Hi all,

    I've recently finished a working draft of my game engine (my first)!
Looking at it now, since it's so big and I was the only coder on it, it
feels like 9 parts hack and 1 part good design.

    I've heard a lot of support for the notion of open sourcing large
projects and for web sites like sourceforge.net.  While I'm quite certain
that I've not written anything "new" or "groundbreaking", I'm hesitant to
open source my engine or even to share it online.  It feels too much like
just throwing away all my hard work.  At the same time though, it's tempting
to see how much improvement could be done to my engine with a lot more
people (and with some real skills ;-) working on it.

    Is open sourcing safe as far as maintaining credit/control/ownership of
software?
--

Best wishes,
Allen

Allen wrote:

>     I've heard a lot of support for the notion of open sourcing large
> projects and for web sites like sourceforge.net.  While I'm quite certain
> that I've not written anything "new" or "groundbreaking", I'm hesitant to
> open source my engine or even to share it online.  It feels too much like
> just throwing away all my hard work.  At the same time though, it's tempting
> to see how much improvement could be done to my engine with a lot more
> people (and with some real skills ;-) working on it.

Is it throwing it away to open source or to keep it closed?  Are you 
going to try and sell it?  Could you?  Is it just going to sit there and 
do nothing until you accidentally delete it?

I personally get a kick out of seeing my download ratio rise.  This 
means that some of those people are actually using what I made, possibly 
some are actually enjoying it (I have had feedback that says so).  This 
is my reward besides just the joy of coding and of using the product I 
created.  Eventually I do plan on selling my program, and I know that I 
will be able to even though it is free online...some people like to buy 
the package or don't want to be bothered to compile, especially if you 
are targeting something niche.
> 
>     Is open sourcing safe as far as maintaining credit/control/ownership of
> software?

Ownership yes, control - depends on your definition, credit the same.

Most of the time you will always get credit where due.  People will be 
willing to work with you and allow you to maintain control of your own 
project but sometimes someone will decide to change it in a way you 
disagree with and they will fork.  This isn't a bad thing, you maintain 
control over your own version and someone else takes it another way - 
99% of the people out there are reasonable enough not to use your name 
except to credit the origional.

You will always own your code.  I am not sure what the legalese is when 
someone contributes to your tree and you accept it, is it yours or 
theirs.  I would think it is yours even though they wrote it because it 
is a derivative and is being given to you, but you may have to have them 
do so explicitly.  If you use an agreement like MIT or BSD it doesn't 
even matter but with GPL you could get into trouble if you decided to 
close source future versions - you might have to weed out all outside 
contributions!

Now, on the other hand, I have run into trouble with rude and 
inconsiderate people.  I had someone fork from my project and use a name 
that should have been reserved to said project without my permission or 
even notifying me that they intended to do so.  This was done simply 
because I wasn't fast enough at comming up with that part of the 
project; they even paid someone to write their code, which left me with 
a pange of jealosy and general bad feelings.  Such cases are very 
dissapointing.  Their project is not even on par with the popularity 
mine gets though so I guess I "win" in the end; I did have to publicly 
disavow their fork though because of repeated support requests for their 
program comming to me - all because of the damn name issue...and of 
course the fact that they advertized their program on my support forums!

I guess I am still upset :P

Most of the time this kind of crap doesn't take place but when it does 
there is nothing you can legaly do about it if you have open sourced 
your software.  In my mind it is worth the risk because the alternative 
is to not share and I don't feel that a few assholes should stop me from 
doing that.  I only mention the above because you shouldn't get the 
wrong idea and think that the OSS world is all happy cooperating 
programmers or that just because you are nice and give stuff away nobody 
will try to bend you over.  Most people are nice, most programmers are 
cool especially in OSS, but you can't escape the jerks because they are 
everywhere.

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

> Is it throwing it away to open source or to keep it closed?  Are you
> going to try and sell it?  Could you?  Is it just going to sit there and
> do nothing until you accidentally delete it?

Hmm.. Good response! Especially this line, but everything in general.

I think that sharing your code can be truly  benefitial to yourself and
others, especially if you're not planning on making any profit of it
anyways.
Besides, we all learn from others' codes, it is not 100% our pure invention,
so it is arguably based on the public's previous work, thus, should be
available back to the public... I don't really think this logic is
completely correct but it's interesting for me to think of it this way.

Roy

Roy Klein wrote:
> Besides, we all learn from others' codes, it is not 100% our pure invention,
> so it is arguably based on the public's previous work, thus, should be
> available back to the public... I don't really think this logic is
> completely correct but it's interesting for me to think of it this way.

At one time I started writing a paper on this, the ethical reasoning to 
"Intelectual Property".  I never finished it though.  But the gist is 
similar to what you are saying.  Without input from culture, previous 
works, and other external public influences there is no creativity at 
all.  In fact, actual individual creation is a very small amount of what 
goes into a new invention/song/program/whatever.  So actually since you 
contribution to your own ideas is minimal at best, how can you claim 
ownership of them...especially at the detriment to the society that 
/gave/ you that idea?

In reality, the idea of intelectual "property" is a misnomer created by 
the people who want to engrain into society as a whole the conclusion 
that they don't have a true ethical right to these ideas/"properties". 
The process of copyright/patent is a grant, from the society that 
actually owns the thing, the temporarily exclusive ownership of an idea, 
sort of payment for the small amount of yourself that went into it.  In 
a society based on trade, which we are, this sort of thing is necissary. 
  But society is getting robbed and brainwashed into not only giving 
away its own rights to its own culture, but also into the belief that 
those rights do not in fact exist.

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

Noah Roberts wrote:
>
> Now, on the other hand, I have run into trouble with rude and
> inconsiderate people.  I had someone fork from my project and use a
> name
> that should have been reserved to said project without my permission
> or
> even notifying me that they intended to do so.  This was done simply
> because I wasn't fast enough at comming up with that part of the
> project; they even paid someone to write their code, which left me
> with a pange of jealosy and general bad feelings.

Well let's face it, one of the main benefits of Open Source is not having to
wait on people who want to control what you can do with the code.  If you
license stuff as open source, you can't reasonably expect people to march to
your timeframe.  They have their business deadlines to meet that you don't
have....

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Noah Roberts wrote:
> 
>> So actually since
>>you contribution to your own ideas is minimal at best, how can you
>>claim ownership of them...especially at the detriment to the society
>>that /gave/ you that idea?
> 
> 
> Because society doesn't sit around giving you ideas.  Society sits around
> ripping you off for having spent a lot of your own time and money coming up
> with working solutions.

Using what knowledge?  I assume you mean to say you created these 
working solutions in a vaccuum?  What are you building, stone wheels?


-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

Noah Roberts wrote:
>  So actually since
> you contribution to your own ideas is minimal at best, how can you
> claim ownership of them...especially at the detriment to the society
> that /gave/ you that idea?

Because society doesn't sit around giving you ideas.  Society sits around
ripping you off for having spent a lot of your own time and money coming up
with working solutions.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Allen wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
>     I've recently finished a working draft of my game engine (my
> first)! Looking at it now, since it's so big and I was the only coder
> on it, it feels like 9 parts hack and 1 part good design.
> 
>     I've heard a lot of support for the notion of open sourcing large
> projects and for web sites like sourceforge.net.  While I'm quite
> certain that I've not written anything "new" or "groundbreaking", I'm
> hesitant to open source my engine or even to share it online.  It
> feels too much like just throwing away all my hard work.  At the same
> time though, it's tempting to see how much improvement could be done
> to my engine with a lot more people (and with some real skills ;-)
> working on it. 
> 
>     Is open sourcing safe as far as maintaining
> credit/control/ownership of software?

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

In article <iUolb.188905$0v4.14600513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, "Allen" <allen-terri-ng!@#att.net> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>    I've recently finished a working draft of my game engine (my first)!
>Looking at it now, since it's so big and I was the only coder on it, it
>feels like 9 parts hack and 1 part good design.
>
>    I've heard a lot of support for the notion of open sourcing large
>projects and for web sites like sourceforge.net.  While I'm quite certain
>that I've not written anything "new" or "groundbreaking", I'm hesitant to
>open source my engine or even to share it online.  It feels too much like
>just throwing away all my hard work.  At the same time though, it's tempting
>to see how much improvement could be done to my engine with a lot more
>people (and with some real skills ;-) working on it.

Presumably you have something that people want, or something that they 
don't.  If they don't, they will hardly work for free on it, but 
throwing it open costs you nothing.  If they do, you might get help but 
it hardly seems like a good way to get paid for your work, at least in 
most spheres.

>    Is open sourcing safe as far as maintaining credit/control/ownership of
>software?

Credit, probably.  Ownership (in the legal sense), completely.  Control 
- you do the math.

- Gerry Quinn

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Noah Roberts wrote:
> 
>>Now, on the other hand, I have run into trouble with rude and
>>inconsiderate people.  I had someone fork from my project and use a
>>name
>>that should have been reserved to said project without my permission
>>or
>>even notifying me that they intended to do so.  This was done simply
>>because I wasn't fast enough at comming up with that part of the
>>project; they even paid someone to write their code, which left me
>>with a pange of jealosy and general bad feelings.
> 
> 
> Well let's face it, one of the main benefits of Open Source is not having to
> wait on people who want to control what you can do with the code.  If you
> license stuff as open source, you can't reasonably expect people to march to
> your timeframe.  They have their business deadlines to meet that you don't
> have....
> 

1) Who said this had anything to do with business deadlines, or anything 
to do with businesses in the first place?  However, you point is correct 
- you can't expect that people won't be in such a hurry that they can't 
wait and need to come up with it on their own.  But you can reasonably 
expect some courtesy.

2) When you are writing something on a voulanteer basis in the time not 
speant trying to eat, some things get placed on a back burner.  Had this 
person come to me before hiring someone to implement something I was 
going to anyway, I may have altered my priorities.  This seems like 
common decency to me, you at least offer - then if they don't want to 
put a rush on hire some outsider to do it.

I think you are making a lot of assumptions about something you know 
next to nothing about.

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

In article <bn5d9v$cpc$1@quark.scn.rain.com>,
Noah Roberts  <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>
>Using what knowledge?  I assume you mean to say you created these 
>working solutions in a vaccuum?  What are you building, stone wheels?

Oh, don't you know? Brandon invented binary logic :-)

Cheers
	Bent D
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs

"Bent C Dalager" <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> schreef in bericht
news:bn5dum$s6u$2@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no...
> In article <bn5d9v$cpc$1@quark.scn.rain.com>,
> Noah Roberts  <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
> >
> >Using what knowledge?  I assume you mean to say you created these
> >working solutions in a vaccuum?  What are you building, stone wheels?
>
> Oh, don't you know? Brandon invented binary logic :-)

I think Brandon tries to say that when you spent a lot of time and money to
write a program, you open the source, and instead of people inputting new
ideas and improving the program they just take your code and use it, there's
nothing in it for you. So why open the source? That's not my experience
though. I have one open source project i worked for 2 years on
(freeimage.sourceforge.net) that's now being developed without much of my
input. And the developers do a pretty fine job so far.

Floris

In article <bn5bss$9ov$1@quark.scn.rain.com>, Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>Roy Klein wrote:
>> Besides, we all learn from others' codes, it is not 100% our pure invention,
>> so it is arguably based on the public's previous work, thus, should be
>> available back to the public... I don't really think this logic is
>> completely correct but it's interesting for me to think of it this way.
>
>At one time I started writing a paper on this, the ethical reasoning to 
>"Intelectual Property".  I never finished it though.  But the gist is 
>similar to what you are saying.  Without input from culture, previous 
>works, and other external public influences there is no creativity at 
>all.  In fact, actual individual creation is a very small amount of what 
>goes into a new invention/song/program/whatever.  So actually since you 
>contribution to your own ideas is minimal at best, how can you claim 
>ownership of them...especially at the detriment to the society that 
>/gave/ you that idea?

You are distributing your closed source program, to the benefit of 
society.  The only ideas you are keeping secret are precisely those you 
have contributed yourself (you are of course keeping your own 
expressions of many ideas secret too).  After all, the ideas you took 
from pre-existing public culture are still there - you have not removed 
them!

In fact, the result of expressing these ideas is visible too - people 
can see the finished program. 

>In reality, the idea of intelectual "property" is a misnomer created by 
>the people who want to engrain into society as a whole the conclusion 
>that they don't have a true ethical right to these ideas/"properties". 

On the contrary, IP is the most important kind of property, and not much 
different from any other kind.  Your ownership of a house or car 
effectively just means that society grants its exclusive use to you - if 
squatters or joyriders can use them anytime, you have no effective 
ownership.  Of course this is deeply ingrained in our biology, too, 
although it is ownly in modern complex societies that our primal 
instincts become applicable to IP.

As people who argue along the lines you propose usually do, you conflate 
patents and copyrights.  Only patents protect ideas, the protection time 
is very limited and the ideas have to be adjudged novel (the last bit 
needs improvement, I agree).  Copyrights protect only the expression of 
ideas, and prevent nobody from using the ideas - that's why long 
copyright periods do no obvious harm that I can see.  You can't use 
Mickey directly but you can create an animated mouse of your own any 
time you want.  Mickey is not the idea of a cartoon mouse, but an 
expression of that idea. 

Gerry Quinn                                   
-- 
http://bindweed.com 
Kaleidoscopic Screensavers and Games for Windows
Download free trial versions
New screensaver: "Hypercurve"

Bent C Dalager wrote:
> In article <bn5d9v$cpc$1@quark.scn.rain.com>,
> Noah Roberts  <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
> 
>>Using what knowledge?  I assume you mean to say you created these 
>>working solutions in a vaccuum?  What are you building, stone wheels?
> 
> 
> Oh, don't you know? Brandon invented binary logic :-)

Well even so, he probbably used over 3000 years of advances in math, 
which I highly doubt he managed to create wholely on his own :P  He 
probably wrote it down on his paper invention using the pens that he 
invented and manufactured using a language he created for his own 
benefit.  Of course he also invented all the crap the led him to the 
idea of binary logic because we all know society had no part to play :P

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

Allen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>     I've recently finished a working draft of my game engine (my
> first)! Looking at it now, since it's so big and I was the only coder
> on it, it feels like 9 parts hack and 1 part good design.
>
>     I've heard a lot of support for the notion of open sourcing large
> projects and for web sites like sourceforge.net.  While I'm quite
> certain that I've not written anything "new" or "groundbreaking", I'm
> hesitant to open source my engine or even to share it online.  It
> feels too much like just throwing away all my hard work.

Congratulations, you've discovered one of the pitfalls of Not Invented Here.
Yep, you can definitely waste a lot of your time and money on technology
that, in hindsight, turns out to be utterly pointless.  The thing to do next
is to consider what parts of your business model are right, and what parts
are wrong.  You have to let go of what you've done wrong and move on.

For instance, I just spent most of last year overengineering my 3D planetary
rendering code for Ocean Mars.  I've now got some kewl spherical hexified
icosahedron planet code, and there's no way in hell I'm ever turning that IP
over to anyone.  It only represents, um, the complete and utter destruction
of my personal finances.  It was built very solid, I'll just pick up the
project again at some point in the future when I'm ready.

On the other hand, I went through lotsa gruntwork bullshit to get to that
point.  A lot of generic 3D engine stuff that is of *no* proprietary value
at all.  I've now realized how stupid it is to do all of my own 3D gruntwork
from scratch.  I won't anymore.  Putting ego aside, and eschewing perfection
for nominal notions of quality, I've cast my lot with The Nebula Device
crowd.
http://nebuladevice.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Nebula/WebHome
Gruntwork is where open source is going to fit into my business model.  If
it's gruntwork, we can share it, get it over with, ease our mutual pain and
suffering.  Really, how many people like dealing with Microsoft technologies
anyways?  Let's wrap 'em all up so we don't have to !#@!!# deal with 'em.

If it's a competitive advantage, it stays closed.  I ain't sharin' nuthin
with nobody!  I'll worry about sharing stuff like that when I'm out of my
prolific debt.  When ahm rolling in megabucks and y'all eatin' mah planetary
debris, bhwwaahahahaahah!!!

Time for your self-assessment.  How much of your engine is novel technology
that gives you a competitive advantage?  Keep that stuff, keep it
proprietary.  How much is crap that any old schmoe could have done, has been
doing, is doing over and over again?  Throw away your Not Invented Here
crap, abandon your "I've gotta do everything myself" ego, and move on.  The
farther and farther you get into true indie game development, the more you
will realize there is no other way.  You *CANNOT* build everything, you
*SHOULD NOT* build everything.  There simply aren't enough hours in a year.

> At the same
> time though, it's tempting to see how much improvement could be done
> to my engine with a lot more people (and with some real skills ;-)
> working on it.

That's your ego talking.  Are you some kind of godsend of a project manager?
If not, don't sign up for the headaches.  Don't waste your energy.  You are
better off just scrapping what's not worth anything, taking a deep breath,
and starting again on some real workable goals.  That could mean, for
instance, contributing to someone else's project that's well under way,
rather than trying to get overweening control or limelight credit.
Limelight credit has no commercial value anyways.  All that matters is if
you can convince some suit to pay you $100/hr for your technical expertise.
You do that by a combination of skill and charm, not your exact marquee on
some project.  And I do believe your charm is the more important factor
here.

A word on morale: a failure of this magnitude can knock you out of
commission for several months.  That certainly happened to me.  But you will
get over it.  I'd say I'm only getting over it and moving on about now.  My
tailspin lasted 4 months.  Big doubts about whether, after 11 years, I was
even in the right field.  But I got over it, because I love game design, and
there are games I must make.

Realize also that even if you keep no code at all, your effort was not in
vain.  You are now a smarter project architect.  You are not likely to make
exactly the same mistakes next time.  Of course, that means you will make
new ones.  :-)  Keep trying to get done what you want done, and eventually
you will figure out the way.  Part of that way is figuring out when to work
with other people, and when to ignore them.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Jefferson and I share the same mind when it comes to copyrights and
patents.

Many argue weather Open Sores facilitates competition, but given the way
patents are being abused now (Yes, Virgina, you can patent IDEAS!) Open
Sores certainly does facilitate technological growth.

Open Sores vs Closed Source? I am a firm believer the originator of any
work should decide what is done with it.  If my employer pays me to write
software for them, then you bet your ass it is they who decide what shall
be done with it.  By the same token, if Allen writes a program it is only
fitting HE decides what is done with it.

Publishing the source code implies a lot of things.  I used to assume
people understood 1) the word `imply', 2) those things.  Publishing the
source means the originator has lost a monopoly of it's use.  Since I
can't do anything correct until I've done it wrong a few times I kinda
welcome the public critique that comes with Open Sores development.  Since
I also hate casting pearls before swine I don't like arming morons with
Secrets of The Universe.  I'm obviously torn between the two models.

I think this all comes down to what the originator would like.  If my
business model depends on service contracts for support of my product I
would probably welcome and benefit from an Open Sores initiative.  By the
same token, if my business model depends on selling shrink-wrapped widgets
I might find my niche in copyrighting the binaries only, sealing the
source code from public eyes.

Allen: go ahead and open up the project.  Someone might help you out with
the rough edges you mentioned, and only another programmer can appreciate
the beauty and elagence in the poetry wrote, that merely by coincidence
only happens to instruct an x86.

I hope this helps, and I hope it doesn't start any flame wars.
</RANT>

Interesting and related aside:
Archemedes's `The Method' was recently uncovered in a palimpset.  Since
the US Patent Office now accepts algorithms could the Heirs of Archemedes
patent integral calculus (he was doing it before N&L)? Could the Heirs of
Archemedes claim a patent on programming (I define `programming' as
`solving a puzzle', not `typing')? Are these notions patently offensive?
This obviously points to serious flaws in the current US patent
procedures, which may not be entirely incidental to objections many
altruists have with the concept of `Intellectual Property'.
Careful: I said `altruist', not `socialist'; This is not flame-bait.

Floris van den Berg wrote:
> "Bent C Dalager" <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> schreef in bericht
> news:bn5dum$s6u$2@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no...
>> In article <bn5d9v$cpc$1@quark.scn.rain.com>,
>> Noah Roberts  <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Using what knowledge?  I assume you mean to say you created these
>>> working solutions in a vaccuum?  What are you building, stone
>>> wheels?
>>
>> Oh, don't you know? Brandon invented binary logic :-)
>
> I think Brandon tries to say that when you spent a lot of time and
> money to write a program, you open the source, and instead of people
> inputting new ideas and improving the program they just take your
> code and use it, there's nothing in it for you.

More to the point, if you are too generous with your R&D, corporations
*will* rip you off, *will* productize your R&D, *will not* compensate you
one penny for it.  Patent Law is for protecting the small inventor from
greedy corporations like Microsoft.

Personally I think if you're going to patent something in software, it
better jolly well be worthy of patenting.  I am opposed to frivolous
software patents, which is to say, most of them.  I am opposed to legal
prospecting in general.  But there are people and companies who legitimately
need the protections of patent law.

Patents are an incentive to progress.  Without patents, few people would
have the economic incentive to create new processes.  I've rarely met an
anti-patent person who was (1) self-funded, (2) capable of producing
anything worthy of a patent.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <bn5bss$9ov$1@quark.scn.rain.com>, Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
> 
>>Roy Klein wrote:
>>
>>>Besides, we all learn from others' codes, it is not 100% our pure invention,
>>>so it is arguably based on the public's previous work, thus, should be
>>>available back to the public... I don't really think this logic is
>>>completely correct but it's interesting for me to think of it this way.
>>
>>At one time I started writing a paper on this, the ethical reasoning to 
>>"Intelectual Property".  I never finished it though.  But the gist is 
>>similar to what you are saying.  Without input from culture, previous 
>>works, and other external public influences there is no creativity at 
>>all.  In fact, actual individual creation is a very small amount of what 
>>goes into a new invention/song/program/whatever.  So actually since you 
>>contribution to your own ideas is minimal at best, how can you claim 
>>ownership of them...especially at the detriment to the society that 
>>/gave/ you that idea?
> 
> 
> You are distributing your closed source program, to the benefit of 
> society.  The only ideas you are keeping secret are precisely those you 
> have contributed yourself (you are of course keeping your own 
> expressions of many ideas secret too).  After all, the ideas you took 
> from pre-existing public culture are still there - you have not removed 
> them!

