I had a suspicion it would come to this...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| phsolide Feb 25, 2010 11:31 AM EDT |
I honestly don't know what some official who says this is thinking. If you push "Intellectual Property" as far as making open source into infringement, then you make things like textbooks that demonstrate algorithms impossible to print without causing all kinds of infringement. You also make everyone into a criminal, since there's only a limited number of ways of doing any particular task. The ramifications of this sort of thing, when pushed, make just about any kind of instructional material into rampant "infringement". The only way out of a bind like this is to make "rightsholders" into a special class of people, excluding the vast bulk of the populace from becoming "rightsholders". |
| flufferbeer Feb 25, 2010 12:07 PM EDT |
@phsolide,
Yeah, it doesn't make much sense.
Unless it comes through behind-the-$cene$ lobbying effort$ (if you get my drift) Why do some of us get the nagging suspicion that Micro$ucks and/or the RIAA are behind this International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) group ??? This Special 301 WOULD be something these guys would do. -fb |
| jdixon Feb 25, 2010 12:30 PM EDT |
> The ramifications of this sort of thing, when pushed, make just about any kind of instructional material into rampant "infringement". It's already that bad. The DMCA does not require that any protection method be effective to be protected. Under the DMCA, TC's example of 4x ROT13 encryption is a valid technological protection mechanism, which you would not be allowed to break, or show others how to break. Thus, if anyone actually claimed 4x ROT13 as their encryption method, it would become illegal to teach reading. Now, I'm fairly confident no judge would actually rule that way, but that's what the law says, and having seen some rulings in the past, I wouldn't put any money on the matter. |
| techiem2 Feb 25, 2010 2:54 PM EDT |
As has probably been said, the whole claim that promoting FOSS leads to disrespect for copyright and trademark laws is ridiculous.
Those who truly understand FOSS seem to be more in touch with such things and more respective of things like software licensing and copyright laws, since that is what FOSS is essentially based on to keep it Free and to prevent abuse by corporations. Another funny thing is how they claim that promoting FOSS in a detriment to capitalism. What they really mean of course, is that promoting FOSS is a detriment to the pocketbooks of the big corporations. I can just see the conversation now: MS Rep: "So Office 2010 is almost out! Obviously you're going to be signing a license agreement with us for the next 20 years for $$$$$$$" Org Rep: "Why? OpenOffice is free. And we can modify it if we need to! What makes MS Office so much better that we should pay $$$$$$$ for it?" MS Rep: "Because it's well supported!" Org Rep: "So is OO.o. I'm on 5 forums, 3 mailing lists, and 2 IRC channels that support it all the time, and company X will sell us support and customization services if we like." MS Rep: "But MSO has features X, Y, Z, and A that you really need!" Org Rep: "Uh...I don't know of ANYBODY in the org that has ever even thought of wanting those features...." MS Rep: "Um..Uh...You're just anti-capitalist and don't respect copyright laws!" Org Rep: "Oh really? Is that why we have 10 different vendors bidding on project X, 20 bidding on building project Y, and why we have a dedicated file in the legal department to hold all license and copyright details for every piece of software we use, including the 1 Windows machine in the org?" MS Rep: "This isn't fair! We're the best! EVERYBODY uses our software! You're just going to pirate it after I leave!" Org Rep: "Why would we waste the time, effort, and legal risk to pirate something that isn't as good as what we're using now?" MS Rep: "You'll be hearing from our lawyers!" Org Rep: "I'm sure we will, just like last year. Have a nice day!" MS Rep: "*grumble*" |
| bigg Feb 25, 2010 3:09 PM EDT |
While not wanting to violate your copyright, this is the way the conversation would really go down: MS Rep: "So Office 2010 is almost out! Obviously you're going to be signing a license agreement with us for the next 20 years for $$$$$$$" Org Rep: "Why? OpenOffice is free. And we can modify it if we need to! What makes MS Office so much better that we should pay $$$$$$$ for it?" MS Rep: "Because we'll find your wife a job at double her current salary." Org Rep: "Yeah, we can't trust that open source software that some kid wrote in his mom's basement." |
| helios Feb 25, 2010 3:23 PM EDT |
Aside from the aspects of this issue already brought up are the physical ones. What are organizations like The HeliOS Project supposed to do when the use ofOpen Source software is looked down upon and even discouraged? Beg and plead with Microsoft to sell us SP1 versions of XP for 50 bucks a pop? That's what they offered us in 2004 when we found a need for Windows in the use of wheelchair-bound kids. It was 50 bucks a license or nothing. I think I feel a worthless but cathartic "open letter" coming. For what it's worth... h |
| tuxchick Feb 25, 2010 4:10 PM EDT |
Ken, it's not worthless. We're up against relentless tides of propaganda, so we need to keep speaking out. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 25, 2010 4:57 PM EDT |
Choice in software is attacked, just as choice in everything else is attacked. ...if you choice isn't on the approved list. |
| gus3 Feb 25, 2010 6:07 PM EDT |
BSD is on the "approved" list. And the no-attribution BSD license is "OSI approved." Which means M$ are hypocrites. (sorry for stating the obvious...) |
| techiem2 Feb 25, 2010 6:43 PM EDT |
Not nice? Definitely. Hypocritical? Not really. It's pretty standard MS behavior. If they can't make it (or don't feel like making it): buy it (and break it), "borrow" it (and break it), or steal it (and brake it). MS is fine with FOSS as long as: 1. It doesn't in any way shape or form interfere with their own business (i.e. FOSS apps that run only on Windows and that don't replicate any of their software) - these just get people more locked into Windows and don't hurt MS sales. (thus all the attempts to cozy up to FOSS developers and get them to think that Windows is the superior development environment) 2. They can use the code however they feel like in their apps without having to give any credit or give anything back (i.e. BSD licensed code) - This lets them get all the benefits of FOSS production but gives them no responsibility to admit it or to return anything to the community - basically giving them free code to lock down with the rest of their code. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 26, 2010 10:31 AM EDT |
In another forum, I've seem long and somewhat informed postings from a gentleman who is convinced that the GPL is "false" freedom, in that there are things you cannot do with the code. BSD and MIT licenses are "more free, as in freedom", because there is more that you can do with the code. Public domain, of course, is the most free since there are no restrictions on the use of the code. Such is life. Microsoft does what Microsoft thinks is in Microsoft's best interest. If that means poaching code from other sources, well, Disney made several bloody FORTUNES by poaching stories from the public domain, too. |
| jacog Feb 26, 2010 11:23 AM EDT |
The propaganda usually seems to be either "FOSS is inferior" or "FOSS is a threat to..." But really, how can it be both? |
| gus3 Feb 26, 2010 12:17 PM EDT |
@jacog: When "cheap" trumps "quality", "inferior" implies "threat". Look at the DVD player market for an example. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 26, 2010 12:39 PM EDT |
> Look at the DVD player market for an example. As an aside, my 8 year old DVD player ignores the "locked out" function on DVDs. Meaning I can always access the menu, skip the FBI warnings, etc. Not so my new one. Was almost enough to take it back, except I'm reasonably sure any other new one will do exactly the same thing. |
| gus3 Feb 26, 2010 1:41 PM EDT |
FOSS FTW! |
| hkwint Feb 26, 2010 2:05 PM EDT |
Quoting:But really, how can it be both? Buddhists say: "Emptyness and shape are one". |
| tracyanne Feb 26, 2010 7:25 PM EDT |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcvd5JZkUXY |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!