Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:How is copyrigt for any software justified then (Score 1) 260

That's actually a rather interesting question.
As with many things in law, it's the result of historical precedent (aka legacy code).

Historically, computer programs were not effectively protected by copyrights because computer programs were not viewed as a fixed, tangible object: object code was viewed as a utilitarian good produced from source code rather than as a creative work. Due to lack of precedent, this outcome was reached while deciding how to handle copyright of computer programs. The Copyright Office attempted to classify computer programs by drawing an analogy: the blueprints of a bridge and the resulting bridge compared to the source code of a program and the resulting executable object code. This analogy caused the Copyright Office to issue copyright certificates under its "Rule of Doubt".

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

So basically, software is copyrightable because blueprints are copyrightable, and later legislation was passed to codify this (and legislation doesn't need to be well reasoned or justified, merely politically tenable).
This then leads to the question of why blueprints are copyrightable.

"Consistent with other provisions of the Copyright Act and copyright regulations, . . . protection [of architectural works] does not extend to standard features, such as common windows, doors, and other stable building components."[27] As architect Michael Graves explained, copyright protection covers only the "poetic language" of an architectural work, which includes those parts of the design that are "responsive to issues external to the building, and incorporates the three-dimensional expression of the myths and rituals of society". It does not cover "internal language", which includes those parts of the design that are "intrinsic to the building in its most basic form – determined by its pragmatic, constructional, and technical requirements."[33] Thus, for example, individual elements that are driven by function are not copyrightable, including the presence of doors and windows or those elements required by building codes. Accordingly, architectural designs must be analyzed to determine the scope of their functionality.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

So basically, architecture is a combination of art and functional aspects, and only the artistic elements were ever intended to be covered. The problem is that because the judiciary (in most cases) don't understand programming, they are unable to distinguish between them adequately.

IMO, computer programs in general should never have been considered to have an artistic element (and I say that as someone who appreciates beautiful code). A building may be said to have artistic elements because it serves two purposes: a functional one (to provide shelter), and an artistic one (to look good). With the exception of examples in textbooks (which are copyrightable independently of this), code is almost never written to look good, merely to serve a functional purpose. While it may be beautiful, that it not it's primary purpose. They should have been regarded as purely mechanical, and covered by patent law instead.* At this point in time though, it is likely impossible to fix that flaw, given how disruptive it would be.

* I think that software patents should exist, but not in their current form. While computer programs are mathemathical in nature, so are many other patentable creations. For example, the negative feedback amplifier was well-deserving of a patent (given how revolutionary it was at the time), but each of the components in that circuit could be well-defined mathematically. If the requirements for a patent were enforced properly (i.e. novelty/obviousness and the limitation to an implementation, as opposed to a goal/idea), then they would actually be useful.

Comment Re:APIs can be creative works; we need another pla (Score 1) 260

However, I still think you have missed my point because you say I desire copyrighted APIs. I'd rather see copyright rolled back entirely or at least greatly restricted like along the lines Richard Stallman proposes. What I am saying is that as long as one supports copyright as it is now, and as it is being expanded, then you have to accept APIs should be copyrightable. In that sense, if you believe in the value of copyrighting computer software, Linux should *not* have been legally made ignoring that copyright violation sued to be mostly just a civil matter until recently it became criminal, and that the UNIX copyright holders would have had to chosen to purse Linux in court).

You have a fairly well-written (if lengthy) post, but it is based on the assumption that the law should be consistent. However, pretty much every law has exceptions added. e.g. murder has self-defence and (in some jurisdictions) euthanasia, copyright has fair use, etc.

I consider APIs to be the digital equivalent of forms. You submit a form to a department that accepts it, and you get another form back. The layout of the form (which sections are on which pages, whether you have boxes or grids of bubbles) affects the efficiency with which the form may be processed.
Forms are not copyrightable, for many of the same reasons that APIs should not be copyrightable.