What is society getting out of the deal?  You take what society gave 
you, add a small spattering of your own, and then sell it back.  Nothing 
has been contributed, seems like a rather one sided transaction to me.
> 
> In fact, the result of expressing these ideas is visible too - people 
> can see the finished program. 

But society has to purchase the right to view it.  So long as there is a 
fair limit amount that must be paid, in the way of time, then this is 
fair and necissary in our society because we are trade based.  In some 
utopian society even this would be unreasonable.

You also bring up an interesting point that the ideas I don't express 
are similar to the ones I do but keep secret.  Consider what happens at 
that point, society creates it again in someone else.  So long as I 
never expressed the idea, and didn't claim ownership of it, this other 
person is legally free to do so.  Consider the invention of Calculus, 
which took place in two seperate people at the same time.  Also consider 
the telephone; it is only by time alone that we consider Bell the 
inventor of the telephone because he got to the patent office first.

What I mean to say is that by not expressing an idea I have I am leaving 
the door open for it to be recreated.  In our current situation, should 
I lay claim to that idea then society is beholden to me for an 
undertermined amount of time, possibly as long as there is a corperation 
that can continue claiming it, to gain access to that idea.  There is 
something inherently broken there.
> 
> 
>>In reality, the idea of intelectual "property" is a misnomer created by 
>>the people who want to engrain into society as a whole the conclusion 
>>that they don't have a true ethical right to these ideas/"properties". 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, IP is the most important kind of property, and not much 
> different from any other kind.  Your ownership of a house or car 
> effectively just means that society grants its exclusive use to you - if 
> squatters or joyriders can use them anytime, you have no effective 
> ownership.  Of course this is deeply ingrained in our biology, too, 
> although it is ownly in modern complex societies that our primal 
> instincts become applicable to IP.
> 
> As people who argue along the lines you propose usually do, you conflate 
> patents and copyrights.  Only patents protect ideas, the protection time 
> is very limited and the ideas have to be adjudged novel (the last bit 
> needs improvement, I agree).

Patents are definately the worst of the two.  Patents actually kill.  If 
it wasn't for the breaking of patents there would be no help for poor 
countries trying to hamper AIDS.  This is not acceptable.

   Copyrights protect only the expression of
> ideas, and prevent nobody from using the ideas - that's why long 
> copyright periods do no obvious harm that I can see.  You can't use 
> Mickey directly but you can create an animated mouse of your own any 
> time you want.  Mickey is not the idea of a cartoon mouse, but an 
> expression of that idea. 

Actually copyright closes a lot of doors on the advancement of many 
ideas.  For instance, I don't believe you could legally distribute a 
text book you wrote based on the MIX computer without Knuth's 
permission.  This would be a derivative work and I don't think fair use 
would help you.  Of course Knuth is very open to this and in fact has 
requested that a book on OS's be developed using the MMIX.

If we go into the realm of fictional creations you run into all sorts of 
problems.  You are not going to be able to write a book that takes place 
in the Star Wars universe and expect any amount of civility from 
Lucasfilms.  In fact they have killed several fan works that could have 
been incredibly interesting.

What I am seing, and what I have a problem with, is that society 
contributes a great deal to these ideas and the only thing they get back 
is to be forever indebited to the person who the idea happens to take 
hold in, the perpetual right to pay for access to something that it was 
99% responsible for creating.  This is especially concerning when you 
realize that much of our modern culture is based on things on TV, the 
movies, and the radio.  Much of culture is its music and other forms of 
entertainment and artistic expression.  Basically our culture is "owned" 
by a few corperations and they are trying very hard to make it 
impossible to break this hold, in my opinion they don't own these things 
- or at least don't have the right to and don't have the right to.

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

Noah Roberts wrote:
> Bent C Dalager wrote:
>> In article <bn5d9v$cpc$1@quark.scn.rain.com>,
>> Noah Roberts  <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Using what knowledge?  I assume you mean to say you created these
>>> working solutions in a vaccuum?  What are you building, stone
>>> wheels?
>>
>>
>> Oh, don't you know? Brandon invented binary logic :-)
>
> Well even so, he probbably used over 3000 years of advances in math,
> which I highly doubt he managed to create wholely on his own :P  He
> probably wrote it down on his paper invention using the pens that he
> invented and manufactured using a language he created for his own
> benefit.  Of course he also invented all the crap the led him to the
> idea of binary logic because we all know society had no part to play
> :P

How on Earth did I become a strawman for someone's pathetic concerns about
binary logic?  If there was ever a patent on binary logic, it expired a long
time ago.  Patents aren't forever, they are a delay.  You get the benefit of
the societal delay because you risked the $$$$$$$ for the societal speedup.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

"Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> schreef in
bericht news:bn5fud$ss5iu$1@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de...

[snip]


> > I think Brandon tries to say that when you spent a lot of time and
> > money to write a program, you open the source, and instead of people
> > inputting new ideas and improving the program they just take your
> > code and use it, there's nothing in it for you.
>
> More to the point, if you are too generous with your R&D, corporations
> *will* rip you off, *will* productize your R&D, *will not* compensate you
> one penny for it.  Patent Law is for protecting the small inventor from
> greedy corporations like Microsoft.
>
> Personally I think if you're going to patent something in software, it
> better jolly well be worthy of patenting.  I am opposed to frivolous
> software patents, which is to say, most of them.  I am opposed to legal
> prospecting in general.  But there are people and companies who
legitimately
> need the protections of patent law.
>
> Patents are an incentive to progress.  Without patents, few people would
> have the economic incentive to create new processes.  I've rarely met an
> anti-patent person who was (1) self-funded, (2) capable of producing
> anything worthy of a patent.

I totally agree with you. So, before you open the source of a project,
consider first if it's worth it. If it's really cutting edge technology that
you intend to sell you might not want to open the source. But if you are
just learning, want to do the world a favour, want to get joy out of people
using your software, want others to look at your software and critique, etc.
etc. go ahead. I sure don't regret opening the source of my bitmap library
project (without the input of others it would sure have sucked a lot).

Floris

Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> As people who argue along the lines you propose usually do, you
> conflate
> patents and copyrights.  Only patents protect ideas, the protection
> time
> is very limited and the ideas have to be adjudged novel (the last bit
> needs improvement, I agree).

Actually, I don't think patents protect ideas, I think they protect ideas
embodied in concrete processes.  But I am unsure here.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Noah Roberts wrote:
> 
>>1) Who said this had anything to do with business deadlines, or
>>anything
>>to do with businesses in the first place?  However, you point is
>>correct
>>- you can't expect that people won't be in such a hurry that they
>>can't
>>wait and need to come up with it on their own.  But you can reasonably
>>expect some courtesy.
> 
> 
> Clearly, courtesy ends when definite need begins.  Nobody's going to sit
> around endangering their own projects in order to "be courteous."  Just as
> the original author isn't going to "courteously" march to the schedule of
> someone else's need.
> 
>>I think you are making a lot of assumptions about something you know
>>next to nothing about.
> 
> 
> I think you're too biased in this matter to see the general point of view of
> the other side.  You think open source is supposed to automatically revolve
> around you, the author.  It isn't.  That's why it's open source.  If you
> want it to revolve around you, the author, license it differently.
> 

You are still talking out of your ass.  Stop eating chili.

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

Noah Roberts wrote:
>
> 1) Who said this had anything to do with business deadlines, or
> anything
> to do with businesses in the first place?  However, you point is
> correct
> - you can't expect that people won't be in such a hurry that they
> can't
> wait and need to come up with it on their own.  But you can reasonably
> expect some courtesy.

Clearly, courtesy ends when definite need begins.  Nobody's going to sit
around endangering their own projects in order to "be courteous."  Just as
the original author isn't going to "courteously" march to the schedule of
someone else's need.

> 2) When you are writing something on a voulanteer basis in the time
> not speant trying to eat, some things get placed on a back burner.
> Had this person come to me before hiring someone to implement
> something I was
> going to anyway, I may have altered my priorities.  This seems like
> common decency to me, you at least offer - then if they don't want to
> put a rush on hire some outsider to do it.

Did you have an obvious business model where they knew if they contacted
you, you could provide features for them for such-and-such a rate?  Like, a
website pitching your services?

> I think you are making a lot of assumptions about something you know
> next to nothing about.

I think you're too biased in this matter to see the general point of view of
the other side.  You think open source is supposed to automatically revolve
around you, the author.  It isn't.  That's why it's open source.  If you
want it to revolve around you, the author, license it differently.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

(Followups to comp.programming only. I hate myself for writing this
response in the first place.)

gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote:
> Copyrights protect only the expression of
> ideas, and prevent nobody from using the ideas - that's why long
> copyright periods do no obvious harm that I can see.  You can't use
> Mickey directly but you can create an animated mouse of your own any
> time you want.  Mickey is not the idea of a cartoon mouse, but an
> expression of that idea.

If we had perpetual copyright, there is an awful lot of work derived from
Shakespear, Grimm, etc which might not have been made. Disney would have
hardly made anything at all if they could not have used works which we now
have in the public domain.

Copyright exists to provide an incentive to authors (that's us) to do our
work, without having to resort to crude patronages in days of old. Society
benfits from authors creating stuff which they may not have otherwise
bothered to create and the author benefits from being the only one who can
make copies and is allowed to charge whatever the author feels the market
will bear.

Problem is, with copyright, a monopoly is created. Monopolies are usually
bad things. There is a quid-pro-quo in copyright. What society gives up
(ability to make copies) should be of equal value of what society gets back
(books, music, computer software).

One way of restraining the gift of legally-enforced-monopoly is to make it
of limited time. How much is reasonable is debatable. (IMO, 14 years is too
short and life+70 years is way too long. I'd favour a flat 70 years.)

Bill, we now return you to your scheduled newsgroup.

-- 
   The address in the reply to header is correct, but I'll
   read it quicker if you drop the word "usenet".

Timothy J. Bruce wrote:
> Interesting and related aside:
> Archemedes's `The Method' was recently uncovered in a palimpset.
> Since the US Patent Office now accepts algorithms could the Heirs of
> Archemedes patent integral calculus (he was doing it before N&L)?
> Could the Heirs of Archemedes claim a patent on programming (I define
> `programming' as `solving a puzzle', not `typing')?

Nope, there's plenty of prior art for programming.  Prior art isn't reckoned
according to when something was invented, it's reckoned according to when
the patent claim is filed.  Your historical questions are utterly
uninteresting.

> Are these notions patently offensive?

No, just patently ridiculous.

> This obviously points to serious flaws in the
> current US patent procedures,

Not in the slightest.  If you really believe so, you need to brush up on
Patent Law 101.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Noah Roberts wrote:
> 
>>What is society getting out of the deal?  You take what society gave
>>you, add a small spattering of your own, and then sell it back.
>>Nothing
>>has been contributed, seems like a rather one sided transaction to me.
> 
> 
> Noah, are you (1) self-funded,

I am not paid for the development I do.  I have been paid before, when 
it happened it was under explicit agreements that placed the code in 
open source.  I do have a job, I write code for someone else (among 
other things) - I have no control over it.

  (2) engaged in any kind of cutting edge R&D?

Yet to be seen.

> If not, your remarks are those of a self-serving whiner who expects others
> to do the hard work of thinking for free.

Not true.  Everything I have done has gone open source.  It does not 
matter if it is "cutting edge" or not, they are works that involved much 
time and hard work.  Some of what I have done was not seen elsewhere, 
some has - none is anything you would get a phd for.

   If you are, at least you can
> argue the merits / demerits of your idealism from a credible position.

You're so full of shit it isn't even funny anymore.
> 


-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

Noah Roberts wrote:
>
> What is society getting out of the deal?  You take what society gave
> you, add a small spattering of your own, and then sell it back.
> Nothing
> has been contributed, seems like a rather one sided transaction to me.

Noah, are you (1) self-funded, (2) engaged in any kind of cutting edge R&D?
If not, your remarks are those of a self-serving whiner who expects others
to do the hard work of thinking for free.  If you are, at least you can
argue the merits / demerits of your idealism from a credible position.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

"Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> schreef in
bericht news:bn5g90$s76fe$1@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Gerry Quinn wrote:
> >
> > As people who argue along the lines you propose usually do, you
> > conflate
> > patents and copyrights.  Only patents protect ideas, the protection
> > time
> > is very limited and the ideas have to be adjudged novel (the last bit
> > needs improvement, I agree).
>
> Actually, I don't think patents protect ideas, I think they protect ideas
> embodied in concrete processes.  But I am unsure here.

No, patents protect ideas. But afaik the idea has to be concrete enough to
be patentable. As an example you can't patent: "some thingie that you put
under a car to make it drive". You can however patent a good definition of a
wheel (though it wouldn't last longer than 5 seconds in court).

Floris

(Followups to comp.programming only.)
"Timothy J. Bruce" <uniblab@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I think this all comes down to what the originator would like.  If my
> business model depends on service contracts for support of my product I
> would probably welcome and benefit from an Open Sores initiative.

Maybe.
Advocates of free software say that support contracts are a way for a
programmer to get paid.

There are lots of people who sell support services for CVS. How many of
them hand over some of the money to the original CVS authors? Since they
don't have to, I would imagine the answer is somewhere in the region of
"None".

The quid-pro-quo for the CVS authors is that any improvements made will
make thier way back to them. This works very well for the support people,
who don't make any modifications, simply viewing the CVS executable as an
infinitely copyable zero-cost commodity.

Bill, off the shelf.

-- 
   The address in the reply to header is correct, but I'll
   read it quicker if you drop the word "usenet".

Noah Roberts wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>
>   (2) engaged in any kind of cutting edge R&D?
>
> Yet to be seen.

Good luck!

>> If not, your remarks are those of a self-serving whiner who expects
>> others to do the hard work of thinking for free.
>
> Not true.  Everything I have done has gone open source.  It does not
> matter if it is "cutting edge" or not,

If we are discussing the validity of patents, it most certainly does matter
if you are capable of cutting edge work.  If you are not, then you aren't in
a position to complain about other people's cutting edge work.  If you
aren't walking the walk, then your opinions about "one sided transactions
with society" are of no value.  Rather much like a non-programmer saying
programmers should work for free.  Interesting concept, but who cares what
those non-programmers think?

> they are works that involved much time and hard work.

Any demanding career involves much time and hard work.  You aren't Special
[TM] for spending a lot of time and doing hard work.  Normal People [TM] go
through these motions and reap the financial benefits of it all the time,
sans patents.  Patents aren't about protecting time and hard work.  They are
about protecting a *specific kind* of time and hard work.  If you haven't
done basic R&D yourself, then you have an ill-informed opinion about its
relationship to society.

>> If you are, at least you can
>> argue the merits / demerits of your idealism from a credible
>> position.
>
> You're so full of shit it isn't even funny anymore.

John Carmack, I'd be willing to have a "no software patents" debate with.
He has produced patentable work and is ideologically opposed to such
patents.  You, on the other hand, haven't demonstrated that you do anything
resembling basic R&D.  You think everything is just built on the shoulders
of others because you produce nothing terribly original yourself.  All those
papers you look up and crib from, an actual bona fide researcher did the
hard work of figuring out in the first place.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Noah Roberts wrote:
> 
>>Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>>
>>>Noah Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>>>I think you are making a lot of assumptions about something you know
>>>>next to nothing about.
>>>
>>>I think you're too biased in this matter to see the general point of
>>>view of the other side.  You think open source is supposed to
>>>automatically revolve around you, the author.  It isn't.  That's why
>>>it's open source.  If you want it to revolve around you, the author,
>>>license it differently. 
>>
>>You are still talking out of your ass.  Stop eating chili.
> 
> 
> Is that the best you can do when confronted with your biases?
> 
How can you confront me, you know very little of the situation.  You in 
fact have not confronted me because nothing you have said here has 
anything to do with what happened.  It is really that simple.  What do 
you call it when someone drones on and on like they know what happened 
enough to tell you you're wrong and yet obviously don't know?

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

Noah Roberts wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>> Noah Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>> I think you are making a lot of assumptions about something you know
>>> next to nothing about.
>> 
>> I think you're too biased in this matter to see the general point of
>> view of the other side.  You think open source is supposed to
>> automatically revolve around you, the author.  It isn't.  That's why
>> it's open source.  If you want it to revolve around you, the author,
>> license it differently. 
> 
> You are still talking out of your ass.  Stop eating chili.

Is that the best you can do when confronted with your biases?

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

"Noah Roberts" <nroberts@dontemailme.com> schreef in bericht
news:bn5kgs$8ib$1@quark.scn.rain.com...
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> > Noah Roberts wrote:
> >
> >>Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> >>
> >>>Noah Roberts wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>I think you are making a lot of assumptions about something you know
> >>>>next to nothing about.
> >>>
> >>>I think you're too biased in this matter to see the general point of
> >>>view of the other side.  You think open source is supposed to
> >>>automatically revolve around you, the author.  It isn't.  That's why
> >>>it's open source.  If you want it to revolve around you, the author,
> >>>license it differently.
> >>
> >>You are still talking out of your ass.  Stop eating chili.
> >
> >
> > Is that the best you can do when confronted with your biases?
> >
> How can you confront me, you know very little of the situation.  You in
> fact have not confronted me because nothing you have said here has
> anything to do with what happened.  It is really that simple.  What do
> you call it when someone drones on and on like they know what happened
> enough to tell you you're wrong and yet obviously don't know?

I thought the topic is: "is open sourcing a game engine a good idea?".

Floris

Bill Godfrey wrote:
>
> Maybe.
> Advocates of free software say that support contracts are a way for a
> programmer to get paid.

Ideologically speaking, it's a pile of nonsense.  All the FSF crazies have
done is invent a different business model.  *All* business models are about
getting a client over a barrel so that they have to pay, somehow.  If the
prevailing business model was "support contract" rather than "software
license," in a free marketplace you'd see the following grotesque phenomena:

- unduly complex / obfuscated source code, so that only original authors
could comprehend it and provide meaningful service for it

- gratuitous changes to the "official, blessed" source code release, so that
original authors can again maintain their "value proposition" over
competitors.  Microsoft does exactly the same thing in proprietary software
today.

- requirement of midsized corporate infrastructure to support all the
service contracts.  A lone wolf developer couldn't make money just selling
copies of his software, he'd have to make money on service contracts.
Advantages accrue to those who have the capital to field lotsa personnel.

- death of some markets.  There is no such thing as a "service contract" for
shrinkwrap entertainment software.  Game developers would be forced to keep
clients on a network server drip feed, just to keep a "service contract"
relationship going, even though it would otherwise be wholly unnecessary to
the operation of the software.

Basically, "let's make everyone do service contracts!" sounds like a real
nice challenge to big corporate stupidity.  Until you realize it swallows
the very poison pill of big corporate stupidity.

For the record, I'm on the "don't fuck with me" side of free software.  BSD
license, let me do whatever the hell I'm gonna do, I'll contribute whatever
the hell I wanna contribute.  I'm only gonna give away what I'm willing to
freely give away, I will mix my proprietary and open source code at will.  I
don't expect any differently of anyone else, and I'll trust the relevancy of
open source projects to critical mass.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Noah Roberts wrote:
>>>If not, your remarks are those of a self-serving whiner who expects
>>>others to do the hard work of thinking for free.
>>
>>Not true.  Everything I have done has gone open source.  It does not
>>matter if it is "cutting edge" or not,
> 
> 
> If we are discussing the validity of patents, it most certainly does matter
> if you are capable of cutting edge work.  If you are not, then you aren't in
> a position to complain about other people's cutting edge work.  If you
> aren't walking the walk, then your opinions about "one sided transactions
> with society" are of no value.  Rather much like a non-programmer saying
> programmers should work for free.  Interesting concept, but who cares what
> those non-programmers think?

Since when does getting a patent involve anything even resembling 
cutting edge?  They should, but don't.

And I wasn't speaking about software patents at all.  I was speaking of 
rights to ideas and who owns them.  Patents are a way for society to 
return that small amount of work you put in.  They should be granted so 
long as they don't impeed progress or the ability for people to live. 
Patents should be, and are, of a short duration.  YOU turned this into 
an elitist argument about who has made the most "cutting edge" software, 
which obviously you feel is yourself.  I'll let you have that.

Even if my ideas are not as mind bogglingly great as yours I still have 
the right to believe in, and express that belief, that ideas are owned 
by society, not the individual that happened to file a patent.  99% of 
all ideas are reproducable, and are often reproduced by several 
individuals at the same time.  If these ideas are the sole property of 
one of those individuals then explain THAT...its ludicrist.
> 
> 
>>they are works that involved much time and hard work.
> 
> 
> Any demanding career involves much time and hard work.  You aren't Special
> [TM] for spending a lot of time and doing hard work.  Normal People [TM] go
> through these motions and reap the financial benefits of it all the time,
> sans patents.  Patents aren't about protecting time and hard work.  They are
> about protecting a *specific kind* of time and hard work.  If you haven't
> done basic R&D yourself, then you have an ill-informed opinion about its
> relationship to society.
> 
> 
>>>If you are, at least you can
>>>argue the merits / demerits of your idealism from a credible
>>>position.
>>
>>You're so full of shit it isn't even funny anymore.
> 
> 
> John Carmack, I'd be willing to have a "no software patents" debate with.

Go ahead.

> He has produced patentable work and is ideologically opposed to such
> patents.  You, on the other hand, haven't demonstrated that you do anything
> resembling basic R&D.  You think everything is just built on the shoulders
> of others  because you produce nothing terribly original yourself.

Name a single thing you have done that is 100% yours, which you used 
know prior knowledge in, no research but your own, and was not triggered 
by an event or idea which society created!

