your argument see only the golden egg, and forget about the goose (or chicken).
They are not comparable, and your entire argument is an exercise in strawmannery.
They are comparable. The eggs are programs. The programmers are chicken--afraid to participate in the entreprenurial system and content to find foundations, charities, or corporations who will pay them adequatly in exchange for the reduced risk. This in and of itself doesn't bother me. Risk is not for everybody. It's the moral posturing I find offensive. I have seen no better explanation of what the Free Software advocates desire. They think it's perfectly fine to sell themselves to a company, but they think it's immoral to sell what they produce. The Free Software movement is already replicating a classic soviet-style economy in which people line up for goods, waiting on the producers. If you don't believe me, just install that nice user-friendly HURD OS.
Re:Woo Hoo! (Score:2)
Frankly, intellectual property - particularly when its restrictions never lift, as in the cases of binary-distributed software and of ever-lengthening copyright - is monarchist, both as a matter of historical heritage and as a matter of political philosophy. Real capitalism regards it as a necessary evil.
Rid yourself of moral posturing until you can get those monarchist tendencies out of your system.
Re:Woo Hoo! (Score:2)
It's only dolts like you who think that you should be paid every time somebody besides the original purchaser uses the software
Ad hominem, but I'll address the rational part: When software is free, there are precious few "original purchasers".
I can tell I've touched a raw nerve with some people... that always happens when you confront a bad religion, which is essentially what the GNU philosophy is.
To be fair, I painted with a broad brush. Their *are* capitalists in the Open Source world, it's just that they aren't *software* capitalists. They are capitalists in some other industry who happen to have business models where software fits in as a loss-leader. It's like giving away razors to sell blades. Businesses with Free Software first-sale as the only line of revenue simply don't exist. Turn over any successful "free software business" and you will find consulting, services, distribution, customization, or something else that really makes the money. I addressed all of that in the USENET posting.
Try to keep an open mind. I don't hate you. In fact, whoever you are, I love you as a fellow human being enough to care that you don't continue to believe lies.