From Wikipedia:

Copyright protects artistic expression. Copyright does not protect useful articles, or objects with some useful functionality. The Copyright Act states:

A “useful article” is an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. An article that is normally a part of a useful article is considered a “useful article”.

“the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.”[16]

However, many industrial designers create works that are both artistic and functional. Under these circumstances, Copyright Law only protects the artistic expression of such a work, and only to the extent that the artistic expression can be separated from its utilitarian function (what courts call "conceptual separability"). If the aesthetic aspects cannot be separated from the functional aspects, copyright protection is not available.

It can be difficult to gauge whether the artistic aspects of a work can be separated from its useful aspects. Courts often rely on the Denicola test, which asks whether the artistic design was significantly influenced by functional considerations. If so, copyrightability depends on the extent to which the work reflects the artistic expression inhibited by functional considerations. As discussed by Judge Oakes:

Copyrightability "ultimately should depend on the extent to which the work reflects artistic expression uninhibited by functional considerations." To state the Denicola test in the language of conceptual separability, if design elements reflect a merger of aesthetic and functional considerations, the artistic aspects of a work cannot be said to be conceptually separable from the utilitarian elements. Conversely, where design elements can be identified as reflecting the designer's artistic judgment exercised independently of functional influences, conceptual separability exists.[17]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Comment Re:Ridiculous, but so are college degrees (Score 1) 173

Full disclosure: I hold a bachelor's in CS from Stanford and have been an engineer for 14 years since then. I think my degree was, to be polite, poor preparation for any real-world work beyond teaching college CS courses, although I have also never seen any program I think is better.

That says it all, really. A CS degree is not supposed to be preparation for a career as a software engineer - it's preparation for a career in CS. Degrees in software engineering already exist and serve that purpose, though it sounds like Stanford didn't have one in 2000.

Comment Re:Gnome3, systemd etc. (Score 1) 450

I agree. Systemd is now about a "2nd kernel" or "userspace plumbing". Essentially a redesign of Linux.

The problem is I don't know what there is for Debian to debate. They don't have the upsteam influence. If systemd is expanding and large numbers of developers in upstream and going to be introducing dependencies on systemd what is there for Debian to debate? The most they could in a practical sense do would be to create a subset of packages that don't have systemd dependencies directly or indirectly and frankly that's pretty easy for anyone to do for themselves and just create a child distribution

IMHO the anti-systemd people are mostly admins and not developers so I don't think they have the manpower to pull off what they want.

Debian is probably the second most influential distro, after Red Hat. One example of this is how Canonical dropped support for upstart after Debian adopted systemd as the default. (And don't forget how many distros are derivatives of Ubuntu.)

If Debian imposes a requirement that packages do not depend on systemd, then that will have a significant effect. That said, some larger projects do have enough influence to block them from doing so. e.g. not being able to run Gnome would be a pretty big blow to them. Ultimately, distros and upstream projects have a symbiotic relationship, so the larger players on either side can influence the outcome.

Comment Re:Gnome3, systemd etc. (Score 1) 450

Regardless of what's running as PID 1, many administrators of Linux installations do not want any of Poettering's libs installed at all. With a codebase this polemic, it's understandable that there would be a call for removing systemd libs as obligatory dependencies.

In any event, it's not GIMP itself that has the dependency but an intermediate library. I simply used it as an example of a *nix desktop application that pulls in systemd libs on Debian even if one is trying very hard to avoid everything systemd related.

This is Debian we're talking about, not Gentoo (and I say that as a Sabayon user). For most packages, you're limited to whatever configuration the maintainer decided on (which is usually the one with the most features), since the alternative would be to have a separate package for each version. e.g. vlc and vlc-nox.
If you really want that level of control, Debian is not the right distro to be using.

Comment Re:What does he mean? (Score 1) 450

Last time I noticed I do not all systemd on all of my servers. Do you say now is mandatory to install it?

systemd is the default init system, etc. in Debian Jessie.
It is currently undecided if other init systems will be supported, and whether users upgrading to Jessie will be automatically switched to it.