Did you even do a search to see what I have done, that is actually on 
the web, before spouting off the above attack?

   All those
> papers you look up and crib from, an actual bona fide researcher did the
> hard work of figuring out in the first place.

This is the very definition of progress.  If I simply invented 
everything from a void I could do nothing but reinvent what has already 
been invented.  Invention is a collective process that involves the 
'inventor' and all who did the research and work that had to be done for 
that invention to even be possible.  You seem to be arguing that somehow 
you have managed to create something new without basing it on someone 
else's ideas and work.  When are you up for the Nobel Prize?  Actually 
all of the people that won that based their work on others' before them.


What I find rather interesting here is how someone that says this:

"...I've cast my lot with The Nebula Device crowd. 
http://nebuladevice.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Nebula/WebHome 
Gruntwork is where open source is going to fit into my business model. 
....I ain't sharin' nuthin with nobody!  I'll worry about sharing stuff 
like that when I'm out of my prolific debt.  When ahm rolling in 
megabucks and y'all eatin' mah planetary debris, bhwwaahahahaahah!!!"

can have the gaul to tell me I am a "self-serving whiner who expects
others to do the hard work of thinking for free."

At least one thing you have said is right.  If you release things Open 
Source then someone might very well take advantage of you.  But like I 
said, it takes more than a few self-serving assholes to make me change 
my ideals.

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

Noah Roberts wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>> Noah Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>>>
>>>> Noah Roberts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think you are making a lot of assumptions about something you
>>>>> know next to nothing about.
>>>>
>>>> I think you're too biased in this matter to see the general point
>>>> of view of the other side.  You think open source is supposed to
>>>> automatically revolve around you, the author.  It isn't.  That's
>>>> why it's open source.  If you want it to revolve around you, the
>>>> author, license it differently.
>>>
>>> You are still talking out of your ass.  Stop eating chili.
>>
>> Is that the best you can do when confronted with your biases?
>>
> How can you confront me, you know very little of the situation.  You
> in fact have not confronted me because nothing you have said here has
> anything to do with what happened.  It is really that simple.  What do
> you call it when someone drones on and on like they know what happened
> enough to tell you you're wrong and yet obviously don't know?

If that's your view, then you haven't done much to communicate your actual
situation.  What you did communicate, is you licensed something as open
source, then someone didn't do what you would have liked them to have done.
You have a big problem about it; I point out that when you grant an open
source license, you don't have a right to have a big problem about it.
Unless you've got terms in your license such as "thou shalt not change
header files, thou shalt not fork distributions, thou shalt not create
derivative works that compete with Mine holy product, thou shalt not mention
Thine competing product in Mine forum," blah blah blah.

How many Linux distributions do you think there are?  Why do you think there
are so many?  Do you think anyone asked, or was interested in, getting
permission to do such-and-such with Linux?  It's open source.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Floris van den Berg wrote:
>
> I thought the topic is: "is open sourcing a game engine a good idea?".

It is... the subtopic is "can an open source license make you upset?"  Yes
it can... if you have unrealistic expectations of how people are supposed to
act under such a license.  A fullblown BSD-style open source license means
people can do what they want with your code, even if it pisses you off.  If
controlling header files, project forks, and production schedules is
important to you, maybe you shouldn't do an open source license.  You could,
for instance, distribute binary libraries with header files only.  Then only
you can make changes, and you reap the advantages and disadvantages of that
approach.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Noah Roberts wrote:
> 
>>Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>>
>>>Noah Roberts wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Noah Roberts wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I think you are making a lot of assumptions about something you
>>>>>>know next to nothing about.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think you're too biased in this matter to see the general point
>>>>>of view of the other side.  You think open source is supposed to
>>>>>automatically revolve around you, the author.  It isn't.  That's
>>>>>why it's open source.  If you want it to revolve around you, the
>>>>>author, license it differently.
>>>>
>>>>You are still talking out of your ass.  Stop eating chili.
>>>
>>>Is that the best you can do when confronted with your biases?
>>>
>>
>>How can you confront me, you know very little of the situation.  You
>>in fact have not confronted me because nothing you have said here has
>>anything to do with what happened.  It is really that simple.  What do
>>you call it when someone drones on and on like they know what happened
>>enough to tell you you're wrong and yet obviously don't know?
> 
> 
> If that's your view, then you haven't done much to communicate your actual
> situation.

I never planned to.  For some reason you assumed you knew suddenly what 
happened and won't let go when told you don't know what happened.

   What you did communicate, is you licensed something as open
> source, then someone didn't do what you would have liked them to have done.

Actually it was down to the very core of what I think is basic human 
civility.  If you want to talk legally, he didn't even use my code.

> You have a big problem about it; I point out that when you grant an open
> source license, you don't have a right to have a big problem about it.

I have every right to be upset at someone who has been very rude to me, 
including you.  I have no legal recourse I think is what you mean, and 
if I did I doubt I would use it anyway.  I am upset at the person, and 
rather upset at you - from the little I have seen of you, you are a very 
rude individual.  No matter what you say, I have the right to feel that way.

> Unless you've got terms in your license such as "thou shalt not change
> header files, thou shalt not fork distributions, thou shalt not create
> derivative works that compete with Mine holy product, thou shalt not mention
> Thine competing product in Mine forum," blah blah blah.

You mean like the license system you advocate?  This is exactly what a 
closed source setup is.  Rather interesting that you are putting those 
words in MY mouth and expressing their ridiqulousness.

BTW, how would you feel if someone advertized a competing product in 
your support forums?!  For fuck's sake...that is SPAM!
> 
> How many Linux distributions do you think there are?  Why do you think there
> are so many?  Do you think anyone asked, or was interested in, getting
> permission to do such-and-such with Linux?  It's open source.

Actually there is quite a bit of expectations in this area.  How many 
Linux kernels are there?  Very few.

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

Noah Roberts wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>> Noah Roberts wrote:
>>>> If not, your remarks are those of a self-serving whiner who expects
>>>> others to do the hard work of thinking for free.
>>>
>>> Not true.  Everything I have done has gone open source.  It does not
>>> matter if it is "cutting edge" or not,
>>
>> If we are discussing the validity of patents, it most certainly does
>> matter if you are capable of cutting edge work.  If you are not,
>> then you aren't in a position to complain about other people's
>> cutting edge work.  If you aren't walking the walk, then your
>> opinions about "one sided transactions with society" are of no
>> value.  Rather much like a non-programmer saying programmers should
>> work for free.  Interesting concept, but who cares what those
>> non-programmers think?
>
> Since when does getting a patent involve anything even resembling
> cutting edge?  They should, but don't.

I'm not personally interested in the legal validity of patents.  As I said
earlier, I think most software patents are frivolous.  I'm interested in the
*moral* validity of patents.  There are certainly some things that I think
are patentworthy inventions.  My question is, are you capable of such work?
Have you ever done any basic R&D in your life?

> And I wasn't speaking about software patents at all.  I was speaking
> of rights to ideas and who owns them.

Which is an odd distinction, because patents are the only way to put legal
strictures on ideas that I know of.  Copyrights, for instance, do not
protect ideas.  Only their concrete expression.

> Patents are a way for society
> to  return that small amount of work you put in.
> They should be granted so
> long as they don't impeed progress or the ability for people to live.
> Patents should be, and are, of a short duration.

It seems we have grounds for agreement on patents at least.

>YOU turned this into
> an elitist argument about who has made the most "cutting edge"
> software, which obviously you feel is yourself.  I'll let you have
> that.

The only software patents that are morally defensible are elitist, "cutting
edge" software.

> Even if my ideas are not as mind bogglingly great as yours I still
> have
> the right to believe in, and express that belief, that ideas are owned
> by society, not the individual that happened to file a patent.

Do we agree about patents or not?  I'm really not sure.  Your remarks *sound
like* you think you're within your rights, morally speaking, to help
yourself to other people's patented ideas.

> 99% of all ideas are reproducable, and are often reproduced

I think in this context you really mean "producible."  First inventions are
not reproductions.

> by several
> individuals at the same time.  If these ideas are the sole property of
> one of those individuals then explain THAT...its ludicrist.

File your patent in a timely fashion if it's so bloody important to you.
Society is deliberately creating a free market competition for who gets the
rights.  Society benefits because you the researcher have a match lit under
your toes, you are under pressure to perform.  Sounds like you want other
people to work on your schedule again.  Newsflash: people aren't going to
sit around waiting for you to contemplate your R&D navel.

> Name a single thing you have done that is 100% yours, which you used
> [no] prior knowledge in, no research but your own, and was not
> triggered by an event or idea which society created!

A number of paintings, and many writings, actually.  I have zero sympathy
for people incapable of original work, and I laugh at people who say
"society thought up my stuff."  Yeah, well why didn't the mailman just
deliver it to me then?  As for software, I've yet to write anything I deem
patentworthy.  I'm definitely in possession of some cutting edge planetary
rendering technology however.  But it's only cutting edge in an engineering
sense, not in any R&D sense.  I read academic papers, implemented abstruse
Barycentric coordinate systems that aren't popular in commercial products
yet.  It would take many more itereations of development to get to a point
where I *might* be doing something patentable.  If you go far enough into
the frontier, you face the possibility that you will create genuinely
patentable work.  If you've never been anywhere near such a frontier, you
shouldn't complain stridently about the decisions of people who have.

> Did you even do a search to see what I have done,

No I didn't, and wouldn't.  If you want to list your personal achievements
as some kind of evidence, feel free to provide URLs.  It's not my job to
find out why exactly you are so great.  I'm sure you'll get around to
telling us if it's relevant.

> What I find rather interesting here is how someone that says this:
>
> "...I've cast my lot with The Nebula Device crowd.
> http://nebuladevice.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Nebula/WebHome
> Gruntwork is where open source is going to fit into my business model.
> ...I ain't sharin' nuthin with nobody!  I'll worry about sharing stuff
> like that when I'm out of my prolific debt.  When ahm rolling in
> megabucks and y'all eatin' mah planetary debris, bhwwaahahahaahah!!!"
>
> can have the gaul to tell me I am a "self-serving whiner who expects
> others to do the hard work of thinking for free."

Why?  There's no contradiction here, I'll be pulling plenty of my own weight
in the Nebula gruntwork dept.  I'm never going to contribute one damn thing
to Nebula that's patentable, or even interesting IMO.  *Useful*
contributions, damn straight I will make those.  I'm not interested in
Nebula being interesting.  I'm interested in it solving boring jobs so that
the barriers to entry of the indie game designer are lowered.

> At least one thing you have said is right.  If you release things Open
> Source then someone might very well take advantage of you.

Poor crybaby.  License your code under the rights you intend to secure.
When people exercise the rights you have legally given them, DON'T COMPLAIN.


-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> As for software, I've yet to write anything I deem
> patentworthy.  I'm definitely in possession of some cutting edge planetary
> rendering technology however.  But it's only cutting edge in an engineering
> sense, not in any R&D sense.  I read academic papers, implemented abstruse
> Barycentric coordinate systems that aren't popular in commercial products
> yet.  It would take many more itereations of development to get to a point
> where I *might* be doing something patentable.  If you go far enough into
> the frontier, you face the possibility that you will create genuinely
> patentable work.  If you've never been anywhere near such a frontier, you
> shouldn't complain stridently about the decisions of people who have.

So, this whole time you have been spouting off about cutting edge this 
or that and saying I had no right to my opinions if I wasn't on the edge 
(even though you admitedly have not even attempted to find out one way 
or the other), you finally admit that you yourself are no different! 
You have read some academia, implemented a few ideas other people had, 
and created one thing, that though seems to deserve merit is not really 
all that cutting edge.

"All those papers you look up and crib from, an actual bona fide 
researcher did the hard work of figuring out in the first place."

What was that you said?
> 
> 
>>Did you even do a search to see what I have done,
> 
> 
> No I didn't, and wouldn't.  If you want to list your personal achievements
> as some kind of evidence, feel free to provide URLs.

So you just decided to attack my opinion based on my achievements, or 
lack of, without even knowing what they where, or wheren't.  I think I 
said once that you assume too much, one day it will get you.  This time 
you where right.  I have read some acedamia, implemented a few things 
that other people though of, and taken a semi-common field down a less 
trodden path.

Goodbye.

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

Noah Roberts wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>
>> You have a big problem about it; I point out that when you grant an
>> open source license, you don't have a right to have a big problem
>> about it.
>
> I have every right to be upset at someone who has been very rude to
> me, including you.

Feel free.  Some people are still going to point out that you licensed your
code in a certain way, someone legally availed themselves of your freely
chosen license, and your proclivities about required civility are only so
much roadkill along the way.  If you were slow to get something done, that's
why there's open software.  If you weren't the ideal service professional
for their project needs, that's why there's open software.  If they just
wanted to use their own guys whose capabilities are already a known quantity
to them, and completely cut you out of the loop, that's why there's open
software.  If you don't like these facts of life, these fundamental and
basic reasons why people have adopted open software models, then don't
license your code in this way.

> I have no legal recourse I think is what you mean, and
> if I did I doubt I would use it anyway.  I am upset at the person,

Look, how did you license this stuff?  Can you provide a URL to your
license?  If you offered your code to the world under a GPL or LGPL style
license and they fulfilled the terms of the license, that's all anybody owes
you.  They don't owe you so much as a thank-you postcard unless you put such
terms IN THE LICENSE.  If you offered your code under a BSD-style license,
you'd be seriously deluded to think they had to do anything for you at all.
The only "helpful" thing I can say here, is I sure hope you understood the
terms of whatever license you granted.

> and rather upset at you - from the little
> I have seen of you, you are a very
> rude individual.  No matter what you say, I have the right to feel
> that way.

It's your decision.  I do note that reality is often upsetting to people.
What I am unsure of at this point, is exactly what license you offered your
code under.  This thread is about open source licensing... I have assumed
that you have a full handle on all the various kinds of open source licenses
that people typically employ, and that you used one of them.  Maybe I am
mistaken, but if I am, that mistake wouldn't exactly be my fault.

> BTW, how would you feel if someone advertized a competing product in
> your support forums?!  For fuck's sake...that is SPAM!

Then make Terms Of Service and sue them for breaking the TOS, demonstrating
damages to your business.  I wouldn't dwell on my feelings, I'd do something
about it.  And, this issue is completely tangential to the open source
licensing issue.  It would apply to any competitor showing up in your forum
and using it to advertize, regardless of what code base they employed.

>> How many Linux distributions do you think there are?  Why do you
>> think there are so many?  Do you think anyone asked, or was
>> interested in, getting permission to do such-and-such with Linux?
>> It's open source.
>
> Actually there is quite a bit of expectations in this area.  How many
> Linux kernels are there?  Very few.

The fact that there's more than one speaks *volumes* about the expected
nature of open source.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

"Noah Roberts" <nroberts@dontemailme.com> schreef in bericht
news:bn5p99$jin$1@quark.scn.rain.com...
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> > As for software, I've yet to write anything I deem
> > patentworthy.  I'm definitely in possession of some cutting edge
planetary
> > rendering technology however.  But it's only cutting edge in an
engineering
> > sense, not in any R&D sense.  I read academic papers, implemented
abstruse
> > Barycentric coordinate systems that aren't popular in commercial
products
> > yet.  It would take many more itereations of development to get to a
point
> > where I *might* be doing something patentable.  If you go far enough
into
> > the frontier, you face the possibility that you will create genuinely
> > patentable work.  If you've never been anywhere near such a frontier,
you
> > shouldn't complain stridently about the decisions of people who have.

I think some discussions run through eachother now, and everyone now is
confused. I think we can split the topics out like so:

1) is it a good idea to open source a game engine.
2) if you open your source and someone takes advantage of your code, how can
you protect yourself? Answer: by using a license
3) if you don't use a license, how can you protect yourself? Answer: You
can't
4) when is it morally ok to patent something. Answer: When what you created
is cutting edge technology
5) If you contribute to open source software, would you contribute
patentworthy software? Answer: no.

Now, if you open your source and do not attach a license to it, and then
someone takes advantage of your code without your conscent and in a way you
don't like, it's nothing but your fault. Wether you are upset about it,
doesn't really matter for the discussion. So what did you learn? Next time
you deal with open source, use a license and slap someone with it if they
violate it.

> So, this whole time you have been spouting off about cutting edge this
> or that and saying I had no right to my opinions if I wasn't on the edge
> (even though you admitedly have not even attempted to find out one way
> or the other), you finally admit that you yourself are no different!

The cutting edge bit was about filing patents. Not about open source.

Floris

Floris van den Berg wrote:
[snip]


http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame19.html


Sorry, its funny.  I am finished taking the discussion seriously. 
Nothing good can come of it.
-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

"Noah Roberts" <nroberts@dontemailme.com> schreef in bericht
news:bn5qrv$mlg$1@quark.scn.rain.com...
> Floris van den Berg wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
> http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame19.html
>
>
> Sorry, its funny.  I am finished taking the discussion seriously.
> Nothing good can come of it.

That *is* funny :) Would've enjoyed a reasonable discussion more, but i
guess that's out of the question.

Floris

Noah Roberts wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>> I'm definitely in possession of some cutting edge
>> planetary rendering technology however.  But it's only cutting edge
>> in an engineering sense, not in any R&D sense.
>
> So, this whole time you have been spouting off about cutting edge this
> or that and saying I had no right to my opinions if I wasn't on the
> edge

I may have spoken with insufficient precision.  If you have not personally
engaged in cutting edge R&D work, as far as I'm concerned, you have no right
to *deny* such researchers their patents for "truly novel" stuff.  I have
not engaged in such work myself, although I think one day I will, and I have
seen some analogues of the R&D process in my own work.  The difference is, I
do not seek to *deny* such researchers the just fruits of their labor.  I
don't engage in platitudes about the transactions being "only one way from
society," what nonsense!  And I do think your attitude that "nobody does
anything original" is pure poppycock.  A quick trip to a world class art
museum should disabuse you of that notion.  The incremental cumulation of
technological progress does *not* imply an absence of original thought.

> (even though you admitedly have not even attempted to find out
> one way or the other),

Not my burden of proof, and I'm perfectly willing to go by your stated
declarations, which were that you   don't do cutting edge anything.  I leave
it to you to represent yourself as you like.

> So you just decided to attack my opinion based on my achievements, or
> lack of, without even knowing what they where, or wheren't.

I attack based on your self-description.  If your self-description is
inaccurate, that is hardly my fault.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

"Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> schreef in
bericht news:bn5rbv$tgib4$1@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Floris van den Berg wrote:
> >
> > That *is* funny :) Would've enjoyed a reasonable discussion more, but
> > i guess that's out of the question.
>
> It's not out of the question at all.  I thought your summary of "the show
so
> far" was exactly on the mark.  So much so, that I don't see what more
there
> is to discuss.

Agreed.

Floris

Floris van den Berg wrote:
>
> That *is* funny :) Would've enjoyed a reasonable discussion more, but
> i guess that's out of the question.

It's not out of the question at all.  I thought your summary of "the show so
far" was exactly on the mark.  So much so, that I don't see what more there
is to discuss.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote in message news:<bn5gs9$k90$1@quark.scn.rain.com>...
> Gerry Quinn wrote:
> > In article <bn5bss$9ov$1@quark.scn.rain.com>, Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:

> > You are distributing your closed source program, to the benefit of 
> > society.  The only ideas you are keeping secret are precisely those you 
> > have contributed yourself (you are of course keeping your own 
> > expressions of many ideas secret too).  After all, the ideas you took 
> > from pre-existing public culture are still there - you have not removed 
> > them!
> 
> What is society getting out of the deal?  You take what society gave 
> you, add a small spattering of your own, and then sell it back.  Nothing 
> has been contributed, seems like a rather one sided transaction to me.

Let's say you take the pre-existing ideas of engineernig and
electronics then add that contribution of your own to make a device
that saves each user 1 minute every they do the given activity it
assists.

What society gets back is 1 minute * number of users * number of uses
- that time saved (which might add up to many thousands of cumulative
years as a collective measure over a decade) is probably worth more,
economically, than any amount of cash the originator would ever get.

The idea that nothing has been contributed by the incremental work
done by the 'inventor' is silly - if it really was something that
added no use or satisfied no want beyond what already existed
befeorehand then no one would be buying it in the first place!

Of all the most useful inventions, made in small increments over time
leading to the existence of print, railroads, engines, electricity,
telecommunications, computers - the profits made by any patent holder
was nothing compared to the billions in economic opportunity obtained
by society at large.

It might be 'nice' from your perspective if these people just gave
stuff away - but that invites a discussion on human motivation.  all
i'm doing here is gently pointing out the flaw in thinking of the
above as one sided.

> You also bring up an interesting point that the ideas I don't express 
> are similar to the ones I do but keep secret.  Consider what happens at 
> that point, society creates it again in someone else.  So long as I 
> never expressed the idea, and didn't claim ownership of it, this other 
> person is legally free to do so.  Consider the invention of Calculus, 
> which took place in two seperate people at the same time.  Also consider 
> the telephone; it is only by time alone that we consider Bell the 
> inventor of the telephone because he got to the patent office first.

when you institude a societal mecahnism to assist invention, thems the
breaks - better than inventing things in fear of being ripped off by
the equivalent of 'idea thieves' and never getting to benefit
personally (which goes back to the human moticvation q)

> > On the contrary, IP is the most important kind of property, and not much 
> > different from any other kind.  Your ownership of a house or car 
> > effectively just means that society grants its exclusive use to you - if 
> > squatters or joyriders can use them anytime, you have no effective 
> > ownership.  Of course this is deeply ingrained in our biology, too, 
> > although it is ownly in modern complex societies that our primal 
> > instincts become applicable to IP.
> > 
> > As people who argue along the lines you propose usually do, you conflate 
> > patents and copyrights.  Only patents protect ideas, the protection time 
> > is very limited and the ideas have to be adjudged novel (the last bit 
> > needs improvement, I agree).
> 
> Patents are definately the worst of the two.  Patents actually kill.  If 
> it wasn't for the breaking of patents there would be no help for poor 
> countries trying to hamper AIDS.  This is not acceptable.

