You don't always know what you have the copy "rights" to. You get them automatically. But if they go there, there should be an exception to works "Free"ly licensed...

Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported

Under some takes on this license, no for profit corporation (the idea is that everything such an entity does is by definition for profit) would be allowed to make use of the licensed work. And who will trust MS not to take such a view, now or at some point in the future once the damage is done...

all the best,

drew

they need to develop and then provide the code to a program which the others can compile and test. it should identify works to which they hold copyright while not claiming works to which others hold copyright and without any mistakes either.

go for it.

meanwhile: http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts-on-copyright-offensive.html

Are athletes air hogs? Should we encourage the couch potato lifestyle to reduce air usage and cut down on CO2 emissions?

~;-)

all the best,

drew

How much data would the average family pull if they did all of their TV watching via IP and not regular cable/sat/broadcast?

They are pushing broadband aren't they? And the benefits of high speed access?

all the best,

drew

I was thinking along the lines of untrue boasts myself.

You can have the obvious kind:

Man, I was driving down Bay Street yesterday doing about 5,000 miles per hour, weaving in and out of traffic and jumping over jitneys.

Or the not so obvious kind:

I was clocking 50 yesterday on my way home.

Odd to think of even being investigated on such boasts much less convicted.

Now a video shot from the moving car and posted online might be different.

all the best,

drew

Shhhh, don't give them any ideas....

~;-)

Sure. But I hear the breakage on downloads is terrible.

1. regular patents. put the fees up all you want. make them harder to get.
2. defensive only patents. can only be brought out when you (or a "partner" are being sued for some reason.) low to no fees, fast tracked ahead of regular patents in the grant process, easier to get.

thoughts?

Unless I missed something in the reading, it needs this improvement at least.

All patents in the pool are granted, royalty free for use by all Free Software, whether produced by members of the pool or not if the non-members have no patents. (Or perhaps just to copyleft Free Software? if needed to block gaming the system by patent holders who will not join.)

I need to think on this some more.

all the best,

drew

The governator?

"As only the original rights holder can sell commercial licenses, no new forked version of the code will have the ability to practice the parallel licensing approach, and will not easily generate the resources to support continued development of the MySQL platform."

But...

Once you go the all Free route, don't assign your copyrights to Oracle or the original MySQL branch.

Now, no one will be able to sell non-GPL licenses to this code base. Not the people heading this fork nor the people owning the original, dual-licensable, code.

So, if the fork does a better job of improving things than the original code owners, that is the code people will want.

In order to keep selling the code with non-GPL licenses, the owners will have to bear the whose cost of keeping the code improved. And try to succeed in selling inferior code at high prices. Good luck with that.

all the best,

drew

Basically,

unless you *must* have a non-Free play, you can fork it.

So, he is not likely to get any love from those who think non-Free is wrong.

To me, his belief that he *must* have a non-Free play is what is keeping him from forking it.

Just fork it and play totally Free already.

Now, I would be happy to learn of mistakes with the above thinking. Educate away.

all the best,

drew
Check out the Free Music Push

with compliments to the bard...

"Now if somebody wants to be a (real) slave, and law forbids it, then certainly this forced freedom is not really freedom from the point of view of that wanna-be slave."

And so, since perhaps some *may* want to be real slaves, (I don't understand this myself, but history seems to support the idea) any society which outlaws slavery (and rightly so from my perspective) must not be free according to what I gather your thinking to be.

"Oh, I'm not arguing against that. I argue that GPL is not really about freedom, it's about promoting the ideology you describe above at the cost of some freedom" ... and that freedom it costs is... the freedom to deny the freedom you enjoy to others. (with respect to your code)

Do you know of another way, short of changing copyright law and making code not subject to copyright, to ensure the four freedoms for all users of software other than a strong copyleft play like the GPL? I am sure you would be hailed as a hero if you can come up with a solution. Many and perhaps all would love to avoid the problems that a strong copyleft creates if they could ensure the four freedoms without it.

"The only flaw is advertising that LGPL is less free than GPL, while from any non-ideological point of view it's the other way around."

This is a point of view issue. I disagree with yours.

I have a library which you want to use. Let's say I make it LGPL.

Option A: You believe in Freedom so you license your program which uses my library under the LGPL as well. The users of your program enjoy their freedom.

Option B: You don't believe in Freedom in this way and release your code under some non-Free license. Your users don't have Freedom with respect to your program.

Let's say instead that I make it GPL.

Option A: You believe in Freedom so it is no hardship for you to use my library and make your program GPL as well. The users of your program enjoy their freedom.

In the case of the Options A, my choosing the GPL over the LGPL does not limit your freedom in any meaningful way since you want your users to have freedom with respect to your code.

Option B: You don't believe in Freedom in this way and want to release your code under some non-Free license. You cannot use my library and do this so now you must count the cost. Is there another library you can use just as well? If so, how has my choosing the GPL instead of the LGPL limited *your* freedom? You may have to pay for the rights to that other library though as perhaps that library's creator shares your non-Freedom views and demands that of you for the use of that other library. Or, how much time, effort, money will it require for you to write a similar library on your own or to have it developed under contract for you with you owning the copyrights when done? You decide one of these can work for you and do it. Your users don't have Freedom with respect to your program.

Option C: You don't believe in Freedom in this way and want to release your code under some non-Free license. After counting up the costs of the choices in option B above, (the GPL one) you decide that it is not worth it to roll your own and it is too expensive to license the alternative library or perhaps such an alternative library does not exist. You decide to use my library and make the program GPL. The users of your program enjoy their freedom.

Now, you may well say that in option C here you did not have freedom. But your users do. So unless you only have one other user for your proposed program, from where I sit, more users have Freedom when I choose the GPL over the LGPL for a unique library. Are you asking me to *care* about your freedom? A person who does not care about these same Freedoms for others? When the only essential Freedom you seem to lack in your mind is the Freedom to deny others Freedom? Why exactly should I do that when I care about Freedom for all, not just for some?

'It's the same kind of forcing that eg. proprietary software uses: "You're of course free to not use our code, as long as you do what we tell you to do with your stuff (code or money)."'

Not quite. You are still free to make and sell copies of my code. And not give me a dime. You are still free to use my code for your own private purposes. But you seem to need the ability to deny others the ability to enjoy the Freedoms you seem to think you need. Why is that?

'It's the huge philosophical difference between "my stuff is mine and your stuff is yours, freely use my stuff as long as you let others use it freely too" and "my stuff is our common stuff and your stuff must become our common stuff too!"'

See, and I am not speaking for myself here but I may get to this point at some point in the future, I don't know. The people behind the GPL don't think that any code should be anybody's. But the people who think otherwise have the laws set up to back their way of thinking. (And truthfully, changed to better suit them as well.) Now, instead of trying to fight this game before congress and the WIPO of what have you. enter the idea of copyleft and the GPL. How can people who believe a person's code should be their own to do with as they wish, complain about someone putting their code under the GPL?

And it is not 'your stuff must become our common stuff too!' - rather it is perhaps keep your hands off of my stuff unless you want to share with others too. Take your stuff and go. Find some people who think like you to play with. People who don't want to share their stuff with you and you don't want to share your stuff with them.

Sorry I have been so wordy.

all the best,

drew