OK, it's pretty well established that a lot of people don't like this new approach to Firefox versions (or lack thereof). Among (many) other issues, how are website developers supposed to test against various versions of the browser to make sure things work? (Uh, yeah, your website didn't work with Firefox version Tuesday and Thursday, but I didn't see the problem on Friday...)

If we don't like it, what options are available?

Fork it - difficult to do successfully; replacing the supported development currently done on the codebase is probably impractical unless all the support moved to the fork. Also total loss of brand name recognition, since the firefox name and logo couldn't move with a fork.

Use something else - Opera isn't open source, so while it's a good practical alternative to have around it's not something to bet the farm on. Chrome is at least based on Webkit, but it also isn't fully open and has similar versioning issues. Also, the Firefox plugin ecosystem would be hard for a lot of people to give up.

Negociate a truce - if the Mozilla devs don't want to maintain releases, perhaps the various Linux distributions and corporate users with an incentive to see stability return could pool some development and financial resources to maintain a stable version of Mozilla's web browser (my vote would be Mozilla Gibraltar) that would protect corporate users from the churn and ensure things like major/minor version API compatibility. Firefox can plow ahead at full speed, but have a team of developers taking Firefox's work and more carefully fitting it into a more traditional framework. If Mozilla were willing to "bless" such a browser while not having to constrain their Firefox development style to satisfy the requirements of corporate IT and more cautious users, perhaps it would be workable all around?

Backporting fixes to older software versions does take work and is usually less than exiting (wow that was crappy code, now how do I make it do this new thing without gutting it?) so perhaps it might be reasonable to set up a mechanism where those who want that work can vote with $$ to make it happen while still being an "official" Mozilla browser?

There seem to be some projects that actively resent the idea of version numbers having meaning. Maybe they don't want to be "constrained" by what they can and can't do based on major/minor version updates, or maybe they just don't want to keep track of it all - I'm not really sure.

To me, version numbers are a way to communicate something about a project to users. "Oh, it's a patch release? That should be relatively small fixes and fairly safe. A minor release? Cool, some new features or significant changes to look at. A major release? The file format changed and the GUI got rewritten - going to need some eval/retraining on this one."

There are reasons for this rational, structured approach - when you have users in the Real World, they need time to prepare for major changes. Your software is probably doing Real Work, and cannot be simply yanked and upgraded without first ensuring that it will continue to do what it needs to do.

Developers may resent this, but it is an utterly inescapable reality. Critical tools cannot be casually changed - there MUST be a testing and validation period. Patch releases with minor/security fixes allow for relatively quick and simple deployment of truly essential changes without the major upheaval of EVERYTHING changing. Eventually you do need to make the jump to the next major upgrade, but surely Debian stable is proof positive that users need controlled, gradual change? Relativly stable periods between major changes are ESSENTIAL for a controlled computer environment, and it's hard to blame those who are saying the new Firefox approach is automatically disqualifying it from their networks.

Of course, there's also the point that developers with limited resources don't want to have to keep backporting code to older versions of browsers and work around issues that should have long since been restructured away (and have, in newer versions.) This is actually one of the better cases for commercial support of FLOSS - a company being paid to ensure older versions work can do the grunt work that the open source volunteers aren't going to want to spend time on.

Perhaps Mozilla could think about offering a paid service that maintains and supports particularl version numbers of browsers and have their "unversioned" open source browser with all the latest changes be the default, if this is a resource constraint issue?

I'm seeing a lot of folks saying Chrome may be the big winner out of all of this, but not much comment about Opera making gains. I confess to being a bit out of the loop when it comes to browser alternatives, but my impression was that Chrome isn't entirely open source. It uses WebKit, but that licensing does not seem to cover the whole of the browser - wikipedia at least cites some sort of "Google Chrome Terms of Service".

Are the "GCTS" open source, or is the current sense of the community that Chrome is "open enough" to displace Firefox, despite not being fully open? If I were a business and needed to replace Firefox, and didn't care about open source, my first thought would have been Opera - is the recent management change there (along with the comments about "quarterly" focused management) enough to cast a shadow on Opera as well?

"All data provided by BLOODHOUND Programme Limited is proprietary to BLOODHOUND Programme Limited. All such data shall only be used for the purposes of education and shall not be used by any party for commercial gain."

The files are AVAILABLE, but that doesn't make them open source. There's an important distinction. Unless I'm missing it, they don't have any standard license (Creative Commons or otherwise) attached to it right now and they don't sound like they're going to encourage people to use this data as a basis for their own projects. If you can't "fork" the car design and work on your own car it's a bit tough to call it open source.

That said, this does look pretty cool and the educational aspects of it are legit enough (also would make a good set of test files for any open source project planning to support that JT file format.)

Does anybody know if they've put together/published a detailed set of drawings for this machine? Given how much work it was to create it and how cool/historically significant it is, it would be nice if the hardcore nerds among us could order copies of the detailed technical information.