If it wasn't for patents are you confident there would be *any* drug
available to counter AIDS at all?  Or any of those other diseases that
require billions invested in order to find cures and treatments?

> 
>    Copyrights protect only the expression of
> > ideas, and prevent nobody from using the ideas - that's why long 
> > copyright periods do no obvious harm that I can see.  You can't use 
> > Mickey directly but you can create an animated mouse of your own any 
> > time you want.  Mickey is not the idea of a cartoon mouse, but an 
> > expression of that idea. 
> 
> Actually copyright closes a lot of doors on the advancement of many 
> ideas.

Copyrights are a much more subjective area, and here i can see many
problems to accompnay the benefits.

Remember - we can posit an 'ideal' society in which such things are
redundant, but we have to deal with reality, and real people -
understaning that, and understanding each other is key to it all.

gswork wrote:
> Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote in message news:<bn5gs9$k90$1@quark.scn.rain.com>...
> 
>>Gerry Quinn wrote:

> It might be 'nice' from your perspective if these people just gave
> stuff away - but that invites a discussion on human motivation.  all
> i'm doing here is gently pointing out the flaw in thinking of the
> above as one sided.

I never said people should not be paid.  This is exactly what patents 
are for, and what copyright used to be for, to pay someone for the 
amount they put in to the collective invention.  This is a requirement 
of a society based on trade in which inventors could not function, and 
therefor inventions not be made, if these short term monopolies where 
not in place.  However, I believe that society still /owns/ that idea, 
that monopoly is of short duration for a very good reason.  What is 
happening these days is that society is being bent into thinking that 
these ideas are a property owned by the individual and it is perfectly 
ok for that individual to monopolize them until the end of time.  People 
are beginning to believe that this is perfectly ok and forgetting that 
they have a very valid claim to these ideas, not individually, but as a 
whole.

I think some of the posters here are either not reading my posts, 
misunderstanding them, or purposfuly misinterpreting them.  I am not 
against patent, I am certainly against fivilous patents, long standing 
patents/copyright, and the idea of intelectual "property".  You can own 
a patent, that idea is still common goods.

I view patents and copyright as a way for society to say, "Thanks for 
the contribution.  Here is a short time in which you alone can make a 
product based on this idea.  If it is as good an idea as it looks then 
surely you can now use this time to make enough money to live very 
comfortably from now on."

>>Patents are definately the worst of the two.  Patents actually kill.  If 
>>it wasn't for the breaking of patents there would be no help for poor 
>>countries trying to hamper AIDS.  This is not acceptable.
> 
> 
> If it wasn't for patents are you confident there would be *any* drug
> available to counter AIDS at all?  Or any of those other diseases that
> require billions invested in order to find cures and treatments?

That is a valid point.  I can't really say one way or the other.  What I 
can say is that when it comes to human life the idea of intelectual 
"property" is of much less importance.  In no case should a patent be 
held above society's need to help its members live.  If you spend the 
money and time comming up with a cure for something people in poor 
status are dieing from that still doesn't give you the right to withhold 
the result and let those people die.  Only the mistaken idea of 
intelectual "property" makes people even think they have that right. 
Society gave you the patent monopoly, it can take it away when it gets 
in the way of people's survival; and that is exactly what is happening, 
the doctors in these countries simply reverse engineer the "cure" and 
make it themselves.

Could those doctors have come up with the cure without society's 
contribution?  No way. They would have to reinvent the entire theory of 
science upon which their research is based for one.

So, in short to avoid confusion:  Society owns your ideas, not you.  If 
society wishes to grant monopolies on the production of good ideas in 
order to promote the expression of good ideas, great.  But it is under 
no obligation to do so, especially when human life is in the balance and 
it is certainly under no obligation to grant this monopoly for 
perpetually extended periods of time.

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

Allen <allen-terri-ng!@#att.net> wrote:

>     I've heard a lot of support for the notion of open sourcing large
> projects and for web sites like sourceforge.net.  While I'm quite certain
> that I've not written anything "new" or "groundbreaking", I'm hesitant to
> open source my engine or even to share it online.  It feels too much like
> just throwing away all my hard work.  At the same time though, it's tempting
> to see how much improvement could be done to my engine with a lot more
> people (and with some real skills ;-) working on it.
> 
Can you make a business or can't you? 

What are your feelings if you have to throw away your hard work?
OpenSource is in a sense similar to throw away but you give others a
chance to pick up your work. So your work isn't entirely lost. 

One advantage of OpenSource is that others see how terrific your work
really is and may jump onto it. But don't expect too much there are so
many "terrific" projects. It's still more hard work.

O. Wyss

-- 
See "http://wxguide.sourceforge.net/" for ideas how to design your app.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:50:06 GMT, "Allen" <allen-terri-ng!@#att.net>
wrote:

>    Is open sourcing safe as far as maintaining credit/control/ownership of
>software?
>--
If it's crappy ( as you are suggesting ) then don't open source it.
All that will do is show everyone you write crap.

[Sorry all for the badly OT post... this probably belongs in a 
philosophy group about now :>]

Noah Roberts wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> 
>> Noah Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> So actually since
>>> you contribution to your own ideas is minimal at best, how can you
>>> claim ownership of them...especially at the detriment to the society
>>> that /gave/ you that idea?
>>
>> Because society doesn't sit around giving you ideas.  Society sits around
>> ripping you off for having spent a lot of your own time and money 
>> coming up
>> with working solutions.
> 
> Using what knowledge?  I assume you mean to say you created these 
> working solutions in a vaccuum?  What are you building, stone wheels?

While I don't specifically agree with either viewpoint, there are good 
and bad aspects to both.

Noah, your view comes across as: creation is a function of society, not 
the individual.  It seems to me that, according to this view, any 
'original' work is actually built on top of the works, influences, etc. 
that 'society' has provided, all of which have shaped the creative process.

The flaw in that reasoning, as I see it, is the assumption that the 
individual plays very little part in the act of creation.  After all, 
there are thousands of people in similar situations as me with similar 
influences.  If I come up with something new - a work of art, a song, a 
story, a game, whatever - then surely I have been the deciding factor in 
the creation of that work.  If not, why doesn't it already exist?  Why 
hasn't it been created already by one of the countless others with 
near-identical societal influences?

Would any one of them, in fact, duplicate that creation in toto with no 
knowledge of my creation?  No, they wouldn't.  They might create 
something similar enough to be covered by any patent or copyright I 
might have acquired, but no two people will produce identical works 
where there is sufficient expression.  Even a very simple 'hello world' 
program in C++ will be written in a number of different ways by 
different people, although expression there is quite limited... and 
that's hardly an original work.

Society may provide a lot of the background, but it's the individual who 
has the unique element required to create.  Society recognizes this, and 
provides rules within the legal structure (in many modern societies at 
least) to preserve the rights of a creator over his or her work.

Although your exercise in ethics may seem logical to you, it doesn't to 
me.  But then there are precious few absolutes where ethics is concerned.

-- 
Corey Murtagh
The Electric Monk
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!"

In article <bn6e8l$5lh$1@quark.scn.rain.com>,
Noah Roberts  <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>
>That is a valid point.  I can't really say one way or the other.  What I 
>can say is that when it comes to human life the idea of intelectual 
>"property" is of much less importance.  In no case should a patent be 
>held above society's need to help its members live.  If you spend the 

It's not quite that simple. You are basically saying that we should
abolish patents for inventions that help people live. When you do
that, you also remove the incentive for people to create inventions
that help people live. Those inventions will then stop coming and then
_noone_ will be receiving that help. Surely, it would be better if
_some_ received the help and the rest also had some small access to
it?

>money and time comming up with a cure for something people in poor 
>status are dieing from that still doesn't give you the right to withhold 
>the result and let those people die.  Only the mistaken idea of 
>intelectual "property" makes people even think they have that right. 

It's not so much that someone should have that "right", it's rather
that without the de facto right to make money off the patent, noone
would have invented the thing in the first place. It's an economic
concern that the right must be in place so that there can come into
being inventions to protect with the right.

IP laws are tools we use in order to make people invent things. The
fact that these people can then go and get filthy rich is a side
effect. Kept within reason, it's not a particularly worrying side
effect.

>Society gave you the patent monopoly, it can take it away when it gets 
>in the way of people's survival; and that is exactly what is happening, 
>the doctors in these countries simply reverse engineer the "cure" and 
>make it themselves.

And then they get into trouble over it, because once the drugs start
getting smuggled into first world countries and push down the prices
of the patent holder's version, this removes the incentive to invent
new drugs and that is very dangerous.

Cheers
	Bent D
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs

Corey Murtagh wrote:

>> Using what knowledge?  I assume you mean to say you created these 
>> working solutions in a vaccuum?  What are you building, stone wheels?
> 
> 
> While I don't specifically agree with either viewpoint, there are good 
> and bad aspects to both.
> 
> Noah, your view comes across as: creation is a function of society, not 
> the individual.  It seems to me that, according to this view, any 
> 'original' work is actually built on top of the works, influences, etc. 
> that 'society' has provided, all of which have shaped the creative process.

Pretty much.
> 
> The flaw in that reasoning, as I see it, is the assumption that the 
> individual plays very little part in the act of creation.  After all, 
> there are thousands of people in similar situations as me with similar 
> influences.  If I come up with something new - a work of art, a song, a 
> story, a game, whatever - then surely I have been the deciding factor in 
> the creation of that work.  If not, why doesn't it already exist?  Why 
> hasn't it been created already by one of the countless others with 
> near-identical societal influences?

Except that it happens all the time.  When idea's time is due, it is due 
and will come forth in someone, usually several someones.  This is more 
common in technilogical or scientific advancements than with creative 
works, but never the less it is a recurring phenominon.  The best 
instance I can come up with right now is the invention of Calculus which 
happened in two people with no links to each other, in similar manners, 
at the same time.

The reason the idea isn't already there is because there is a timing to 
these things.  For one the foundation has to be there, Edison could not 
have invented the light bulb if Franklin had not discovered electricity. 
  Second there has to be a cultural necesity, some things don't happen 
even though everything is in place for them to until the need 
arises...once that need arises it is a simple matter of time before an 
answer occurs.
> 
> Would any one of them, in fact, duplicate that creation in toto with no 
> knowledge of my creation?  No, they wouldn't.  They might create 
> something similar enough to be covered by any patent or copyright I 
> might have acquired, but no two people will produce identical works 
> where there is sufficient expression.

Actually it happens a lot.  There will be minor differences yes, but 
these are expressionary.  Pluss the fact that even with differences one 
person gains 'ownership' where the other does not does not seem right to 
me.  If two people came up with the exact same idea, with small twists, 
with no communication between them, no way for one to say the other 
stole it, how can only one 'own' that idea?  In my opinion neither do.


> Although your exercise in ethics may seem logical to you, it doesn't to 
> me.  But then there are precious few absolutes where ethics is concerned.
> 

You have some good points upon which to base that opinion, and you are 
right - ethics are rather subjective and depend greatly on your own 
paradigm.

NR

"Allen" <allen-terri-ng!@#att.net> wrote in message
news:iUolb.188905$0v4.14600513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>     Is open sourcing safe as far as maintaining credit/control/ownership
of
> software?

open source is just another word for "communism"

"Noah Roberts" <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:bn5bss$9ov$1@quark.scn.rain.com...
> Roy Klein wrote:
> > Besides, we all learn from others' codes, it is not 100% our pure
invention,
> > so it is arguably based on the public's previous work, thus, should be
> > available back to the public... I don't really think this logic is
> > completely correct but it's interesting for me to think of it this way.
>
> At one time I started writing a paper on this, the ethical reasoning to
> "Intelectual Property".  I never finished it though.

that's typical for open source projects....

> But the gist is
> similar to what you are saying.  Without input from culture, previous
> works, and other external public influences there is no creativity at
> all.

but without me, there is no product either...

>  In fact, actual individual creation is a very small amount of what
> goes into a new invention/song/program/whatever.

is it?

> So actually since you
> contribution to your own ideas is minimal at best

speak for yourself!

> , how can you claim
> ownership of them...especially at the detriment to the society that
> /gave/ you that idea?

society does give ideas at all!!!! where do you live?

Noah Roberts wrote:

> Except that it happens all the time.  When idea's time is due, it is
> due
> and will come forth in someone, usually several someones.  This is
> more
> common in technilogical or scientific advancements than with creative
> works, but never the less it is a recurring phenominon.  The best
> instance I can come up with right now is the invention of Calculus
> which
> happened in two people with no links to each other, in similar
> manners,
> at the same time.

Your general point is probably correct, but calculus is probably a bad
example.  There is some evidence that Leibniz' work was inspired by
hints Newton had dropped in some correspondences.

Plus, a newly discovered palimpsest indicates that Archimedes was using
infinitesimals long, long before Newton or Leibniz :-).

-- 
   Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 __ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/  \ Maybe this world is another planet's Hell.
\__/  Aldous Huxley

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:16:04 +0200, Hanos wrote:

> "Allen" <allen-terri-ng!@#att.net> wrote in message
> news:iUolb.188905$0v4.14600513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>     Is open sourcing safe as far as maintaining credit/control/ownership
> of
>> software?
> 
> open source is just another word for "communism"

No, I don't think so. I think it's more akin to the logical extreme of the
US's current economy. Raw materials are getting cheaper and cheaper; the
real value is in /services/. OSS is just that, taken to the extreme, and
applied to the software industry: the materials (code) is free, and you
pay for support.

Calling it "communism" is very colorful, but it's not very intelligent.

Also note that not all OSS is under a copyleft license.

Josh

Noah Roberts wrote:
> Second there has to be a cultural necesity, some
> things don't happen
> even though everything is in place for them to until the need
> arises...once that need arises it is a simple matter of time before an
> answer occurs.

Is this the considered opinion of a person who actually performs basic R&D
himself?

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

Erik Max Francis wrote:

> Your general point is probably correct, but calculus is probably a bad
> example.  There is some evidence that Leibniz' work was inspired by
> hints Newton had dropped in some correspondences.

Are you speaking of the manuscript mentioned at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus ?

"Furthermore, a copy of one of Newton's very early manuscripts with 
annotations by Leibniz was found among Leibniz' papers after his death, 
although the exact date when Leibniz first acquired this is unknown."
> 
> Plus, a newly discovered palimpsest indicates that Archimedes was using
> infinitesimals long, long before Newton or Leibniz :-).

link?
> 

Hanos wrote:
> "Allen" <allen-terri-ng!@#att.net> wrote in message
> news:iUolb.188905$0v4.14600513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>     Is open sourcing safe as far as maintaining
>> credit/control/ownership of software?
> 
> open source is just another word for "communism"

And is that anything more than a negative label to you?

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

"Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> wrote
in news:bn5ktm$t0tnc$1@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de: 

> Bill Godfrey wrote:
>>
>> Maybe.
>> Advocates of free software say that support contracts are a way for a
>> programmer to get paid.
> 
> Ideologically speaking, it's a pile of nonsense.

Is it? How many times have you posted source code to a newsgroup with the 
expectation that people will learn from it or even use it verbatim? Did 
you expect monitary renumeration for it?

How is that any different from 'free software' in the FSF sense, other 
than merely scale?

> All the FSF crazies
> have done is invent a different business model.  *All* business models
> are about getting a client over a barrel so that they have to pay,
> somehow.

The FSF doesn't have a 'business model' since it isn't a business. It may 
very well have a 'way to get financial support for our efforts' model, 
but business is not in there.

Similarly, people who release open source software don't (typically) have 
an foundation looking after them. They're all on there own. They might 
all decide to release their software under a given 'style' of license, 
but they're not a single organisation you can point to.

> If the prevailing business model was "support contract"
> rather than "software license," in a free marketplace you'd see the
> following grotesque phenomena: 

Given the amount of money made by most company's for support contracts 
compared to the initial licensing cost, these phenomena should already 
exist regardless of the existance of open sores.

> - unduly complex / obfuscated source code, so that only original
> authors could comprehend it and provide meaningful service for it

I haven't seen any software licensed to me under a proprietry license 
from a large vendor, so I can't comment.

What I can comment on is the open source software I've modified or hunted 
bugs in. All the code I've seen isn't obviously more obscure than the 
code I write.
 
> - gratuitous changes to the "official, blessed" source code release,
> so that original authors can again maintain their "value proposition"
> over competitors.  Microsoft does exactly the same thing in
> proprietary software today.

No comment necessary: you've already said it happens.

> - requirement of midsized corporate infrastructure to support all the
> service contracts.  A lone wolf developer couldn't make money just
> selling copies of his software, he'd have to make money on service
> contracts. Advantages accrue to those who have the capital to field
> lotsa personnel. 

From talking to the people I socialise with, even the SMEs make the most 
sustainable money out of support contracts. In fact, a number of them 
noted that although their company did on-the-side development, they were 
mostly paid to provide support.

> - death of some markets.  There is no such thing as a "service
> contract" for shrinkwrap entertainment software.  Game developers
> would be forced to keep clients on a network server drip feed, just to
> keep a "service contract" relationship going, even though it would
> otherwise be wholly unnecessary to the operation of the software.

The lack of updates and patches for released games past the first 3 
months of release (unless they're exceptionally popular) and the amount 
of interest in 'online' subscription payed computer games by large 
companies implies that this might alreayd be happening.

> Basically, "let's make everyone do service contracts!" sounds like a
> real nice challenge to big corporate stupidity.  Until you realize it
> swallows the very poison pill of big corporate stupidity.

Wasn't that what MSs new licensing system introduced, at least partially 
- the concept of leasing the rights to use the software, and then 
'lease' the upgrades?

> For the record, I'm on the "don't fuck with me" side of free software.

Free software and open source software are not the same thing.

>  BSD license, let me do whatever the hell I'm gonna do, I'll
> contribute whatever the hell I wanna contribute.

Many open source software licenses let you do just that - including the 
BSD license.

> I'm only gonna give
> away what I'm willing to freely give away, I will mix my proprietary
> and open source code at will. 

Even the GPL allows you to do this - as long as you provide the source 
code to your proprietry bits to whomever you give the program to.

> I don't expect any differently of
> anyone else, and I'll trust the relevancy of open source projects to
> critical mass. 
 
To me, open source software is to software as scientific publications are 
to, well, science. If I publish a paper descibing an algorithm, I'm 
inviting people to look at my work, learn from it, and if they are able, 
expand on it. When I release software as open source, I'm inviting people 
to do exactly the same!

Open source software might allow us, as an industry, to get out of the 
reinventing the wheel millions of times rut that we're in. Imagine 
science occuring where all the ideas and implimentations of those ideas 
were /all/ proprietry! Now imagine all software ideas an implimentations 
being all proporietry.

Closed software to me is the equavalent of closed science. Good for the 
marketing peeps and even making a profit, bad for anyone interested in 
improving the engineering.

Ian Woods.

Noah Roberts wrote:

> Erik Max Francis wrote:
> 
> > Your general point is probably correct, but calculus is probably a
> > bad
> > example.  There is some evidence that Leibniz' work was inspired by
> > hints Newton had dropped in some correspondences.
> 
> Are you speaking of the manuscript mentioned at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus ?
> 
> "Furthermore, a copy of one of Newton's very early manuscripts with
> annotations by Leibniz was found among Leibniz' papers after his
> death,
> although the exact date when Leibniz first acquired this is unknown."

I recall seeing a program (though I'm not sure which one now, maybe
Mechanical Universe?) where it talked about correspondence between
Newton and Leibniz where Newton was giving him riddles on what he was
doing (remember that Newton discovered his calculus fairly early on, but
didn't get around to publishing it for quite some time), suggesting that
it's possible Leibniz work was at least inspired by Newton's hints.

From some brief Web search I haven't been able to find anything that
corroborates that, and most of the scholarly work seems to suggest that
it's pretty clear that Leibniz developed his calculus independently,
despite whatever communication they might have had, so I'll retract that
claim (it's certainly possible but I can't demonstrate that through
references).  This actually was part of the genesis of the long-standing
dispute between Newton and Leibniz over credit; Leibniz published first
-- although longer after Newton had originally developed "fluxions" (his
version of calculus) -- but neglected to mention the correspondence
which had taken place, which certainly can leave the impression that he
had something to hide.

(Leibniz' notation, by the way, is the one we use today, although
Newton's notation for the derivative -- a raised dot -- is sometimes
used to represent time derivatives in physics.)

> > Plus, a newly discovered palimpsest indicates that Archimedes was
> > using
> > infinitesimals long, long before Newton or Leibniz :-).
> 
> link?

	http://www.thewalters.org/archimedes/frame.html
	http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes_Palimpsest
	http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_Archimedes_used_infinitesimals
	http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/archimedes/palimpsest.html

-- 
   Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 __ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/  \ Whom God has put asunder, why should man put together?
\__/  Ralph Waldo Emerson

Brandon,

Here is basically what you are saying:

"It's legal for people to cut you off and then drive 10 mph below the
speed limit in a no-passing zone.  If you don't like it you shouldn't be
driving."

The issue is decency, not legality.  From what Noah has posted it is clear
that the person in question was not being polite, sensible, or decent.

If I'm not mistaken, that's what the original post was complaining about.
The argument that "it's your fault that people were jerks because you
didn't use a jerk-proof license" doesn't fly.

In alt.games.programming Brandon J. Van Every <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Name a single thing you have done that is 100% yours, which you used
>> [no] prior knowledge in, no research but your own, and was not
>> triggered by an event or idea which society created!

> A number of paintings, and many writings, actually.  

You as an individual person did not and probably could not paint a 
painting without having seen a painting previously. The content of the 
painting isn't as significant as the concept of painting. This also goes 
for writing, film, game design, music or any artistic of scientific 
activity.

Your entire existence rests on more shoulders and turtles than you can
even imagine.

