Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Only the engine (Score 1) 58

by Luther Blisset (#32399836) Attached to: Physics Platformer <em>Gish</em> Goes Open Source

I don't see how that does anything other tan proving my point. According to OP, what determines the idiocy of the reader (or as the case may be, the non-reader) is whether he/she reads the article before commenting/reading the comments. Therefore, by merely reading or posting a comment before actually reading TFA, said idiocy has already been determined, and thus it no longer matters if TFA is read afterwards, or at all. So either said idiocy is determined at the exact moment one reads the OP's comment, or it had already been determined, and thus the fact that OP's comment makes it unnecesary to RTFA is irrelevant (and consequently not unfair).

I suggest you read my FC, and this time make an effort to actually understand it. ;)

Comment: Re:Only the engine (Score 1) 58

by Luther Blisset (#32397398) Attached to: Physics Platformer <em>Gish</em> Goes Open Source

How so? Either you RTFA before you read Jorl17's comment, or you read it after (or not at all). If you read it before, the comment doesn't apply to you, otherwise you skipped TFA (whether you intended to read it after the comments or not is irrelevant) and therefore the comment applies to you. ;)

Comment: Re:Don't care about Copyright? (Score 1) 398

by Luther Blisset (#32373034) Attached to: The Fashion Industry As a Model For IP Reform

Yes, without copyright, you could make people agree to a contract before handing over the source code. But once a copy of the source code leaked out, you'd be helpless. David, Eric and Fiona wouldn't be bound by the contract, even if Alice violated your agreement when she handed over the source code to them.

It would work if you gave the source code to a limited number of people/companies and made all of them sign a contract. But if you want to release something as FOSS, you want it to be available to as many people as possible, and it would be practically impossible to keep it from leaking out.

Well, that's true, even if releasing it as FOSS and wanting to keep it from leaking out doesn't make much sense. The problem regarding FOSS would actually be if one intended to keep it FOSS (that is, force all derivative works to be FOSS). That would be impossible once the code leaks. The only solution I can think of would be huge penalties for leaking it (making it part of the contract to not leak it, then it would be a breach of contract to do so), but that's analogous to what the entertainment industry does (or intends to do) with those who download the products they release, and it's known to not work.

Comment: Re:hmm... (Score 1) 374

by Luther Blisset (#32368906) Attached to: Japan Moves Toward Blocking Online Child Porn

Making all previously produced child pron easily available for free should in theory remove the profit motive to produce more, and therefore protect further minors from exploitation.

In theory. In practice, that'd require that those who would possess said child porn would not get bored of the already existing material after some time and produce more, or request that someone produces more. Not to mention that even if it removes the profit motive, there are still other motives for the production of child porn, and for sexually abusing minors.

Comment: Re:Don't care about Copyright? (Score 1) 398

by Luther Blisset (#32359462) Attached to: The Fashion Industry As a Model For IP Reform

It wouldn't be possible to bind anyone to the contract. With copyright, anyone who wants to release a modified version of the software needs permission from the original author, and thus, has to agree to the contract in the license agreement. Without copyright, anyone could just do what they want without agreeing to any contract.

Are you sure about that? I'm fairly sure contracts exist today that are both completely unrelated to copyright and absolutely enforceable. I just sort of assumed they could be applied to what we consider copyrightable works if copyright didn't exist.

I understand that permission of the original author wouldn't be needed for anything once the software is obtained if one didn't agree to any binding conditions when obtaining it, but at least the first person to obtain it must obtain it from the developer, and that could be tied to a binding, enforceable contract to which one must agree to obtain the software. Let me explain with an example:

Bob is a developer, and he has created the amazing software "Foo 1.0". Now, Alice wants to use that software, but since it's new and nobody has obtained it yet, only Bob can give her a copy. And so, she contacts Bob, who tells her that if she wants a copy of "Foo 1.0", she must sign a contract. So Alice agrees, signs that contract, and gets the software. Now, I think that this would be reasonable and possible. And then, depending on the specifics of that contract (which I'd say is binding and enforceable), Alice may or may not be able to do certain things with the software she obtained, even if there's no copyright. Is my reasoning correct, or did I miss something important that makes it flawed?

Of course modified versions wouldn't be subject to the conditions of the original contract, but then again said contract could forbid the creation of modified versions, and/or publishing the source code.

Comment: Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (Score 1) 230

I am not reopening debate.