If other init systems are not supported under Jessie, and you wish to avoid systemd, your only choices will be to continue using Wheezy (until it's no longer supported), or to switch to a different distro.

The decision to support other init systems will be posted here: https://www.debian.org/vote/20...

Comment Re:Yesbut does it run Linux (Score 1) 236

I hear that people have run Linux on it, but that Linux kind of sucks on it as it isn't set up to use the touch screen very well. So you're paying a lot of extra money for something that has a digitizer which you can't really use to it's full potential. Also, I'm not sure how easily it can be fixed, but due to the high resolution of the screen, all the controls and icons show up super small, which would make it difficult to use.

Keep in mind that Linux is just a kernel, even if most people use the term to refer to the entire OS. If you can run Linux and X (or Wayland) on it, that opens up a lot of options, such as KDE Plasma Active, Jolla, or even just Gnome 3.

Comment Re:the problem is elsewhere (Score 1) 389

Is it really true that there are no penalties and liabilities of any kind for the person that filed the fraudulent DMCA notice?

If that's the case, is there anything stopping us from creating and deploying tools that submit [fraudulent] DMCA notices for every single piece of content hosted on Youtube and similar sites, effectively crippling every part of the web hosts user-submitted content and provides an interface to submit DMCA claims? Wouldn't such blatant [legal] abuse of the DMCA be enough to attract attention to the calls for reform?

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me like it could meet the requirements for defamation. From wikipedia:

Defamation is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation. ...
[In the US] the four (4) categories of slander that are actionable per se are (i) accusing someone of a crime; (ii) alleging that someone has a foul or loathsome disease; (iii) adversely reflecting on a person's fitness to conduct their business or trade; and (iv) imputing serious sexual misconduct. Here again, the plaintiff need only prove that someone had published the statement to any third party. No proof of special damages is required.

(iii) could be argued, if the uploader was monetizing their videos, though I suspect negligence might be more appropriate.

The underlying issue is that the internet is international in nature, so you can easily have the complainant, accused and service provider in three different countries, and it's prohibitively expensive to sue anyone not in the same country as you. The DMCA was put in place to streamline complainant-ISP interactions, but didn't consider the rights of the accused (despite them being the weakest party in most cases). This was exacerbated by placing the burden of proof on the accused, since the ISP just forwards the complaint to them.

Comment Re:When you encrypt everything... (Score 1) 200

Thats why most services are marketed as up to the given speed. It actually is cheaper to offer a mostly full speed connection than a full speed connection. As long as they provide a defined minimum connection speed and don't default to that speed most of the time, then there really is no reason for complaint.

And there's nothing wrong with that, provided the consumer is fully informed.
If they were required to publish data on the distribution of speeds achieved by customers, broken down by suburb/exchange, I'd have a lot less problems with their marketing.

Comment Re:College is a scam (Score 1) 331

I'm an Australian university student in one of our top 10 universities, so I thought it would be interesting to compare your experiences to mine, especially since the cost of a 4 year degree (~$32k) is similar to the average cost in the US (according to wikipedia, anyway).

Yes, there are those that just drink themselves out. But the colleges offer absolutely no help with anything at all.

All our lecturers have consultation hours, which is basically a block of time they schedule each week for anyone who wants one-on-one help, and they start each unit by telling us when they are and to make use of them if we need it.
While I haven't used them myself, whenever I have emailed a lecturer or posted a query on the discussion forums, I've usually gotten a reply in a few days.

So I'd say we do get help, but only if we ask for it.

You're paying a fortune for classes, and the schedules make little to no sense at all. I'd go to a 30min English class, then have to wait an hour and half to take a 4 or philosophy class, then wait 2hrs for my 1 hour programming class. There were thousands of students studying for the same degree I was! What's the point of having these nonsense schedules?? Can't I just get into the 8am-5pm compsci course and be done with it?