-Thom

In alt.games.programming Hanos <i@bleat.nospam.com> wrote:
> "Allen" <allen-terri-ng!@#att.net> wrote in message
> news:iUolb.188905$0v4.14600513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>     Is open sourcing safe as far as maintaining credit/control/ownership
> of
>> software?

> open source is just another word for "communism"

Actually 'open source' is another phrase for the internet. None of us are 
here babbling away without 'open source' Microsoft would never have 
willingly created the internet.

--Thom

Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:
> In alt.games.programming Brandon J. Van Every
> <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> Name a single thing you have done that is 100% yours, which you used
>>> [no] prior knowledge in, no research but your own, and was not
>>> triggered by an event or idea which society created!
>
>> A number of paintings, and many writings, actually.
>
> You as an individual person did not and probably could not paint a
> painting without having seen a painting previously.

So what?  I also couldn't breathe without air previously being present in
the atmosphere.  I think at some point you either believe there's such a
thing as originality, or you don't.  Several arguments have already been
made as to why originality exists, they are good arguments and I will not
repeat them.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

username wrote:

> "Noah Roberts" <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
> news:bn5bss$9ov$1@quark.scn.rain.com...
<snip>
> 
>>, how can you claim
>>ownership of them...especially at the detriment to the society that
>>/gave/ you that idea?
> 
> society does give ideas at all!!!! where do you live?

Noah's argument is that any 'new' idea is built on the masses of 
knowledge provided, via society, by all of the old ideas you've been 
exposed to.

Personally I think he's cheapening the whole creative process with that 
assertion.

-- 
Corey Murtagh
The Electric Monk
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!"

Dan Olson wrote:
> Brandon,
>
> Here is basically what you are saying:
>
> "It's legal for people to cut you off and then drive 10 mph below the
> speed limit in a no-passing zone.  If you don't like it you shouldn't
> be driving."

Metaphorization is pointless.  You either have your head wrapped around what
the various open source licenses imply, or you don't.

> The issue is decency, not legality.  From what Noah has posted it is
> clear that the person in question was not being polite, sensible, or
> decent.

It is in no way clear at all.  We have only heard Noah's side of the story,
and he is a biased party.  Furthermore, Noah seems to be confusing 2
separate issues: a competitor using his open sourced code, and that
competitor advertizing in his web forum.

> If I'm not mistaken, that's what the original post was complaining
> about. The argument that "it's your fault that people were jerks
> because you didn't use a jerk-proof license" doesn't fly.

Sure it does.  If you grant a legal right to someone, it is childish to
complain that they're being "jerks" for exercising the legal rights you have
granted them.  If you didn't think through what your license implied, well,
better luck next time.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Noah Roberts wrote:

> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> 
<snip>
>> How many Linux distributions do you think there are?  Why do you think 
>> there
>> are so many?  Do you think anyone asked, or was interested in, getting
>> permission to do such-and-such with Linux?  It's open source.
> 
> Actually there is quite a bit of expectations in this area.  How many 
> Linux kernels are there?  Very few.

No, not 'very few'.  The correct answer is: "There is only one line of 
Linux kernels, as produced by the Linux Kernel Team."  Want to guess 
why?  I'll give you a clue: IP.

Thing is, OSS and IP are /not/ mutually exclusive concepts.  Those who 
believe otherwise are, sadly, dead wrong.

-- 
Corey Murtagh
The Electric Monk
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!"

Dan Olson wrote:

> Brandon,
> 
> Here is basically what you are saying:
> 
> "It's legal for people to cut you off and then drive 10 mph below the
> speed limit in a no-passing zone.  If you don't like it you shouldn't be
> driving."

Actually, in a lot of places that's /not/ legal behavior.  I know that 
you can be ticketed in New Zealand for obstructing traffic by driving 
more than 5 or so KPH below the speed limit.

Flawed analogy aside... what I get from what Brandon is saying is that 
if you fail to protect yourself against the inevitable, you deserve what 
you get.  And that much I agree with.

> The issue is decency, not legality.  From what Noah has posted it is clear
> that the person in question was not being polite, sensible, or decent.

Decency is a statistical anomaly.  Would the world be in the state it is 
right now if humans possessed any innate decency?  Like ethics, it's a 
fabrication produced to enable Society some semblance of a chance at 
working... and working badly at that.

> If I'm not mistaken, that's what the original post was complaining about.
> The argument that "it's your fault that people were jerks because you
> didn't use a jerk-proof license" doesn't fly.

Actually it's just common sense to protect yourself against The Evil 
That Men Do.  Humans in general are horrible, small-minded, nasty, EVIL 
creatures.  If you think otherwise, you're going to get hurt.  Therefore 
if you fail to protect yourself against the inevitable, you're just 
/begging/ for it to happen.  You lose any right to complain when it 
happens, because anyone with a brain knows it's coming.

-- 
Corey Murtagh
The Electric Monk
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!"

Hanos wrote:

> "Allen" <allen-terri-ng!@#att.net> wrote in message
> news:iUolb.188905$0v4.14600513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> 
>>    Is open sourcing safe as far as maintaining credit/control/ownership of
>>software?
> 
> open source is just another word for "communism"

Oh, puh-/lease/.

Open-Source Software is, in some ways, very socialist.  In others it is 
quite definitely not.  Have you ever actually read the GPL?  The LGPL? 
Any of the recognized OSS licenses?  They're quite definitely /not/ 
expressing socialist views.  In fact the GPK is about as fascist a 
document as anything I've seen.

"If you use any part of this, then you /will/ follow my orders to the 
letter and put /every/ part of your project under GPL."

I'd be a whole lot happier if OSS /was/ socialist.

-- 
Corey Murtagh
The Electric Monk
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!"

"Thom Kevin Gillespie" <thom@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> schreef in bericht
news:bn7nab$qp5$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> In alt.games.programming Hanos <i@bleat.nospam.com> wrote:
> > "Allen" <allen-terri-ng!@#att.net> wrote in message
> > news:iUolb.188905$0v4.14600513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >>     Is open sourcing safe as far as maintaining
credit/control/ownership
> > of
> >> software?
>
> > open source is just another word for "communism"
>
> Actually 'open source' is another phrase for the internet. None of us are
> here babbling away without 'open source' Microsoft would never have
> willingly created the internet.

You don't honestly think Microsoft created the Internet?

Floris

Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote in message news:<bn6e8l$5lh$1@quark.scn.rain.com>...
> gswork wrote:
> > Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote in message news:<bn5gs9$k90$1@quark.scn.rain.com>...
> > 
>  
> > It might be 'nice' from your perspective if these people just gave
> > stuff away - but that invites a discussion on human motivation.  all
> > i'm doing here is gently pointing out the flaw in thinking of the
> > above as one sided.

> 
> I view patents and copyright as a way for society to say, "Thanks for 
> the contribution.  Here is a short time in which you alone can make a 
> product based on this idea.  If it is as good an idea as it looks then 
> surely you can now use this time to make enough money to live very 
> comfortably from now on."

I'd have to ask on what basis other people can lay claim to an idea
that is not theirs (even if 95% of what went in was the produce of
others - mostly other inventors btw).  Removing that part, i think the
above would work fine.  Eternal patents are silly, they naturally
become redundant when the technology becomes obsolete anyway.  A
finite time scale is reasonable to expect the inventor/s to take up
their economic opportunity if they choose to, and if they refuse to
allow the invention to be produced then it doesn't seem unreasonable
to have the patent come to an end after this time scale and for others
to produce it.  The length of that timescale is hard to define though,
and should perhaps be on a case by case basis, or categorised.

> >>Patents are definately the worst of the two.  Patents actually kill.  If 
> >>it wasn't for the breaking of patents there would be no help for poor 
> >>countries trying to hamper AIDS.  This is not acceptable.
> > 
> > 
> > If it wasn't for patents are you confident there would be *any* drug
> > available to counter AIDS at all?  Or any of those other diseases that
> > require billions invested in order to find cures and treatments?
> 
> That is a valid point.  I can't really say one way or the other.  What I 
> can say is that when it comes to human life the idea of intelectual 
> "property" is of much less importance.  In no case should a patent be 
> held above society's need to help its members live.

In a sense, if you follow the above to mean that without patents many
medicines would not exist, we are saying that patents are one of the
mechanisms that *does* help, not hinder, people to live.  In this case
we cannot have our cake and eat it too.

> If you spend the 
> money and time comming up with a cure for something people in poor 
> status are dieing from that still doesn't give you the right to withhold 
> the result and let those people die.

Not coming up with the idea means they will die.  We cannot oblige
people to come up with ideas, yet would we feel comfortable seizing
them should they have the temerity to do so?  The above sounds like a
simple and decent way of doing things - but again you're risking the
inhibition of ideas by making them, in some sense, a liability - "have
an idea and we'll grab it, don't have an idea and we can't get you"

I don't see an easy way to manage this in a way that maximises both
the generation of ideas and access to the product of those ideas, the
best i can think of is to encourage R&D, to structure businesses to
look at profits (for drugs) over decades not years (difficult
precisely because things are reverse engineered, short-term patented
etc) and enable benevolence without that meaning economic disaster for
the inventor/s.

> Could those doctors have come up with the cure without society's 
> contribution?  No way. They would have to reinvent the entire theory of 
> science upon which their research is based for one.

Remember - if the incremental effort that results in an invention were
that easy, we'd all have cured AIDS by now.  Sure it's built on the
shoulders of previous giants, and the efforts of many who enable
research to exist, but the effort is still great.

> So, in short to avoid confusion:  Society owns your ideas, not you.

Fundamentally disagree that 'society', in itself ill-defined, can lay
claim to anyone's ideas in any meaningful material sense - and
certainly not those that are original (regardles of what they built
upon).  What i can agree is that it takes the cooperation of other
people, generally, to get something produced and that this cooperation
should come about through uncoercive negotiation.

Any attempt to enshrine what you say in law is, in my estimation,
likely to inhibit inventive thinking by making it a liability, it's
already risky enough!

> If 
> society wishes to grant monopolies on the production of good ideas in 
> order to promote the expression of good ideas, great.  But it is under 
> no obligation to do so, especially when human life is in the balance and 
> it is certainly under no obligation to grant this monopoly for 
> perpetually extended periods of time.

Again, what's this 'society' granting temporary monopolies? - in
practice a very small, largely unrepresentative, political elite of
lawmakers and policy makers.  What becomes of ideas if they are
considered, upon the instance of having one, to be not belonging to,
or even relevant to, the person who had it?

In article <bn7nab$qp5$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu>, Thom Kevin Gillespie <thom@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>In alt.games.programming Hanos <i@bleat.nospam.com> wrote:
>> "Allen" <allen-terri-ng!@#att.net> wrote in message
>> news:iUolb.188905$0v4.14600513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>     Is open sourcing safe as far as maintaining credit/control/ownership
>> of
>>> software?
>
>> open source is just another word for "communism"
>
>Actually 'open source' is another phrase for the internet. None of us are 
>here babbling away without 'open source' Microsoft would never have 
>willingly created the internet.

Why not?  They *have* created a number of services.  I wouldn't be at 
all surprised if, in a world where Windows was widespread and the net 
non-existent, MS created protocols to allow Windows machines to 
communicate.  Why would that not be in accordance with MS aims and 
interests?

The net is hardly perfect - for all we know if MS had created it, they 
might have built one more profitable for creative people and less 
attractive to pirates and anonymous filth of all kinds.

But that's by the way - nobody is saying that everything that was 
created on an open source basis is bad, any more than all food grown in 
communist countries was poisonous.

- Gerry Quinn

Allen wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
>     I've recently finished a working draft of my game engine (my first)!
> Looking at it now, since it's so big and I was the only coder on it, it
> feels like 9 parts hack and 1 part good design.
> 
>     I've heard a lot of support for the notion of open sourcing large
> projects and for web sites like sourceforge.net.  While I'm quite certain
> that I've not written anything "new" or "groundbreaking", I'm hesitant to
> open source my engine or even to share it online.  It feels too much like
> just throwing away all my hard work.  At the same time though, it's tempting
> to see how much improvement could be done to my engine with a lot more
> people (and with some real skills ;-) working on it.
> 
>     Is open sourcing safe as far as maintaining credit/control/ownership of
> software?

Read http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

The GPL is a license designed to protect people like yourself.  It means 
you can share your code openly, without fear that you will be ripped 
off.  The big danger is that a commercial company sees your code, thinks 
"aha, we can make a profit off this", and does a cut-and-paste job.  The 
GPL prevents this, unless the company is itself prepared to release its 
code under GPL.  However commercial companies can't afford to violate a 
copyright, since they run the danger of a disgruntled employee blowing 
the whistle, so IT managers (quite rightly) are pedantic about having 
all software licenses up to date.

Basically the ONLY way you are going to get recognition for your work is 
to distribute it.  If a company likes what it sees, it can contact you 
to buy a license (so long you don't try selling others' contributions). 
  If a hobbyist sees your work, likes it, he can use your code freely if 
he abides by the GPL, and you retain your copyright.  It's a win-win 
situation.

It depends how many commercial secrets you have lurking in your 
software.  If there is some truly ground-breaking stuff, a commercial 
company could steal your ideas but not your source code, but I doubt 
that since it would be cheaper for them to buy a license, and it sounds 
like a product of engineering rather than genius!  (no offense intended ;-)

Calum

In article <bn5gs9$k90$1@quark.scn.rain.com>, Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>Gerry Quinn wrote:

[Others have ably made the points I would have made, so I'll be brief.  
I have some closed-source software to create, software I would not be 
creating if it were not in the hope of making a profit.]
 
>> You are distributing your closed source program, to the benefit of 
>> society.  The only ideas you are keeping secret are precisely those you 
>> have contributed yourself (you are of course keeping your own 
>> expressions of many ideas secret too).  After all, the ideas you took 
>> from pre-existing public culture are still there - you have not removed 
>> them!
>
>What is society getting out of the deal?  You take what society gave 
>you, add a small spattering of your own, and then sell it back.  Nothing 
>has been contributed, seems like a rather one sided transaction to me.

The *only* thing I am selling is what I have added - after all, those 
who buy my product already have access to all the stuff society 
supposedly gave me!  Clearly that 'spattering of stuff' is what people 
are paying for - they already have the stuff you talk about.
 
>> In fact, the result of expressing these ideas is visible too - people 
>> can see the finished program. 

>But society has to purchase the right to view it.  So long as there is a 
>fair limit amount that must be paid, in the way of time, then this is 
>fair and necissary in our society because we are trade based.  In some 
>utopian society even this would be unreasonable.

Are you postulating that such a society could exist?  Only, I think, if 
people were subjected to extreme behaviour modification such as to make 
trade pointless.  You're actually positing a society in which A cannot 
prefer apples to oranges more than B prefers apples to oranges, because 
in such a society trade can improve everyone's utility.  So you've done 
away with personal pleasure, or created a religion in which trade is an 
utter evil.  I don't want to live in your communist utopia.  Communists 
didn't either.

>You also bring up an interesting point that the ideas I don't express 
>are similar to the ones I do but keep secret.  Consider what happens at 
>that point, society creates it again in someone else.  So long as I 

Or it isn't created at all.  Because I couldn't see a way to make a 
profit, or I had to work in some profession you consider worthy of 
payment instead of working on my idea, the idea is lost, perhaps for 
thousands of years.

>never expressed the idea, and didn't claim ownership of it, this other 
>person is legally free to do so.  Consider the invention of Calculus, 
>which took place in two seperate people at the same time.  Also consider 
>the telephone; it is only by time alone that we consider Bell the 
>inventor of the telephone because he got to the patent office first.

And had the Greeks invented IP, it seems Archimedes might have been 
richer and the Dark Ages less dark ;-)

>What I mean to say is that by not expressing an idea I have I am leaving 
>the door open for it to be recreated.  In our current situation, should 
>I lay claim to that idea then society is beholden to me for an 
>undertermined amount of time, possibly as long as there is a corperation 
>that can continue claiming it, to gain access to that idea.  There is 
>something inherently broken there.

I'm confused by this - you are aware, are you not, that IP durations are 
determined by society (in the form of governments)?  It seems you are 
speaking of an imagined dystopia to balance your postulated utopia.
 
>> As people who argue along the lines you propose usually do, you conflate 
>> patents and copyrights.  Only patents protect ideas, the protection time 
>> is very limited and the ideas have to be adjudged novel (the last bit 
>> needs improvement, I agree).
>
>Patents are definately the worst of the two.  Patents actually kill.  If 
>it wasn't for the breaking of patents there would be no help for poor 
>countries trying to hamper AIDS.  This is not acceptable.

As others have pointed out, you are, perhaps deliberately, ignoring the 
fact that there is a feedback loop here.  Had your logic been applied 
twenty years ago, and the intellectual assets of drug companies stripped 
in some worthy cause, the companies would not exist in order to create 
the assets you want to strip today.

Have you ever wondered why the shops and hospitals are not full of 
older generic drugs that are out of patent?  I have.  Either the drug 
companies are creating new or better drugs all the time, or these 
generic companies only make a profit as parasites when the price is kept 
high by the creators, and when the drug falls out of patent they are 
gone.  (Marketing can't be the answer, there are enough socialists in 
the state-paid professions to counterbalance it...)

If we stopped eating meat, the farm animals would live happily ever 
after, right?  Not for more than one generation, at least considering 
those bred for the pot. 

>   Copyrights protect only the expression of
>> ideas, and prevent nobody from using the ideas - that's why long 
>> copyright periods do no obvious harm that I can see.  You can't use 
>> Mickey directly but you can create an animated mouse of your own any 
>> time you want.  Mickey is not the idea of a cartoon mouse, but an 
>> expression of that idea. 

>If we go into the realm of fictional creations you run into all sorts of 
>problems.  You are not going to be able to write a book that takes place 
>in the Star Wars universe and expect any amount of civility from 
>Lucasfilms.  In fact they have killed several fan works that could have 
>been incredibly interesting.

No fan wank can be "incredibly interesting".  Next thing you'll be 
telling me that graphic novels are literature!

You can still satirise Star Wars, or refer to it.  And don't forget that 
IP is largely responsible for the creation of Star Wars - where else 
could the budget have come from?  No Star Wars, no fanfic.

Create your own heroes and heroines, dudes. Or pay LucasArts for a 
license if you want their stuff that much (but isn't it just a 
"spattering" - how come it's so important?)

>What I am seing, and what I have a problem with, is that society 
>contributes a great deal to these ideas and the only thing they get back 
>is to be forever indebited to the person who the idea happens to take 
>hold in, the perpetual right to pay for access to something that it was 
>99% responsible for creating.  This is especially concerning when you 
>realize that much of our modern culture is based on things on TV, the 
>movies, and the radio.  Much of culture is its music and other forms of 
>entertainment and artistic expression.  Basically our culture is "owned" 
>by a few corperations and they are trying very hard to make it 
>impossible to break this hold, in my opinion they don't own these things 
>- or at least don't have the right to and don't have the right to.

The specific expressions don't constitute the culture.  The expressions 
are owned by corporations because they were created by them or sold to 
them, and their duration is not perpetual but fixed by IP law.  (To say 
that a couple of amendments mean copyright is of infinite duration is 
the same as saying that two consecutive tax increases mean tax is 
effectively 100% forever.)

Mickey Mouse does not stand in the way of your own cartoon mouse.  You 
can even use Mickey in protected ways (satire, cultural reference). 
It's not so bloody difficult to invent your own mouse.  The only people 
who want to use Mickey Mouse do so precisely to capitalise on its IP 
value [even if they want to produce some sophomoric work criticising 
capitalism by putting Mickey's head on Kylie's body or showing 
impoverished workers walking into Mickey's gigantic maw - I'll make you 
a spinner for creating such 'ideas' if you like!]

Damn, I can never be brief.

Gerry Quinn                                   
-- 
http://bindweed.com 
Kaleidoscopic Screensavers and Games for Windows
Download free trial versions
New screensaver: "Hypercurve"
(Which would not exist without IP protection)

In article <20031022051054.187$3q@newsreader.com>, bgusenet@bacchae.f9.co.uk wrote:
>(Followups to comp.programming only. I hate myself for writing this
>response in the first place.)
>
>gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote:
>> Copyrights protect only the expression of
>> ideas, and prevent nobody from using the ideas - that's why long
>> copyright periods do no obvious harm that I can see.  You can't use
>> Mickey directly but you can create an animated mouse of your own any
>> time you want.  Mickey is not the idea of a cartoon mouse, but an
>> expression of that idea.
>
>If we had perpetual copyright, there is an awful lot of work derived from
>Shakespear, Grimm, etc which might not have been made. Disney would have
>hardly made anything at all if they could not have used works which we now
>have in the public domain.

I'm not so sure.  In the first place, the market in such IP would find 
it's own level, and licensing Hamlet for the school play would probably 
be cheap or even free, though a new film of Hamlet would cost big.  And 
in the second place, you can use ideas without creating a derivative 
work.  'Forbidden Planet' is often likened to 'The Tempest' but is 
hardly a derivative work.

Since Grimm is comfortably outsold by Harry Potter, I doubt that adding 
the depredations of the estate of the Briothers Grimm would make much 
difference.  There are all sorts of publishing costs anyway - IP is just 
one.

And note that you are talking about *very* long periods.  Disney's 
ownership of the Mouse isn't blocking any obviously important artistic 
roads.  And without IP the Mouse wouldn't exist in its current form 
anyway.  Culture would vanish, not appear.

>One way of restraining the gift of legally-enforced-monopoly is to make it
>of limited time. How much is reasonable is debatable. (IMO, 14 years is too
>short and life+70 years is way too long. I'd favour a flat 70 years.)

Actually I'm happy with that too.  Besides, what if we discover super 
longevity treatments?