"World Wonders" in this sense are things that have stood the test of time and often-times represent the peak of a civilization's achievements (or at least, the known peak of what has lasted from that civilization.) Wikipedia is useful for some things, but I hardly think it belongs in the same category as the historical/natural sites UNESCO's world heritage efforts work to preserve.

If they want to pick something "modern" to protect, IMHO it should be what remains of the US and Soviet systems/sites that participated in the space race. Ultimately human beings stepped foot on the moon as a consequence of those efforts. THAT's something worth preserving/remembering. And could probably use some help in the preservation department.

THIS. Universities should ban together and create some standard teaching materials that are CC licensed and suitable as a basis for course-work. If "standard texts" can't be used anymore, fine - put 100 smart guys on it from 80 universities and create something fresh and new. For basic subjects there should be plenty out-of-copyright material to use as a basis, if that is helpful.

Really, this should be happening at all levels of education. Kindergarden up through College. Make it as inexpensive as possible to give people a quality education, and for heavens sake take advantage of what computers and the internet have made possible.

I guess I'm a bit old school when it comes to libraries (nothing better than an old Carnige library building) so I'm a little dubious that televisions and video games should be there - they constitute a distraction from reading and research. On the other hand, it's heartening to hear that money is being put into libraries - they're an important resource. Technology for cataloging and checkout is certainly good, as a library full of books can be quite the resource management challenge.

I'm a little surprised they're unhappy about not seeing professionals - in my experience as people move to the young professional stage specialization means the local public library isn't likely to have what they need (specialized technical books tend to be a long shot, since only one in 1000 patrons will want it and that one probably would order a newer version through Amazon...). On the other hand, they're GREAT for young kids who will burn through a ton of books on a broad range of topics in short order. They're also good when you get towards retirement and don't need the intense focus demanded by professional careers - wandering into the library and picking up a random book for half a day is more practical then.

If they want young professionals(why?) they'd have to get a whole bunch of subscriptions (online, if nothing else) to paywall publications that people can't cheaply get at home via the internet. (One of the great things about universities - if you want a random scientific article you can often go online and download it, as opposed to coughing up $30...)

This is the commercial licensing side of Qt, *NOT* Qt. The major thing that will matter to the open source community is whether Qt will still be developed as a robust cross platform toolkit, not so much what happens to the commercial licensing business. Even Qt's future on phones doesn't concern me too much - the smart phone industry moving towards "app store" models and locked down platforms is a much bigger concern. (I'm just waiting for Apple to announce they're moving to an App Store model for all their desktop machines...)

Where Qt really shines is as a toolkit for graphical applications on the desktop. THAT's what ultimately concerns me - will the developers who have made Qt such an outstanding cross platform graphical toolkit will be allowed to continue their work as a paid, full time job? Never mind the phones, KDE and a vast array of non-KDE desktop applications that are important parts of the open source ecosystem rely on Qt (especially those that have to deploy on Windows). Would the commercial Linux vendors step in to keep the Qt devs programming, much as they have hired Linux kernel folk in the past? Libreoffice indicates they will act to protect key elements of open source, so fingers crossed. A statement along those lines would be reassuring, if they are in fact able and willing to fall back to that solution if necessary.

There needs to be a way for an inventor who does not want to file a patent ($$$) to prevent other people from using their idea to get a patent and then charge them for the use of their own invention (or prevent the inventor from letting others use their invention for no cost, if he so desires).

Not every idea or invention in the world is about commercial profit making, and the law needs to recognize that.

There needs to be some kind of filing that will block other patents but not grant exclusivity, which is much less expensive to file.

Every time groupware/Exchange related topics appear on Slashdot (often as not an "open" replacement solution that isn't quite open, or not quite there, or both), I see a couple of references to the Citadel project:

http://www.citadel.org/

This appears to be a very interesting offering, and I've never understood why it doesn't generate more buzz. Can anyone knowledgeable in this subject explain what is lacking in Citadel to make it a serious contender in this domain? It is compatibility with Outlook/Exchange, missing features, not scalable, or ...?

It might be worthwhile to explore what it would take to make some variation of Lisp (*cough*sbcl*cough*) a workable choice for modern software developers. My own sense is that the major things lacking are a modern, powerful, cross-platform GUI and a general "lack of polish" (for lack of a better term) when it comes to interfacing with the rest of the world, but perhaps there are other fundamental issues? This seems appropriate:

Maybe it's time to drag them the rest of the way?

"That is a completely separate issue, however, from the way you've framed the question as to the legitimacy of why those plans are restricted from commercial republication."