Timetabling is a fairly hard problem, computationally speaking. The more students who take a unit, the more slots there will be for its classes, but that's still subject to the availability of its lecturers. On top of that, you can't assume that everyone will take the same units at the same time - lots of courses require the same units, or require you to take them in a certain (distinct) order in order to take certain electives, and some people will need to alter their course structure if they fail a few. Having some dead time is unavoidable as a result of this.

A 30 minute class is pretty stupid though - the longer the class, the less dead time you'll have between classes. 60-90 min lectures work well in my experience.

On top of that, what's with the books scams? I'm required to buy a book my professor wrote but we never open it in class? Really? I was so broke I'd literally go without eating some days, but my professors ripping me off for $89.95?

How were you required to buy it? I'm genuinely curious, because I often hear this as a criticism (of US universities).
How it works here is the unit guide sets out a proscribed textbook, or recommended resources. Whether we buy them or not is entirely up to us, though some coursework may say "refer to ch X for background", and the library usually has copies that they don't allow to be loaned (so that they're always available).

Then the campus police... Constant unending harassment. Granted, I was a long hair... but, for example, they decided to raid the door rooms over xmas break and leave me a ticket for underage drinking for having an empty wine bottle in my room. It took me 2 months and 2 visits to court to get it cleared up that I was 23 I had enough going on, I didn't need to be dealing with them.

I don't live on campus, but I haven't heard of any problems with the campus security.

Comment Re:Hope! (Score 1) 522

I know you've probably written off gentoo at this point, here's a completely random bit of usage advice:

- Set use flags as you need them, even if this means re-installing the same thing multiple times. This avoids big important packages being pulled in as mere dependencies (though you can add them to the world list afterwards) and more importantly lets you set up and configure everything one at a time and makes it more likely that you'll notice error messages.
- Don't be afraid of package.keywords, especially for very specific use flags.
- Avoid gnome if possible. I don't know wtf it is with gnome, but it seems to be the poster child for weird and hard to diagnose issues as well as crazy dependency trees.
- Pay attention to what virtual packages are doing. Usually they are in your best interest, but not always.
- Don't bother using ebuilds for web apps

I started using a Gentoo derivative (Sabayon*) about a year ago, and it's an absolute pleasure to work with. (Particularly how colourful the package manager is compared to Debian.) In addition to the above, I suggest the following:
-Keep package.use, etc. and make.conf under version control. (This is really helpful in case you accidentally break something.)
-Use git instead of rsync for the portage tree - it's much faster, especially when the total no. of changes is small. (This is doubly true if you have multiple Gentoo installs.)

* Sabayon has systemd as the default, but it's easy enough to change back to OpenRC and being able to use binary packages saves a lot of time.

Comment Re:I hate to say it... (Score 1) 366

The problem is that these decisions are going to be made long before we have anything resembling a complete understanding of what these genes do. The classic example is sickle cell anemia: given the choice it would be selected again, even though it results in resistance to malaria. This kind of control over genetics can only lead to a reduction in biodiversity (since the majority of people will make decisions using similar values), and then we're just one pandemic away from near-extinction.

Comment Re:Backwards Compatibility - Backward Languages (Score 1) 240

Yeah. Functional languages are so much better.. like the elegance of breaking out of a for loop... (oops... not possible... resort to clumsy workarounds). Or handling exceptions....

For loops are an imperative construct - you wouldn't find one in a functional language. Depending on what you were trying to achieve, you might express a similar concept using a fold and an algebraic type (Either or Maybe) to indicate when to ignore the rest of the elements.
I do agree that error handling is more inconvenient than in languages with exceptions though - wrapping the result in a type that can contain the result or an error is only a minor improvement on C-style return codes.

Personally, I've settled for a compromise between the two - Rust and D are both imperative languages with excellent functional programming support.

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Working...