- Gerry Quinn

In article <pan.2003.10.22.21.31.38.555716@cox.net>, Josh Sebastian <curien@cox.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:16:04 +0200, Hanos wrote:
>
>> "Allen" <allen-terri-ng!@#att.net> wrote in message
>> news:iUolb.188905$0v4.14600513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>>     Is open sourcing safe as far as maintaining credit/control/ownership
>> of
>>> software?
>> 
>> open source is just another word for "communism"
>
>No, I don't think so. I think it's more akin to the logical extreme of the
>US's current economy. Raw materials are getting cheaper and cheaper; the
>real value is in /services/. OSS is just that, taken to the extreme, and
>applied to the software industry: the materials (code) is free, and you
>pay for support.

That's complete rubbish.  First raw materials are NOT free (hello, 
tragedy of the commons?).  And secondly, "services" as a sector is not 
restricted to things like hairdressing.  They often include the use of 
software that is purchased because it is properly written and does not 
require support.

>Calling it "communism" is very colorful, but it's not very intelligent.

On the contrary, it is *very* akin to that toxic ideology - which is 
so often found attractive by the politically immature, but in its 
expression leads society to the charnel house.

- Gerry Quinn

"Allen" <allen-terri-ng!@#att.net> wrote in message news:<iUolb.188905$0v4.14600513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> Hi all,
> 
>     I've recently finished a working draft of my game engine (my first)!
> Looking at it now, since it's so big and I was the only coder on it, it
> feels like 9 parts hack and 1 part good design.
> 
>     I've heard a lot of support for the notion of open sourcing large
> projects and for web sites like sourceforge.net.  While I'm quite certain
> that I've not written anything "new" or "groundbreaking", I'm hesitant to
> open source my engine or even to share it online.  It feels too much like
> just throwing away all my hard work.  At the same time though, it's tempting
> to see how much improvement could be done to my engine with a lot more
> people (and with some real skills ;-) working on it.
> 
>     Is open sourcing safe as far as maintaining credit/control/ownership of
> software?

i think you should you can get ideas from other people

"Allen" <allen-terri-ng!@#att.net> wrote in message news:<iUolb.188905$0v4.14600513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> Hi all,
> 
>     I've recently finished a working draft of my game engine (my first)!
> Looking at it now, since it's so big and I was the only coder on it, it
> feels like 9 parts hack and 1 part good design.
> 
>     I've heard a lot of support for the notion of open sourcing large
> projects and for web sites like sourceforge.net.  While I'm quite certain
> that I've not written anything "new" or "groundbreaking", I'm hesitant to
> open source my engine or even to share it online.  It feels too much like
> just throwing away all my hard work.  At the same time though, it's tempting
> to see how much improvement could be done to my engine with a lot more
> people (and with some real skills ;-) working on it.
> 
>     Is open sourcing safe as far as maintaining credit/control/ownership of
> software?

yes i think so that way people can help u and change it for the best!

Dan Olson wrote:
> Brandon,
> 
> Here is basically what you are saying:
> 
> "It's legal for people to cut you off and then drive 10 mph below the
> speed limit in a no-passing zone.  If you don't like it you shouldn't be
> driving."

Don't even get me started on drivers.  I think there must be something 
about getting behind the wheel of a car that makes all sense of etiquete 
and human decency just dissapear.

> The issue is decency, not legality.  From what Noah has posted it is clear
> that the person in question was not being polite, sensible, or decent.

Thank you, I thought maybe I had woke up one day to find myself in a 
land where the only comparison between decent or not was the law.

> If I'm not mistaken, that's what the original post was complaining about.
> The argument that "it's your fault that people were jerks because you
> didn't use a jerk-proof license" doesn't fly.

Yeah, Brandon is just being wierd.  Of course I understand that there is 
nothing I can legally do about it; I believe I even said this but I must 
not have been heard.  I don't even know why he is flying off the handle 
like that.  The guy was rude and it really made me feel bad; I did have 
thoughts of comming up with some way to protect it via licence or 
trademark (the only thing that would have helped me legally) but decided 
he wasn't worth it.  All I was ever saying in my origional post is that 
someone thinking of open sourcing their code should be aware that being 
nice doesn't jerk proof you.  I thought I was pretty clear about that.

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

Corey Murtagh wrote:
> Decency is a statistical anomaly.  Would the world be in the state it is 
> right now if humans possessed any innate decency?

Are you really saying that we shouldn't still expect people to be 
polite?!  Because that is what I am hearing.  "The world is crap because 
everyone is rude, therefor there is no reason to be nice or expect 
people to be nice."

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

Noah Roberts wrote:

> Corey Murtagh wrote:
> 
>> Decency is a statistical anomaly.  Would the world be in the state it 
>> is right now if humans possessed any innate decency?
> 
> Are you really saying that we shouldn't still expect people to be 
> polite?!  Because that is what I am hearing.  "The world is crap because 
> everyone is rude, therefor there is no reason to be nice or expect 
> people to be nice."

I'm saying that if you expect rudeness, you're at least prepared for it. 
  Then you can be pleasantly surprised if it doesn't happen, and won't 
be devastated when it does.

Yes, I'm a cynical bastard.

-- 
Corey Murtagh
The Electric Monk
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!"

In article <bn5qn6$tj15n$1@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Brandon J. Van Every <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Noah Roberts wrote:

>> So, this whole time you have been spouting off about cutting edge this
>> or that and saying I had no right to my opinions if I wasn't on the
>> edge
>
>I may have spoken with insufficient precision.  If you have not personally
>engaged in cutting edge R&D work, as far as I'm concerned, you have no right
>to *deny* such researchers their patents for "truly novel" stuff.

I have done "cutting edge R&D work" through one level of indirection (my
employer does R&D with radar systems, and I do software work in the R&D
department, though I do more "Make the ideas work"-type work than coming
up with the ideas themselves), so hopefully my opinions on the subject
can at least be taken seriously while they're being ripped to shreds.

The ideas developed here are developed because the people developing
them are able to profit from them (in the case of corporate R&D, usually
through continued employment as a result of the company they're working
for being able to profit from them, but the principle still holds);
without the legal protection on the ideas being developed, there would
be no incentive to develop them (since others, given our ideas, could
make the same products without the R&D investment), so the work simply
wouldn't be done.

On the other hand, if we weren't able to build on the results of previous
research, we wouldn't be able to do what we're doing at all.

So the concept of a time-limited protection in exchange for making
the ideas that are being protected available is an attempt (and, in my
opinion, a successful one) to balance allowing researchers to benefit
from their work and allowing society at large to benefit from that work.

(Of course, now that the choices are (or at least are perceived as
being) to ignore the protection completely or to use it to completely
block others from using the ideas, the whole system has an unfortunate
tendency to break down.)


>     I have
>not engaged in such work myself, although I think one day I will, and I have
>seen some analogues of the R&D process in my own work.  The difference is, I
>do not seek to *deny* such researchers the just fruits of their labor.  I
>don't engage in platitudes about the transactions being "only one way from
>society," what nonsense!

Especially given that the whole point of patent law (and copyright law),
as originally formulated[1], is to encourage contributions to society,
by giving innovators the exclusive right to profit from their work for a
period long enough to allow them to recover the costs (in time, energy,
money, and probably more things I'm not thinking of) of producing it in
exchange for sharing the knowledge needed to make it work to allow others
to build on it and to use it directly without having to re-do the work.


>     And I do think your attitude that "nobody does
>anything original" is pure poppycock.  A quick trip to a world class art
>museum should disabuse you of that notion.  The incremental cumulation of
>technological progress does *not* imply an absence of original thought.

Seconded.


dave

[1] If I'm not mistaken, nobody here is trying to claim that their current
    interpretation is a Good Thing, and I have no intention of being
    the first to do so.

-- 
Dave Vandervies                         dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Texas doesn't even rate by .us standards.  I think their whole state
could practically fit into the *parks* in Alaska.
                         --J.D. Baldwin in the scary devil monastery

In article <bn7nab$qp5$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu>,
 Thom Kevin Gillespie <thom@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:

> Microsoft would never have willingly created the internet.

?!  Did Al Gore used to work at MS?!

-- 
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

[snipped a couple of random crossposts]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> Josh Sebastian <curien@cox.net> wrote:
> >On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:16:04 +0200, Hanos wrote:
> >>
> >> open source is just another word for "communism"
> >
> >No, I don't think so. I think it's more akin to the logical extreme of the
> >US's current economy. Raw materials are getting cheaper and cheaper; the
> >real value is in /services/. OSS is just that, taken to the extreme, and
> >applied to the software industry: the materials (code) is free, and you
> >pay for support.
>
> That's complete rubbish.  First raw materials are NOT free (hello,
> tragedy of the commons?).

Information is free.  Plastic and silicon are so *close* to free that
it's not worth the debate.  However, of course the cost of electricity
and telephone service and just generally "paying people money to do
work" are *not* free.

What do you consider the "raw materials" involved in the production
of software?  The brains of the guy who built it?  The diskette he
stores it on?  The electricity that powers the server that holds the
project's CVS?

> And secondly, "services" as a sector is not
> restricted to things like hairdressing.  They often include the use of
> software that is purchased because it is properly written and does not
> require support.

(Ignoring the difficulty of parsing the above paragraph...)

If you're selling a noun, it's a good.
If you're selling a verb, it's a service.

And no, I don't care if you think that's a simplistic definition.
That's the definition that Joe Internet will use in any economic
discussion, so you may as well get used to it.

Hairdressing is a service.
Software maintenance is a service.
Wigs are goods.
Software is a good.

Whether it requires regular maintenance or not, anything that comes
in a box is a good, and anything that comes in a human being is a
service.

> >Calling it "communism" is very colorful, but it's not very intelligent.
>
> On the contrary, it is *very* akin to that toxic ideology - which is
> so often found attractive by the politically immature, but in its
> expression leads society to the charnel house.

Hee hee!

Open source is similar to the idea of the collective, but there are
some key differences, including:
  * Lack of coercion.  You can't be forced to work on a project.
Thus there's much less incentive to inflate estimates, as was seen
during the five-year plans, or during your last all-staff office
meeting.  (Sure, there's some incentive, but not nearly as much,
since neither your survival nor your paycheck are at stake.)
  * Lack of egalitarian ideology.  The open-source community as a
whole is not very egalitarian.  None of this "all animals are equal"
stuff; if you write better, you get more accolades, just like in
a money-driven capitalist society.  Thus there's much less incentive
to hang around doing nothing just to get a handout -- in the digital
world, if you don't do anything, you don't even exist!
  * The nature of information itself.  In socialist agricultural
collectives, the idea was that the big men with the guns would come
around every so often and collect all your grain (or whatever), and
then redistribute it for consumption.  That simply doesn't fly in
the digital world:  If you have a potato under the bed, the big men
will steal it from you.  If you have an idea in your head, the big
men can't steal it -- they don't even know you have it, because at
least so far, there's no way to peek inside someone's head.  (Sure,
you can take a peek at their hard drives; and now you know why some
people like encryption so much.)
  * The time scales involved.  It's quite possible for a few guys
to work on a project for a couple of months, then let it die.  Then
maybe a year later, three years, ten, another couple hackers come
along and finish what the first guys started.  That's because
information, unlike potatoes, doesn't spoil with time; and it isn't
a physical entity, so it can be duplicated without end.  So whereas
a mechanical or agricultural collective would have to struggle each
year with limited resources to reach a receding goal, a digital
collective has no deadlines, no receding goals.  To conserve a
pound of carrots for ten years takes hard work -- to conserve a
megabyte of data for ten years takes no work at all.  (Except maybe
to rent a storage locker and put an old PC in it.)

Sure, digital information won't feed the family, and it probably
won't even pay the bills once Joe Internet figures out that he
can get most information for free from the few leftist pinko Commies
among us; but that doesn't mean that it's stagnant.  There are a
lot of people out there who really like this stuff!

-Arthur,
politically immature

Miss Elaine Eos wrote:

> In article <bn7nab$qp5$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu>,
>  Thom Kevin Gillespie <thom@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Microsoft would never have willingly created the internet.
> 
> ?!  Did Al Gore used to work at MS?!

HHVF, but I think you misread it (as I did, first time through). I believe 
that he intended to say that, if it had been up to Microsoft, we wouldn't 
now /have/ an internet. (In other words, the rather marvellous openness, 
generosity, camaraderie and free-spiritedness of the Internet don't really 
fit into MS's marketing strategy.)

-- 
Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

In article <bn9cqd$ced$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>, dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Dave Vandervies) wrote:

>Especially given that the whole point of patent law (and copyright law),
>as originally formulated[1], is to encourage contributions to society,
>by giving innovators the exclusive right to profit from their work for a
>period long enough to allow them to recover the costs (in time, energy,
>money, and probably more things I'm not thinking of) of producing it in
>exchange for sharing the knowledge needed to make it work to allow others
>to build on it and to use it directly without having to re-do the work.

>[1] If I'm not mistaken, nobody here is trying to claim that their current
>    interpretation is a Good Thing, and I have no intention of being
>    the first to do so.

Well, I will be, so.  Most copyright law has been much the same for 
decades.  The main exception is the recent DMCA in the US, which seems a 
reasonable attempt at thwarting violators in a new technological 
environment.  What exactly do you think is wrong with either, or both?

- Gerry Quinn

"Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> wrote
in news:bn5fud$ss5iu$1@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de: 

> Floris van den Berg wrote:
>> "Bent C Dalager" <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> schreef in bericht
>> news:bn5dum$s6u$2@tyfon.itea.ntnu.no...
>>> In article <bn5d9v$cpc$1@quark.scn.rain.com>,
>>> Noah Roberts  <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Using what knowledge?  I assume you mean to say you created these
>>>> working solutions in a vaccuum?  What are you building, stone
>>>> wheels?
>>>
>>> Oh, don't you know? Brandon invented binary logic :-)
>>
>> I think Brandon tries to say that when you spent a lot of time and
>> money to write a program, you open the source, and instead of people
>> inputting new ideas and improving the program they just take your
>> code and use it, there's nothing in it for you.
> 
> More to the point, if you are too generous with your R&D, corporations
> *will* rip you off, *will* productize your R&D, *will not* compensate
> you one penny for it.  Patent Law is for protecting the small inventor
> from greedy corporations like Microsoft.
> 
> Personally I think if you're going to patent something in software, it
> better jolly well be worthy of patenting.  I am opposed to frivolous
> software patents, which is to say, most of them.  I am opposed to
> legal prospecting in general.  But there are people and companies who
> legitimately need the protections of patent law.
> 
> Patents are an incentive to progress.  Without patents, few people
> would have the economic incentive to create new processes.  I've
> rarely met an anti-patent person who was (1) self-funded, (2) capable
> of producing anything worthy of a patent.
> 

I thought corporations are free of patent law, in EU ... Roughly.
And I certainly don't think patents could give anyone desired amount of 
research compensation. It MIGHT apply in industry, but hardly in software / 
game developing. It's rather hindrance that slows any inovation and 
protects rich. 
I remmember on some Australian that patented wheel. I Certainly don't like 
to pay him for that, or to pay some corporations for inventing "wheels" in 
the sotware development. Elementary programs should be free and elementary 
algorithms like RSA or LZW too. (I don't know about the exact expiration 
date for RSA however so it might be free NOW.)
Don't forget in place where is lots of laws, and lots of lawsuits, there 
are lots of rich laweyers. 

Look at this: http://www.pro-innovation.org/rapport_brevet/brevets_plan-
en.pdf

I'm not self funded, currently registred as unemployed. But I recently did 
some algorithm that alowed fastest BW transformation that would be ever 
done. Does it count? 
It's not difficult to do an algorithm in game development or software 
industry, you need just brain and month of time. (You need some of that for 
testing) I don't care about big documents for showing "I'm smart look at 
me" like some scienists, so you won't be likely to find too much from me. 
But I don't consider to create new fast unknown algorithms as dependant on 
an economic incentive. If you are used to create new things, and have 
problems with copying others work, you can create a lot, becose you want. 

Noah Roberts wrote:
> Corey Murtagh wrote:
>> Decency is a statistical anomaly.  Would the world be in the state
>> it is right now if humans possessed any innate decency?
>
> Are you really saying that we shouldn't still expect people to be
> polite?!  Because that is what I am hearing.  "The world is crap
> because everyone is rude, therefor there is no reason to be nice or
> expect people to be nice."

Noah, the problem in your particular case is that what you call "politeness"
someone else is calling "interference in their product schedule."  You seem
to think that people owe you some kind of centralized command and control,
and that is decidedly against the basic principle of Open Source.  Open
Source means "not having to wait around for others to say they're sorry."

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Corey Murtagh wrote:
>
> "If you use any part of this, then you /will/ follow my orders to the
> letter and put /every/ part of your project under GPL."
>
> I'd be a whole lot happier if OSS /was/ socialist.

Nothing stopping you from using BSD-style licenses, giving everyone carte
blanche to do whatever they want with the code.  That's the side of OSS I'm
on.  And I'm only going to give away stuff that I'm absolutely, 100% happy
with giving away freely.  I don't believe *all* code should be open source,
only the grunt, boring stuff that everybody suffers from.  The interesting,
original stuff, I'm going to keep that proprietary and sell it.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> Why not?  They *have* created a number of services.  I wouldn't be at
> all surprised if, in a world where Windows was widespread and the net
> non-existent, MS created protocols to allow Windows machines to
> communicate.  Why would that not be in accordance with MS aims and
> interests?

Microsoft has always been a "clone and conquer" company.  They engage in
precious little original thought.  Microsoft would have just kept riding its
monopoloy until someone else invented "the Internet thing."  Then Microsoft
would have cashed in on it.  Since that's what they actually did in real
history, I don't see any reason to hypothetically dispute it.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Noah Roberts wrote:
>
> Don't even get me started on drivers.  I think there must be something
> about getting behind the wheel of a car that makes all sense of
> etiquete and human decency just dissapear.

Must be where you live.  It hasn't been a problem for me in North Carolina
or Seattle.  I believe that societal compression increases the percentage of
rude drivers.  Certainly it is worth knowing some "Boston driver" tricks if
you need to get somewhere in a hurry.  Wonderful protocol: when traffic is
gridlocked, forcibly stick your nose in front of another car.  They can
either choose to hit your car and deal with the insurance hassle, or they
can let you in.

> Yeah, Brandon is just being wierd.

No, Brandon is not being weird.  Noah is being myopic about the stakes of
3rd parties.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

"Brandon J. Van Every" wrote:

> Noah Roberts wrote:
>
> > Don't even get me started on drivers.  I think there must be
> > something
> > about getting behind the wheel of a car that makes all sense of
> > etiquete and human decency just dissapear.
> 
> Must be where you live.  It hasn't been a problem for me in North
> Carolina
> or Seattle.

Hmm, why is it I'm reminded of the old poker adage here?  Namely, "If
you sit down at a poker table and can't immediately tell who the mark
is, it's you."

-- 
   Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 __ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/  \ You and I / We've seen it all / Chasing our hearts' desire
\__/  The Russian and Florence, _Chess_

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:

> Gerry Quinn wrote:
> 
>>As people who argue along the lines you propose usually do, you
>>conflate
>>patents and copyrights.  Only patents protect ideas, the protection
>>time
>>is very limited and the ideas have to be adjudged novel (the last bit
>>needs improvement, I agree).
> 
> 
> Actually, I don't think patents protect ideas, I think they protect ideas
> embodied in concrete processes.  But I am unsure here.
> 

If I recall correctly, the orignal intention of patents explicly 
excluded ideas.  Patents could only apply to physical inventions.

In fact, here's the quote from Jefferson's patent law:

"any new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter 
and any new and useful improvement on any art, machine, manufacture or 
composition of matter"

(ex: http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html)

The inclusion of patentable algorithms came only recently.

AFAIK the idea that ideas are not patentable is still in force, but I 
cannot see how an algorthim is not an idea, so it doesn't make too much 
sense to me.

Peter.

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:

> Noah Roberts wrote:
> 
>>Now, on the other hand, I have run into trouble with rude and
>>inconsiderate people.  I had someone fork from my project and use a
>>name
>>that should have been reserved to said project without my permission
>>or
>>even notifying me that they intended to do so.  This was done simply
>>because I wasn't fast enough at comming up with that part of the
>>project; they even paid someone to write their code, which left me
>>with a pange of jealosy and general bad feelings.
> 
> 
> Well let's face it, one of the main benefits of Open Source is not having to
> wait on people who want to control what you can do with the code.  If you
> license stuff as open source, you can't reasonably expect people to march to
> your timeframe.  They have their business deadlines to meet that you don't
> have....
> 

That's true, but Noah's point - that it was rude to not even inform him 
(as original author and active project maintainer) that they were going 
to fork the code, is quite valid.

These things happen in OSS, but usually after some discussion.

Peter.

> 
>>>How many Linux distributions do you think there are?  Why do you
>>>think there are so many?  Do you think anyone asked, or was
>>>interested in, getting permission to do such-and-such with Linux?
>>>It's open source.
>>
>>Actually there is quite a bit of expectations in this area.  How many
>>Linux kernels are there?  Very few.
> 
> 
> The fact that there's more than one speaks *volumes* about the expected
> nature of open source.
> 

There isn't more than one.

Hanos wrote:

> "Allen" <allen-terri-ng!@#att.net> wrote in message
> news:iUolb.188905$0v4.14600513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> 
>>    Is open sourcing safe as far as maintaining credit/control/ownership
> 
> of
> 
>>software?
> 
> 
> open source is just another word for "communism"
> 
> 

why?

In article <ob%lb.188539$JA5.4691984@news.xtra.co.nz>,
Peter Ashford  <me@here.there.com> wrote:
>>>Actually there is quite a bit of expectations in this area.  How many
>>>Linux kernels are there?  Very few.

>> The fact that there's more than one speaks *volumes* about the expected
>> nature of open source.

>There isn't more than one.