Correct. I wasn't precise enough in my phrasing - what I meant was that while the presentation of the dimensions and information about the Wright airplane might be protected, (if I understand correctly) you are not even permitted to take the data itself (i.e. the actual physical measurements of the airplane documented in that presentation) and make your OWN presentation of that same data. Of course, that is a bit risky even if the agreement didn't preclude it - there is always a concern that the data may have been slightly "altered" to make it copyright eligible, similar to the question of whether map data are subject to copyright. Apparently (although IANAL) in the US the latest wisdom is that the actual physical layout of things on the map is not subject to copyright (since ANY accurate map would have to reproduce that exact same information, by definition - this is why it is thought commercial map makers occasionally add little non-existent streets or such into their maps - THAT work, being something other than a literal representation of reality (however close it may be) IS subject to copyright. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Copyright_Easter_Eggs)

Remember how this really works - whatever the current laws, there will be pressure from commercial entities to pass protective laws solely for the preservation of the commercial potential of their products. Just as copyright is expanded as needed to protect commercial interests, so will the laws be expanded (if needed) to protect commercial interests related to 3D printing. The only "safe" items will be things that clearly are not a consequence of current "protected" products and are explicitly released under open licenses.

Of course, the article is quite correct that the statistical likelihood of companies going after any one individual for printing small numbers of parts is remote - even the music industry's campaign against file sharing has not made it all THAT probable that any given individual will be sued, it's just not cost effective to sue vast numbers of people who have no money and pay all the court costs. However, it DOES pose a problem for people who want designs that are fully legal in all senses of the word - i.e. those who want to use truly free models - and statistically unlikely doesn't mean some people won't get in trouble.

The patent/copyright issues surrounding this issue, while fascinating, are not the only potential problems. If someone prints a design for a car part they downloaded off the web and installs it in their car, and something goes wrong, would they try and go after the source of that model? More to the point, would they have a case if they didn't pay anything and no warranties were made as to the serviceability of the design? Some jurisdictions limit the ability to disclaim things like implied warranty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty Would the fact that the model in question was a free download and no money changed hands come into play? This is a point that comes up occasionally even in software - some people think they should have a right to have the tool work "for a particular purpose" even if they paid nothing to compensate the author for their work, although in practice this has seldom played out. Physical products based on designs are a more subtle problem - even if something goes wrong and money was paid, was it the design at fault or something else? How does one prove if the problem was the design, the printer, the plastic/resin used, the operation of the machine, improper use of the part, etc. etc. etc. IIRC, the Smithsonian makes people sign a waiver before they can get plans for the wright brothers airplane: http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/arch/collections/techdraw/wrights.cfm (Unfortunately these plans are quite restricted - no commercial use or redistribution, so what might have been an excellent source of high quality model plans is out of the question. I don't know if the dimensions in them are subject to copyright restriction - it seems unlikely but it would take a lawyer to figure out - but the agreement would seem to preclude anything interesting in that regard.)

That said, all human activity carries such risks. Authors of books (or for that matter authors of web pages!) run the risk of being sued for what their book motivated someone to do. People try to sue gun makers for what people do when they misuse guns. Anyone holding public office with significant power has painted a legal bullseye on themselves. Hopefully a free model community will eventually appear, the issues will be worked out, and we'll see a surge of scanning of historical artifacts outside of all possible copyright/patent concerns and new designs under open licenses. Not just for the fun and creativity, but because those are excellent ways to preserve and build on old designs from past masters.

The existing open CAD models are somewhat scarce, but some of those that do exist have gravitated toward the Creative Commons licensing schemes. I am aware of:

OpenMoko: http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/CAD_models under Creative Commons BY-SA - from a model quality standpoint, this is probably the best one I know of.

Via OpenBook: A laptop computer case. The original website doesn't seem to be there (anybody know what happened?), but there is a mirror here: http://bzflag.bz/~starseeker/CAD_MODELS/VIA_OpenBook/

There are a smattering of others - not sure what license these use:

Bug Labs: http://bugcommunity.com/wiki/index.php/Image:BUG_BASE_C_ASM.zip
RepRap: http://reprap.org/wiki/Mendel/SolidWorks
Elphel had some at one point, not sure where they are now on the site: http://www3.elphel.com/index.php

Hopefully these are harbingers of things to come - does anybody know of more good open source models?

There have been other projects over the years that have tried to improve on X (Fresco/Berlin and picogui readily come to mind) but I don't believe any of them have demonstrated results that seriously threatened the revitalized Xorg project.

I hadn't heard of Wayland, but I must admit since Xorg got going I haven't kept a close eye on that level of the graphics stack. Mark's blog post makes it sound like they're willing to ditch network transparency for better graphics effects, which makes me a little leery. Undoubtedly for most users that's the "right" approach, but if they do lose network transparency it's going to make Ubuntu an impossible choice in a lot of business environments where running apps from a server is part of day-to-day business.

Also, the amount of work to port all the requisite software/toolkits to a non-X platform is going to be... impressive. Haiku faces this problem, as do a fair number of older applications when looking at running native on Windows and OSX - it ain't easy. Plus, we're talking an entirely new backend in Wayland, one that's going to require (from the sound of things) rock solid OpenGL support.

Ubuntu has shown they can deliver in the past, and perhaps they can do it now, but I can't help but wonder if they realize the magnitude of what they're undertaking here.