Neither am I, despite your claims that I am. And I never claimed you were.

We disagree.

I agree.

There is no reason or purpose to further debate.

Again, I agree. That's why I asked that you do not interpret my words as an attempt to continue debating.

I'm ready to let go, anytime you are.

I've been ready at least since the moment you first said that there is no reason or purpose to further debate.

See you in another life, brutha'.

Actually, I do not believe that there's another life, but that's a bit off topic (wait, do we still have a topic here? don't answer, it was a rhetorycal question).

Comment: Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (Score 1) 230

Stop reopening debate.

As I said, stop misrepresenting my words as an attempt to continue (or in this case, reopen; the difference between the two terms is largely irrelevant) some non-existant debate.

I'm ready to let go, anytime you are. We disagree. There is no reason or purpose to further debate.

See you in another life, brutha'.

Refer to the previous paragraph.

Comment: Re:OBT is not breaking any laws (Score 1) 230

This isn't about "having the last word". Let me quote myself here:

No, you do not understand me just fine.

Let me clarify again: "I disagree with your opinion."

WHY DID YOU ARGUE AGAINST THIS?!

I didn't. I simply stated that I did not see how that was related to what looked like a case of you being unable to understand me (regardless of you agreeing with me or not; in case you hadn't noticed, one can agree with things he/she understands and with things he/she doesn't understand, as much as one can disagree with things he/she understands and also with things he/she doesn't understand). Anyway, that's a moot point by now since you have stated that you understood me, and I'm willing to believe that if it'll help to end this rather idiotic argument we're having.

The only reason that is apparent to me is simply to be antagonistic.

This was the perfect opportunity for you to say: "yeah, we're never going to agree. 'See you in another life, brutha.'" And then it's over.

Done. Poof. Finished. We both walk away.

If you want to give a parting statement, that doesn't reopen debate, then I'm fine letting you "have the last word". But you just don't seem to want to let go.

I'm ready to let go, anytime you are. We disagree. There is no reason or purpose to further debate.

See you in another life, brutha'.

Then stop misrepresenting my words as an attempt to continue some non-existant debate. I believe I already said that's never been my intention, and if I haven't (probably because I thought it was implied or sufficiently obvious) or if you need me to explicitly state it, I'll do it now: that was never my intention.

Comment: Re:Planned obsolescene is in common (Score 1) 398

by Luther Blisset (#32347846) Attached to: The Fashion Industry As a Model For IP Reform

No, I don't. It is implemented exclusively by consumers, but the distinction "completely unaffected by any external influence" is useless. By that metric, the system is partially implemented by lightbulb manufacturers, since its their lights which control the lighting conditions in which the clothes are seen, and thus which fashions are bought.

But then we get into the not so obvious question of quantifying the effect of everything on everything (for example, I suggest that the effect of lighting over sales of brand clothing is lesser than the effect of advertising)... And frankly I believe both of us have better things to do.

Basically, what this comes down to is that the responsibility lies with the consumers, not the industry. This doesn't mean the industry has no effect on consumers' actions. The industry can encourage that behaviour, but again, the final word is given to the person themselves.

Agreed, but note that there's a difference betweeen "exclusively implemented by" and "the responsibility lies with". The first wording may be interpreted as you saying that there are no external influences, whereas the second can only be interpreted as "there may be influences, but ultimately it's up to the consumer and his willpower to resist those influences". But you've clarified what you meant, so yeah, not much to discuss here. ;)

Oh. Well, sorry. :-)

Oh, don't worry. That sentence of mine may in fact have been a little too vague, I'll just try to be more precise from now on...

Comment: Re:Don't care about Copyright? (Score 1) 398

by Luther Blisset (#32347404) Attached to: The Fashion Industry As a Model For IP Reform

No. Without copyright, all programs would be free to copy, but the source code would not be available.

I assume you mean "would not necessarily be available", since obviously one could still release source code he/she creates. Authors of derivative works, of course, wouldn't have to release the code, but even under the GPL in its current form (with copyright and all) they'd only be required to do that if they distribute the modified binaries. But none of that is absolutely dependent on copyright, which brings me to my next point:

GPL forces anyone who distributes a program to also distribute the source code, and without copyright there would be no way to enforce it.

Couldn't there be a sort of contract to which you have to agree before you can use the software, that could exist without copyright? I'd think it's possible, but I might be missing something.

A CONS is an object which cares. -- Bernie Greenberg.

Working...