   False. There are various patch branches to the core to include
various features not in the "official" releases. (I assume that this
is what the original poster was referring to, not the continual
development of 2.2.x after 2.4.x was out, etc) Alan Cox's "ac*" series
of brances are quite well known. [As Alan has worked for RedHat, I
believe some of their releases were based on ac-branches.]  There's
also ones like
http://linux.bankhacker.com/en/software/Patch+de+latencia+del+Kernel/
which are designed to reduce latency in the kernel, etc.

   There's also the OpenBSD/NetBSD/FreeBSD split (not technically
Linux, but Open Source just the same); some of those splits have been
acrimonious.

Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates - personal webpage http://www.visi.com/~nathan/  
# Programmer at Pandemic Studios -- http://www.pandemicstudios.com/
# NOT speaking for Pandemic Studios. "Care not what the neighbors
# think. What are the facts, and to how many decimal places?" -R.A. Heinlein

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Noah, the problem in your particular case is that what you call "politeness"
> someone else is calling "interference in their product schedule."

You know, I have repetedly told you this had nothing to do with any 
businesses.  I don't know why you continue assuming that it did.

   You seem
> to think that people owe you some kind of centralized command and control,
> and that is decidedly against the basic principle of Open Source.

I expect to be kept in the loop, especially when they are going to use a 
name for their product that I had already set aside for mine.

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

Peter Ashford wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> 
>> Noah Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> Now, on the other hand, I have run into trouble with rude and
>>> inconsiderate people.  I had someone fork from my project and use a
>>> name
>>> that should have been reserved to said project without my permission
>>> or
>>> even notifying me that they intended to do so.  This was done simply
>>> because I wasn't fast enough at comming up with that part of the
>>> project; they even paid someone to write their code, which left me
>>> with a pange of jealosy and general bad feelings.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well let's face it, one of the main benefits of Open Source is not 
>> having to
>> wait on people who want to control what you can do with the code.  If you
>> license stuff as open source, you can't reasonably expect people to 
>> march to
>> your timeframe.  They have their business deadlines to meet that you 
>> don't
>> have....
>>
> 
> That's true, but Noah's point - that it was rude to not even inform him 
> (as original author and active project maintainer) that they were going 
> to fork the code, is quite valid.

Actually it is worse than that even, in my opinion.  I would have been 
fine with a code fork, but what happened was quite different.  I have a 
project that is comprised of 3 components, on engine, a protocol, and an 
interface.  The gist of what I am doing is borrowing the concept of 
XBoard and applying it to Chinese Chess.  I called the protocol 
"cxboard" because it is an enhancement to xboard to make it work with 
chinese chess (which it couldn't do out of the box).  To make a long 
story short, he implemented the interface before I could get to it and 
used the name of the protocol.  After much "discussion" it became clear 
that he never intended to actually implement the protocol correctly and 
refused to work with me at all.  He actually planned on designing his 
own apparently...WTF, call it something else then!

There are two problems I had with this.  One, he never told me his 
intention, the protocol was not stable and there needed to be a lot of 
communication for this to work right.  Two, he used the name of the 
protocol with no intention of implementing it.  Had he intended to 
implement it I would have gotten past being upset.  And actually a third 
problem I had is the way he presented his 'cxboard' program - as if it 
was the definative example for the cxboard protocol...this is ever more 
irritating knowing that there was never any intention to work with me to 
do it right.

I was willing to work with someone on this, to have someone else write 
that part and we could communicate needs and agree upon a protocol. 
Left by myself I had to come up with it only knowing what I wanted it to 
do.  Had he been willing to discuss the matter I would have been more 
than happy to let him use the name and would have officiated his project 
as THE implementation.  I even tried to make this happen but he spit 
back in my face.

So I have this program floating around on the net, it is using the name 
of the protocol I designed but is totally incompatable now.  I have had 
to deal with other people's understandable confusion about the matter. 
I find it very unpleasant, and I think this person was very rude - as 
does the developer who was paid to create the thing (whom I talked to at 
great length while he was active - I wish it had been their project 
because he was reasonable).

Yes, I was moving slowly...and I still am.  I am STILL willing to work 
with someone who wants to help me and I am open to different ideas.  I 
have been approached by other developers who want to work on something 
that is not part of the project but uses my ideas, I welcome this every 
time and I have only had the one issue.  There was never any business 
interests at stake, except those of the person paid to develop the 
program.  Apparently this was a person who wanted to learn project 
management and so was paying a developer to do this thing; in my opinion 
they have a lot to learn because one of the main ingredients to a good 
project manager is the ability to communicate with the managers of the 
other components your project must interoperate with.  They could have 
easily worked with me and learned project management even better if they 
had - I would have been very cooperative.

Yes, some fear was involved.  Here is someone who is paying developers 
to work on a project that is not only competing with your own but 
appears in every way to be an attempt to take it over.  There is no way 
I could compete with that.  This, probably more than anything, really 
upset me.  Eventually though he shot himself in the foot and I got 
enough off the ground that I have a pretty solid foundation as long as I 
continue making progress.

So, I hope that puts at rest any misconceptions or assumptions about 
what took place.  That is a brief overview and should not be taken as 
the whole story; for one thing I didn't mention the last couple of 
emails that got sent where I finally told him to F-off and became very 
undiplomatic and various other aspects of the event that would be less 
one sided.  I never intended it to be taken as such anyway.  It has 
become apparent that what I thought was just simple caveat (you could 
run into rude people) has become an outrageously overblown *issue*.  It 
is really quite stupid.  They where rude, I have every right to be upset 
with what they did and nobody has the right to tell me otherwise, 
especially when they don't even know what took place.

I think many people are confusing the legal standing to sue for damages 
with the right to be pissed off.

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

Ian Woods <newspub2@wuggyNOCAPS.org> writes:
> To me, open source software is to software as scientific publications are 
> to, well, science. If I publish a paper descibing an algorithm, I'm 
> inviting people to look at my work, learn from it, and if they are able, 
> expand on it. When I release software as open source, I'm inviting people 
> to do exactly the same!
> 
> Open source software might allow us, as an industry, to get out of the 
> reinventing the wheel millions of times rut that we're in. Imagine 
> science occuring where all the ideas and implimentations of those ideas 
> were /all/ proprietry! Now imagine all software ideas an implimentations 
> being all proporietry.
> 
> Closed software to me is the equavalent of closed science. Good for the 
> marketing peeps and even making a profit, bad for anyone interested in 
> improving the engineering.

I couldn't have expressed my feelings more eloquently. It also goes
back to the ridiculous comment that Brandon made, something about
patents being the only incentive for progress. 

Sometimes when I explain the Open Source concept to a layperson, I
compare it to science, and the general idea that scientists are pretty
much obligated to share their research and make it public.

And to think that patents are the only incentive for progress, is well
just plain silly. The human mind is the greatest incentive for
progress, and I really doubt an inventive or creative mind would
simply cease to create simply because there is no monetary gain to be
made.

"Timothy J. Bruce" <uniblab@hotmail.com> writes:

> Interesting and related aside:
> Archemedes's `The Method' was recently uncovered in a palimpset.  Since
> the US Patent Office now accepts algorithms could the Heirs of Archemedes
> patent integral calculus (he was doing it before N&L)? Could the Heirs of
> Archemedes claim a patent on programming (I define `programming' as
> `solving a puzzle', not `typing')? Are these notions patently offensive?
> This obviously points to serious flaws in the current US patent
> procedures, which may not be entirely incidental to objections many
> altruists have with the concept of `Intellectual Property'.
> Careful: I said `altruist', not `socialist'; This is not flame-bait.

With the current state of abuses to patent laws, it's quite possible
that one could maintain a patent for thousands of years, simply by
making small trivial changes. For example doing your integral calculus
with a pen instead of a pencil may very well be approved to extend a
patent by the US patent office.

"Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> writes:

> Not in the slightest.  If you really believe so, you need to brush up on
> Patent Law 101.

So you would be of the opinion that allowing granting a patent for
swinging sideways on a swing is not a flaw?

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='6,368,227'.WKU.&OS=PN/6,368,227&RS=PN/6,368,227

ant@afghan.dogpound wrote:

> And to think that patents are the only incentive for progress, is well
> just plain silly. The human mind is the greatest incentive for
> progress, and I really doubt an inventive or creative mind would
> simply cease to create simply because there is no monetary gain to be
> made.

Also interesting to note is the number of very large, very commercial, 
companies contributing to Open Source.  Big boys like IBM and HP don't 
toss money into something without expecting a return; and not just a 
small return because that is a big risk and when they get that big they 
don't like big risks.  Obviously there are some that think they can make 
money off of Open Source, and a lot of it.  I think this punches a big 
hole in the closed source and software patents are the only way to make 
money theory.  And these guys have done TRUE R&D at GREAT expense.

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

ant@afghan.dogpound wrote:
> "Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>Not in the slightest.  If you really believe so, you need to brush up on
>>Patent Law 101.
> 
> 
> So you would be of the opinion that allowing granting a patent for
> swinging sideways on a swing is not a flaw?
> 
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='6,368,227'.WKU.&OS=PN/6,368,227&RS=PN/6,368,227
> 
> 

How about the "Method of Excercising a Cat" patent? 
http://www.legamedia.net/lochlex/2001/01-03/0103_lenger_gustav_cat-exercise.php

A quick google found that link - not the actual patent, but I have seen 
and read it.


"A method for inducing cats to exercise consists of directing a beam of 
invisible light produced by a hand-held laser apparatus onto the floor 
or wall or other opaque surface in the vicinity of the cat, then moving 
the laser so as to cause the bright pattern of light to move in an 
irregular way fascinating to cats, and to any other animal with a chase 
instinct."

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

> A quick google found that link - not the actual patent, but I have seen 
> and read it.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5443036.WKU.&OS=PN/5443036&RS=PN/5443036

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:

> Patent Law is for protecting the small inventor from
> greedy corporations like Microsoft.

It costs quite a lot of money to take out a patent. Microsoft can afford 
quite a lot of money, and the small inventor quite often cannot.

> Patents are an incentive to progress.

No. They should be, but (at least in the software world) they are 
counter-productive.

> Without patents, few people would
> have the economic incentive to create new processes.  I've rarely met an
> anti-patent person who was (1) self-funded, (2) capable of producing
> anything worthy of a patent.

I'm certainly not anti-patent[1], but I am anti-stupidity, and a lot of 
stupid patents have been granted.


[1] I'm anti-software-patent only on the grounds that most software patents 
are stupid and counter-productive. 

-- 
Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

In article <9FXlb.2305$bD.10455@news.indigo.ie>,
Gerry Quinn <gerryq@indigo.ie> wrote:
>
>Well, I will be, so.  Most copyright law has been much the same for 
>decades.  The main exception is the recent DMCA in the US, which seems a 
>reasonable attempt at thwarting violators in a new technological 
>environment.  What exactly do you think is wrong with either, or both?

DMCA is a godsend. It is driving scientists to hold their conferences
in Europe :-)

If I were a USian I might, of course, consider this to be a problem.

Cheers
	Bent D
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs

In article <HR_lb.188516$JA5.4691984@news.xtra.co.nz>,
Peter Ashford  <me@here.there.com> wrote:
>
>AFAIK the idea that ideas are not patentable is still in force, but I 
>cannot see how an algorthim is not an idea, so it doesn't make too much 
>sense to me.

Ah, but you see, it's an idea _implemented in a computing device_ and
so it _is_ an actual item. It's a PC, for instance, with the algorithm
running within it.

I don't think software patents can be used to stop anyone from, say,
computing the RSA algo by hand, so if you want to implement a
human-driven encryption unit, you might be able to do so. (RSA is
expired anyway I think, but you get the point.)

I am more curious about business method patents.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Cheers
	Bent D
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs

In article <bn9np1$up05k$1@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Brandon J. Van Every <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Nothing stopping you from using BSD-style licenses, giving everyone carte
>blanche to do whatever they want with the code.  That's the side of OSS I'm
>on.  And I'm only going to give away stuff that I'm absolutely, 100% happy
>with giving away freely.  I don't believe *all* code should be open source,
>only the grunt, boring stuff that everybody suffers from.  The interesting,
>original stuff, I'm going to keep that proprietary and sell it.

I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that this is the
only realistic alternative to IP.

If there weren't patents, there would still be inventions. There might
be somewhat fewer, but they'd be there. They would, however, remain
proprietary and so the risk would be high that noone but the inventor
would even learn about them. They wouldn't diffuse into society in
general. It is considered to be better if inventors are encouraged to
share the detailed description of their invention in return for a
limited monopoly, which is basically how patents (are supposed to)
work.

You see both sides of the coin today. There are those who choose to
maintain their proprietary information as trade secrets. This has its
good sides and its bad. On the good side, if they pull this off well
they can keep it proprietary for a lot more than 17 years (did
Coca-Cola do this with their recipe or is that just urban legend?). On
the down side, if their trade secret gets leaked, they have precious
little protection for their secret even within the 17 year span.

So if Brandon's "good" parts are of patentable quality but he chooses
to just keep it secret in stead, he's opening himself up to
reverse-engineers learning his secret and capitalizing on it, and to
someone else coming up with the same thing and perhaps even patenting
it for themselves.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Cheers
	Bent D
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs

In article <HR_lb.188516$JA5.4691984@news.xtra.co.nz>, Peter Ashford <me@here.there.com> wrote:
>If I recall correctly, the orignal intention of patents explicly 
>excluded ideas.  Patents could only apply to physical inventions.
>
>In fact, here's the quote from Jefferson's patent law:
>
>"any new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter 
>and any new and useful improvement on any art, machine, manufacture or 
>composition of matter"

How do you know the word "art" refers to a physical invention?  You may 
very well be right, in that colloquial English today need not be the 
same as legal English in Jefferson's time.  But the word does not scream 
"physical process" at me.

Gerry Quinn                                   
-- 
http://bindweed.com 
Kaleidoscopic Screensavers and Games for Windows
Download free trial versions
New screensaver: "Hypercurve"

In article <87d6cnb8mh.fsf@afghan.dogpound>, ant@afghan.dogpound wrote:
>"Timothy J. Bruce" <uniblab@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Interesting and related aside:
>> Archemedes's `The Method' was recently uncovered in a palimpset.  Since
>> the US Patent Office now accepts algorithms could the Heirs of Archemedes
>> patent integral calculus (he was doing it before N&L)? Could the Heirs of
>> Archemedes claim a patent on programming (I define `programming' as
>> `solving a puzzle', not `typing')? Are these notions patently offensive?
>> This obviously points to serious flaws in the current US patent
>> procedures, which may not be entirely incidental to objections many
>> altruists have with the concept of `Intellectual Property'.
>> Careful: I said `altruist', not `socialist'; This is not flame-bait.
>
>With the current state of abuses to patent laws, it's quite possible
>that one could maintain a patent for thousands of years, simply by
>making small trivial changes. For example doing your integral calculus
>with a pen instead of a pencil may very well be approved to extend a
>patent by the US patent office.

Even if it all your premises were granted, that wouldn't maintain a 
patent on doing it with a pencil, making the calculus-with-a-pen 
patent somewhat worthless.  So the argument is moot.

- Gerry Quinn

In article <bnai8m$28n$2@hercules.btinternet.com>, binary@eton.powernet.co.uk wrote:

>I'm certainly not anti-patent[1], but I am anti-stupidity, and a lot of 
>stupid patents have been granted.

The problem is that rather than employ fleets of technologists to assess 
every patent for novelty, patents are generally granted fairly easily on 
the basis that outrageous ones will collapse when challenged.

I guess that doesn't work as well as it used to, and some changes need 
to be made.  Difficult to see exactly how to proceed without throwing 
out the baby with the bathwater.  And there are practical motivations 
for granting them easily in a particular jurisdiction to citizens of it.

Maybe we should close a few universities, encouraging high-calibre 
people like Einstein to work in the patent offices ;-)

Gerry Quinn                                   
-- 
http://bindweed.com 
Kaleidoscopic Screensavers and Games for Windows
Download free trial versions
New screensaver: "Hypercurve"

In article <Pine.LNX.4.58-035.0310231648560.14149@unix49.andrew.cmu.edu>, "Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <ajo@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>> Josh Sebastian <curien@cox.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> open source is just another word for "communism"
>> >
>> >No, I don't think so. I think it's more akin to the logical extreme of the
>> >US's current economy. Raw materials are getting cheaper and cheaper; the
>> >real value is in /services/. OSS is just that, taken to the extreme, and
>> >applied to the software industry: the materials (code) is free, and you
>> >pay for support.
>>
>> That's complete rubbish.  First raw materials are NOT free (hello,
>> tragedy of the commons?).
>
>Information is free.  Plastic and silicon are so *close* to free that
>it's not worth the debate.  However, of course the cost of electricity
>and telephone service and just generally "paying people money to do
>work" are *not* free.

Information *isn't* free - I pay quite a lot for it.  Plastic and 
silicon aren't free.  Of course the price varies with quality and purity 
- shale is cheap by the ton, while silicon crystals suitable for chip 
fabrication are expensive (though probably they are not formally traded 
much).

And it IS worth the debate.  If stuff is not free it is not free period. 
Just because modern capitalism makes many goods very cheap, is not a 
reason for saying they are free, or that modern capitalism does 
not differ from a system in which they are free.  It's *important* that 
bulk sugar costs a few dollars per ton, even if this is a miniscule 
fraction of what it costs sold by the pound in supermarkets.

>What do you consider the "raw materials" involved in the production
>of software?  The brains of the guy who built it?  The diskette he
>stores it on?  The electricity that powers the server that holds the
>project's CVS?

I don't see any obvious way to extend the metaphor to software - I 
should imagine that any conclusions you might draw from deciding "X is 
the raw material of software" would be whimsical and/or silly.

>> And secondly, "services" as a sector is not
>> restricted to things like hairdressing.  They often include the use of
>> software that is purchased because it is properly written and does not
>> require support.
>
>(Ignoring the difficulty of parsing the above paragraph...)
>
>If you're selling a noun, it's a good.
>If you're selling a verb, it's a service.

My paragraph may be hard for some to parse, but yours is too 
metaphysical to make any real sense. 

>And no, I don't care if you think that's a simplistic definition.
>That's the definition that Joe Internet will use in any economic
>discussion, so you may as well get used to it.

It's not even a definition, let alone a simplistic one.  Is there a term 
in rhetoric for "argument by appeal to the simplicity of potential 
listeners"?  Maybe Marxists have one.

>Hairdressing is a service.
>Software maintenance is a service.
>Wigs are goods.
>Software is a good.

Okay, let's run with those.  What point did you think you were making, 
anyway, I don't see any punchline here?

>Whether it requires regular maintenance or not, anything that comes
>in a box is a good, and anything that comes in a human being is a
>service.
>
>> >Calling it "communism" is very colorful, but it's not very intelligent.
>>
>> On the contrary, it is *very* akin to that toxic ideology - which is
>> so often found attractive by the politically immature, but in its
>> expression leads society to the charnel house.
>
>Hee hee!
>
>Open source is similar to the idea of the collective, but there are
>some key differences, including:
>  * Lack of coercion.  You can't be forced to work on a project.
>Thus there's much less incentive to inflate estimates, as was seen
>during the five-year plans, or during your last all-staff office
>meeting.  (Sure, there's some incentive, but not nearly as much,
>since neither your survival nor your paycheck are at stake.)

So, you refer only to work done with no expectation of payment. 

>  * Lack of egalitarian ideology.  The open-source community as a
>whole is not very egalitarian.  None of this "all animals are equal"
>stuff; if you write better, you get more accolades, just like in
>a money-driven capitalist society.  Thus there's much less incentive
>to hang around doing nothing just to get a handout -- in the digital
>world, if you don't do anything, you don't even exist!

So your survival IS at stake, after all?

>  * The nature of information itself.  In socialist agricultural
>collectives, the idea was that the big men with the guns would come
>around every so often and collect all your grain (or whatever), and
>then redistribute it for consumption.  That simply doesn't fly in
>the digital world:  If you have a potato under the bed, the big men
>will steal it from you.  If you have an idea in your head, the big
>men can't steal it -- they don't even know you have it, because at
>least so far, there's no way to peek inside someone's head.  (Sure,
>you can take a peek at their hard drives; and now you know why some
>people like encryption so much.)

So you can piss in the grain, Soviet peasants could do that too.

>  * The time scales involved.  It's quite possible for a few guys
>to work on a project for a couple of months, then let it die.  Then
>maybe a year later, three years, ten, another couple hackers come
>along and finish what the first guys started.  That's because
>information, unlike potatoes, doesn't spoil with time; and it isn't
>a physical entity, so it can be duplicated without end.  So whereas
>a mechanical or agricultural collective would have to struggle each
>year with limited resources to reach a receding goal, a digital
>collective has no deadlines, no receding goals.  To conserve a
>pound of carrots for ten years takes hard work -- to conserve a
>megabyte of data for ten years takes no work at all.  (Except maybe
>to rent a storage locker and put an old PC in it.)

So Linux will fall further and further behind Windows.

>Sure, digital information won't feed the family, and it probably
>won't even pay the bills once Joe Internet figures out that he
>can get most information for free from the few leftist pinko Commies
>among us; but that doesn't mean that it's stagnant.  There are a
>lot of people out there who really like this stuff!

Well, you seem to be agreeing with me after all - open source is 
software communism.  I just don't see why you fail to follow your 
statements above to their logical conclusions.  I've put them in for you 
at the end of each one.

>
>-Arthur,
>politically immature

Gerry Quinn                                   
-- 
http://bindweed.com 
Kaleidoscopic Screensavers and Games for Windows
Download free trial versions
New screensaver: "Hypercurve"
(Not available on Linux, no money in it)

In article <Xns941CE996BED5Anewspubwuggyorg@217.32.252.50>, Ian Woods <newspub2@wuggyNOCAPS.org> wrote:
>"Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> wrote
>in news:bn5ktm$t0tnc$1@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de: 
>> Bill Godfrey wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe.
>>> Advocates of free software say that support contracts are a way for a
>>> programmer to get paid.
>> 
>> Ideologically speaking, it's a pile of nonsense.
>
>Is it? How many times have you posted source code to a newsgroup with the 
>expectation that people will learn from it or even use it verbatim? Did 
>you expect monitary renumeration for it?
>
>How is that any different from 'free software' in the FSF sense, other 
>than merely scale?

It's not - but nor is it a good way to get paid!

- Gerry Quinn

In article <87he1zb8rs.fsf@afghan.dogpound>, ant@afghan.dogpound wrote:
>Ian Woods <newspub2@wuggyNOCAPS.org> writes:
>> 
>> Closed software to me is the equavalent of closed science. Good for the 
>> marketing peeps and even making a profit, bad for anyone interested in 
>> improving the engineering.

My view is that the actual ideas and algorithms are normally obvious, 
and it's actually to society's benefit if it gets engineered a few times 
independently.

Linux is often given as an example of open source, but in truth it 
copies all its ideas [and more, according to SCO] from commercial 
operating systems.  Perhaps the intersection of "people who love 
programming" with "people who are original and creative" is not 
exceptionally high.

>And to think that patents are the only incentive for progress, is well
>just plain silly. The human mind is the greatest incentive for
>progress, and I really doubt an inventive or creative mind would
>simply cease to create simply because there is no monetary gain to be
>made.

What money does is gently push the creative minds to create in 
directions that correspond to the current needs of others.

- Gerry Quinn

Ian Woods wrote:

> To me, open source software is to software as scientific
> publications are to, well, science. If I publish a paper
> descibing an algorithm, I'm inviting people to look at my
> work, learn from it, and if they are able, expand on it.
> When I release software as open source, I'm inviting people
> to do exactly the same!
> 
> Open source software might allow us, as an industry, to get
> out of the reinventing the wheel millions of times rut that
> we're in. Imagine science occuring where all the ideas and
> implimentations of those ideas were /all/ proprietry! Now
> imagine all software ideas an implimentations being all
> proporietry.
> 
> Closed software to me is the equavalent of closed science.
> Good for the marketing peeps and even making a profit, bad
> for anyone interested in improving the engineering.

A wonderful analogy!  I like it!!

Absent, to my mind, is the idea that "software" has feet in both
the science world (which *should* be open) AND the technology
world (which tends to be "product" and, hence, proprietary).

Nothing *I* do it leading edge or advanced enough to be interesting
to the world.  There's no real benefit to my source being open, but
there is a benefit to my company in it being closed (in part, to
protect corporate information contained in the source).

So it seems to me open source is a good thing in some contexts and
is less appropriate in others.

-- 
|_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|

Corey Murtagh wrote:

> Noah's argument is that any 'new' idea is built on the masses of
> knowledge provided, via society, by all of the old ideas you've
> been exposed to.
> 
> Personally I think he's cheapening the whole creative process
> with that assertion.

I think that Noah is correct in a sense, though.

Consider that every different English story ever written uses the
same 26 letters.  They all use very heavily a subset of English
words and well-known concepts IN THE SERVICE OF some hopefully
new and original combination.

Finding new ways to combine and express perceptions of our rather
well-known reality *is* to my mind a pretty good definition of
the creative process, and that the inputs may be "old hat" doesn't
cheapen it at all for me.

-- 
|_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|

Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> writes:

> ant@afghan.dogpound wrote:
> > "Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >>Not in the slightest.  If you really believe so, you need to brush up on
> >>Patent Law 101.
> > So you would be of the opinion that allowing granting a patent for
> > swinging sideways on a swing is not a flaw?
> > http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='6,368,227'.WKU.&OS=PN/6,368,227&RS=PN/6,368,227
> >
> 
> How about the "Method of Excercising a Cat" patent?
> http://www.legamedia.net/lochlex/2001/01-03/0103_lenger_gustav_cat-exercise.php
> 
> A quick google found that link - not the actual patent, but I have
> seen and read it.

I also found an article about IBM patenting a method of deciding an
order for people to use the bathroom. Apparantley they were granted
the patent, but turned it over to the public when it was challenged.

> Is there a term
> in rhetoric for "argument by appeal to the simplicity of potential
> listeners"?

"marketing"?

:-)

Allen

In article <3F994CF2.53F853F0@Sonnack.com>,
Programmer Dude  <Chris@Sonnack.com> wrote:

>So it seems to me open source is a good thing in some contexts and
>is less appropriate in others.

Absolutely correct.

This is the point that the extremists on both sides of the argument tend
to miss (or be unwilling to acknowledge).


dave

-- 
Dave Vandervies                                dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
I'm not a moderate!  I'm an enthusiast, an evangelical! I want to froth and
bounce and dance on the bones of my opponents! I don't want certainty, I
want creativity!                         --Chris Dollin in comp.programming

Peter Ashford wrote:
>
> That's true, but Noah's point - that it was rude to not even inform
> him (as original author and active project maintainer) that they were
> going to fork the code, is quite valid.
>
> These things happen in OSS, but usually after some discussion.

Maybe people aren't understanding how commercial developers use open source?
They simply use it.  If talking to the authors helps their business agenda,
they do that.  If they're only looking for starter code for their own
project and their own people, they do that.  This is why the code is open,
so that people can do what they want with it, within the terms of a license.
Maybe this is more obvious to people on the BSD "do what you want with it"
side of things?

Noah's competitors did 2 things: (1) use his open source code, which was
totally within any reasonable expectation of what people do with open
source.  (2) Advertize on his website.  The latter is certainly very, very
rude, and I personally would take steps to make it illegal.  But I think
Noah has conflated and confounded these 2 issues.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Noah Roberts wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>> Noah, the problem in your particular case is that what you call
>> "politeness" someone else is calling "interference in their product
>> schedule."
>
> You know, I have repetedly told you this had nothing to do with any
> businesses.  I don't know why you continue assuming that it did.

You said that your competitors used your open source code, then advertized
their product in your web forum.  You said that many people got confused
about your product and theirs, and that you refused to support their
product.  I have plenty of good reasons to assume, from context, that you
were talking about a competing business.  If it wasn't... well, this tale
takes a curious turn.

>    You seem
>> to think that people owe you some kind of centralized command and
>> control, and that is decidedly against the basic principle of Open
>> Source.
>
> I expect to be kept in the loop,

That expectation is contrary to the fundamental operating principles of open
source.  When you use a BSD style "do what you want with it" license, you
are essentially saying "bon voyage" to the code.  When you use a GPL
license, you've got strings attached on how it replicates, but it's still
"bon voyage."

> especially when they are going to
> use a name for their product that I had already set aside for mine.

You are now bringing up a 3rd issue: trademarks.  If you have a name in mind
and someone swipes it to advertize the open source code you wrote, yes it's
rude.  But unless you've actually registered a trademark on the name, it's
not illegal.  If the name of the product was very important to you, if you
definitely wanted / needed to use that name for its commercial value, then
as a responsible businessman you should have registered your trademark.

The running total of issues that have made you upset:

1) they used your open source code for their purposes
2) they advertized a competing product in your web forum
3) they swiped a name you were thinking of using

I agree that (2) and (3) are definitely rude, and with some elbow grease on
your part they can also be made illegal.  But for (1), you need to either
get over your expectations or license your code differently.


-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:

>>You know, I have repetedly told you this had nothing to do with any
>>businesses.  I don't know why you continue assuming that it did.
> 
> 
> You said that your competitors used your open source code,

I don't believe that I ever said this.  I will have to look over the 
thread to be sure.  If I did I am sorry to have misinformed.

Noah Roberts wrote:

> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> 
>>> You know, I have repetedly told you this had nothing to do with any
>>> businesses.  I don't know why you continue assuming that it did.
>>
>>
>>
>> You said that your competitors used your open source code,
> 
> 
> I don't believe that I ever said this.  I will have to look over the 
> thread to be sure.  If I did I am sorry to have misinformed.
> 
I can see now how you came to think this.  I used the word 'fork' to 
describe what they did.  However it wasn't source code that they forked. 
  You could say they forked the protocol for lack of a better way to 
describe what happened.

Noah wrote:
) I can see now how you came to think this.  I used the word 'fork' to 
) describe what they did.  However it wasn't source code that they forked. 
)   You could say they forked the protocol for lack of a better way to 
) describe what happened.

Protocol specifications can be every bit as much open source as code.
I'm not at all sure how you can license a protocol, however...


SaSW, Willem (at stack dot nl)
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> Arthur J. O'Dwyer <ajo@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> >On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> open source is just another word for "communism"

> >> First raw materials are NOT free (hello, tragedy of the commons?).
> >
> >Information is free.  Plastic and silicon are so *close* to free that
> >it's not worth the debate.  However, of course the cost of electricity
> >and telephone service and just generally "paying people money to do
> >work" are *not* free.
>
> Information *isn't* free - I pay quite a lot for it.

I don't.  (And before you say it -- I would consider that my university
tuition pays for salaries, food, room and board, and suchlike, not the
"information" we're supposed to be learning.)

> Plastic and silicon aren't free.

True.  In fact, after some consideration I think I should retract that
part of my original statement -- economies of scale are very good at
making *very* *cheap* things, but they're very bad at making *free*
things.

Suppose that plastic and silicon are very expensive, if you like.
If I want to produce *software*, I can still use free and/or very cheap
raw materials, just by avoiding plastic and silicon.  (When electronic
bandwidth was expensive, software was distributed on diskette.  Now
that bandwidth is cheaper and wider, more software is distributed
online.)

> >What do you consider the "raw materials" involved in the production
> >of software?  The brains of the guy who built it?  The diskette he
> >stores it on?  The electricity that powers the server that holds the
> >project's CVS?
>
> I don't see any obvious way to extend the metaphor to software - I
> should imagine that any conclusions you might draw from deciding "X is
> the raw material of software" would be whimsical and/or silly.

Okay.  That's kind of what I was getting at -- you had said that "raw
materials are not free" in regard to open-source software, and I
thought perhaps you had some particular raw material in mind.  If you're
talking about hardware instead, then sure, raw materials aren't free.
I don't claim that the world owes me an automobile, just an OS. ;-)


> >> And secondly, "services" as a sector is not
> >> restricted to things like hairdressing.  They often include the use of
> >> software that is purchased because it is properly written and does not
> >> require support.

> >If you're selling a noun, it's a good.
> >If you're selling a verb, it's a service.
>
> My paragraph may be hard for some to parse, but yours is too
> metaphysical to make any real sense.

> Okay, let's run with those.  What point did you think you were making,
> anyway, I don't see any punchline here?

As I said, it was hard to tell what you were trying to say.  I *thought*
you were trying to claim that anyone who sells software to a hairdresser
is automatically in the "services" business, and that's silly.  Or else
that anyone who sells software, period, is in the services business, and
that's equally silly.

If you didn't see a point to my "counter-"definition, then I was probably
misinterpreting your paragraph -- and agreeing with what you really said.


> >> [I]t is *very* akin to that toxic ideology [communism] - which is
> >> so often found attractive by the politically immature, but in its
> >> expression leads society to the charnel house.

> >  * Lack of coercion.  You can't be forced to work on a project.
> >Thus there's much less incentive to inflate estimates, as was seen
> >during the five-year plans, or during your last all-staff office
> >meeting.  (Sure, there's some incentive, but not nearly as much,
> >since neither your survival nor your paycheck are at stake.)
>
> So, you refer only to work done with no expectation of payment.

Naturally.  I suppose I should have made that clearer; I'm thinking
more of the Free Software movement than the basic concept of open
source, I guess.  To me, it seems obvious that if you release your
source code into the public domain, any work associated with that
code will rapidly become work "done with no expectation of payment,"
because there will always be some guy willing to do the work for
free.
Probably you won't agree (not least because I'm not expressing myself
very clearly, unfortunately).

> >  * Lack of egalitarian ideology.  The open-source community as a
> >whole is not very egalitarian.  None of this "all animals are equal"
> >stuff; if you write better, you get more accolades, just like in
> >a money-driven capitalist society.  Thus there's much less incentive
> >to hang around doing nothing just to get a handout -- in the digital
> >world, if you don't do anything, you don't even exist!
>
> So your survival IS at stake, after all?

Not at all.  You can survive without existing in the digital world --
many people do so.  *I*, for the most part, do so.

The "incentive" I referred to in the previous paragraph's parenthetical
was in part the idea of "street cred" or notoriety.  To a certain
extent, most people thrive on notoriety, and will cheat a little bit
to get more of it; but I don't think they'd cheat as much for notoriety
as they would for actual food or money.

> >  * The nature of information itself.  In socialist agricultural
> >collectives, the idea was that the big men with the guns would come
> >around every so often and collect all your grain (or whatever), and
> >then redistribute it for consumption.  That simply doesn't fly in
> >the digital world:  If you have a potato under the bed, the big men
> >will steal it from you.  If you have an idea in your head, the big
> >men can't steal it -- they don't even know you have it, because at
> >least so far, there's no way to peek inside someone's head.  (Sure,
> >you can take a peek at their hard drives; and now you know why some
> >people like encryption so much.)
>
> So you can piss in the grain, Soviet peasants could do that too.

No.  You *can't* piss in the grain -- that's the point!  What you can
do is keep your ideas secure from the rest of the collective, if you
want to.  In the metaphor, you can raise a crop of your own, either
in addition to or instead of the collective crop; and you can keep
that crop for yourself.  Original information is very easy to hide.
(On the other hand, information is *very* hard to hide once someone
else knows about it.  "Two people can keep a secret... if one of them
is dead," says the proverb.)

> >  * The time scales involved.  It's quite possible for a few guys
> >to work on a project for a couple of months, then let it die.  Then
> >maybe a year later, three years, ten, another couple hackers come
> >along and finish what the first guys started.  That's because
> >information, unlike potatoes, doesn't spoil with time; and it isn't
> >a physical entity, so it can be duplicated without end.  So whereas
> >a mechanical or agricultural collective would have to struggle each
> >year with limited resources to reach a receding goal, a digital
> >collective has no deadlines, no receding goals.  To conserve a
> >pound of carrots for ten years takes hard work -- to conserve a
> >megabyte of data for ten years takes no work at all.  (Except maybe
> >to rent a storage locker and put an old PC in it.)
>
> So Linux will fall further and further behind Windows.

Huh?  Maybe true, but at the moment the trend *seems* to be going
the other way.  I don't see how that relates to the thread, though.

> >Sure, digital information won't feed the family, and it probably
> >won't even pay the bills once Joe Internet figures out that he
> >can get most information for free from the few leftist pinko Commies
> >among us; but that doesn't mean that it's stagnant.  There are a
> >lot of people out there who really like this stuff!
>
> Well, you seem to be agreeing with me after all - open source is
> software communism.  I just don't see why you fail to follow your
> statements above to their logical conclusions.  I've put them in for you
> at the end of each one.

Perhaps open-source *is* communism -- and by open-source, again, I
think I really mean free software.  But it's nothing like the socialist
forms of government that arose in the USSR or in China, due to the
completely different way of the digital world.  So to claim that
free software will inevitably stagnate or "lead to the charnel house,"
simply because one can use a certain C-word to describe its
philosophy, is a rather shallow analysis, in my opinion.

> Gerry Quinn
> --
> http://bindweed.com
> Kaleidoscopic Screensavers and Games for Windows
> Download free trial versions
> New screensaver: "Hypercurve"
> (Not available on Linux, no money in it)

(-:

-Arthur
-- 
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu
Random stuff of similar usefulness to Gerry's
Download source code
I like to use free stuff
(Not commercial stuff, too much money in it)

Willem wrote:

> Protocol specifications can be every bit as much open source as code.
> I'm not at all sure how you can license a protocol, however...

You could probably patent it (I think that says more bad than good) or 
possibly copyright.  On the other hand anything like this would probably 
just get into the way as the best you could do is something like the 
java license - if you call it java it has to be java...  I did consider 
my options and decided to leave it at being annoyed.  I put a clause in 
the definition asking people that use it to be decent and left it at that.

Hi all,

    I appreciate the input.  I think some of the "discussions" in this
thread have helped to answer my question (albeit in a round-about way).

    I think it's the "business" perspective that helped to clear it up.  At
first, I rejected this--"I don't have a business!  I'm a hobbyist!"  Then I
realized that, while I have no commercial asperations right now, I might
sometime and _that's_ what I'm not wanting to throw away!  The option to try
and profit from what I've made.

    So, for the time being, I think OSS is not for me.

Thanks again for the input,
Allen

Allen wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
>     I appreciate the input.  I think some of the "discussions" in this
> thread have helped to answer my question (albeit in a round-about way).
> 
>     I think it's the "business" perspective that helped to clear it up.  At
> first, I rejected this--"I don't have a business!  I'm a hobbyist!"  Then I
> realized that, while I have no commercial asperations right now, I might
> sometime and _that's_ what I'm not wanting to throw away!  The option to try
> and profit from what I've made.
> 
>     So, for the time being, I think OSS is not for me.

OK, but how about my story?

I have been giving away free open source code for five years in order to build 
up a reputation and gain experience from peer review. One of my projects, 
HawkVoice, has generated a lot of activity, and now I am selling 'value added' 
voice codecs like a fixed point LPC-10 for hand held computers. I am not making 
a lot of money, but I have more 'value added' products on the way....

> Thanks again for the input,
> Allen

-- 
Phil Frisbie, Jr.
Hawk Software
http://www.hawksoft.com

In alt.games.programming Brandon J. Van Every <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> wrote:

> So what?  I also couldn't breathe without air previously being present in
> the atmosphere.  I think at some point you either believe there's such a
> thing as originality, or you don't.  Several arguments have already been
> made as to why originality exists, they are good arguments and I will not
> repeat them.

No need to repeat anything just prove to me a single action you have taken 
in your entire life which is original in the purest sense.

Cheers, Thom

Originality is something that is easily exaggerated, especially by authors 
contemplating their own work. -- John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent 
Society, 1958

In alt.games.programming Floris van den Berg <flvdbergMASTER@NOSPAMwxs.nl> wrote:
> "Thom Kevin Gillespie" <thom@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> schreef in bericht
> news:bn7nab$qp5$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
>> In alt.games.programming Hanos <i@bleat.nospam.com> wrote:
>> > "Allen" <allen-terri-ng!@#att.net> wrote in message
>> > news:iUolb.188905$0v4.14600513@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> >>     Is open sourcing safe as far as maintaining
> credit/control/ownership
>> > of
>> >> software?
>>
>> > open source is just another word for "communism"
>>
>> Actually 'open source' is another phrase for the internet. None of us are
>> here babbling away without 'open source' Microsoft would never have
>> willingly created the internet.

> You don't honestly think Microsoft created the Internet?

> Floris

My bad. I forgot that ARPAnet is Microsoft spelled upside down.

--Thom

In alt.games.programming Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@*your-shoes*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> In article <bn7nab$qp5$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu>,
>  Thom Kevin Gillespie <thom@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:

>> Microsoft would never have willingly created the internet.

> ?!  Did Al Gore used to work at MS?!

The Al Gore quote about the internet is technically correct. He didn't say 
he invented it. He said he provided initial funding and governmental 
support, aka $$$$s in some circles and having amazing motivating 
capabilities in some circles.

--Thom

In alt.games.programming Richard Heathfield <dontmail@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> Miss Elaine Eos wrote:

>> In article <bn7nab$qp5$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu>,
>>  Thom Kevin Gillespie <thom@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> Microsoft would never have willingly created the internet.
>> 
>> ?!  Did Al Gore used to work at MS?!

> HHVF, but I think you misread it (as I did, first time through). I believe 
> that he intended to say that, if it had been up to Microsoft, we wouldn't 
> now /have/ an internet. (In other words, the rather marvellous openness, 
> generosity, camaraderie and free-spiritedness of the Internet don't really 
> fit into MS's marketing strategy.)

Sorry I was being ironic without smiley-faces. Always dangerous.

--Thom

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 01:20:11 +0000, Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:

> In alt.games.programming Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@*your-shoes*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>> In article <bn7nab$qp5$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu>,
>>  Thom Kevin Gillespie <thom@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> 
>>> Microsoft would never have willingly created the internet.
> 
>> ?!  Did Al Gore used to work at MS?!
> 
> The Al Gore quote about the internet is technically correct. He didn't say 
> he invented it. He said he provided initial funding and governmental 
> support, aka $$$$s in some circles and having amazing motivating 
> capabilities in some circles.

Ah... Well seeing as how that isn't true either I guess it doesn't
really matter all that much.

In alt.games.programming Sheldon Simms <sheldonsimms@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> ?!  Did Al Gore used to work at MS?!
>> 
>> The Al Gore quote about the internet is technically correct. He didn't say 
>> he invented it. He said he provided initial funding and governmental 
>> support, aka $$$$s in some circles and having amazing motivating 
>> capabilities in some circles.

> Ah... Well seeing as how that isn't true either I guess it doesn't
> really matter all that much.


Gore's exact words were

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in
creating the Internet."

Which was true because as an elected official he " increased funding for
NSFNet, which became the High Performance Computing Act of 1991." Gore 
understood the thing which was to become the Internet pretty much before 
anyone on the Hill understood it. 

From the Boston Globe, October 17, 2000, Tuesday ,THIRD EDITION
(Lexis-Nexis)
http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=5b9f6d1364cccabd1526f74c57c39842&_docnum=11&wchp=dGLbVlz-zSkVb&_md5=d3cc7148d1021ab0c887d86a9661883a

'Gore was widely credited in histories written long before the vice
president's oft-derided comment to CNN reporter Wolf Blitzer that he "took
the initiative in creating the Internet."'

You go into Lexis-Nexis and enter these 3 words: gore + create + internet
.... and guess what? You get the truth, lots of it actually.

The Gore smear was the first lie of Dubya's administration. We now have 
much better ones like 'weapons of mass destruction', alQuida + Iraq, Iraq 
+ 911, etc.

Cheers, Thom

"Phil Frisbie, Jr." <phil@hawksoft.com> wrote in message
news:z9hmb.92$Wy2.612@typhoon.sonic.net...
> I have been giving away free open source code for five years in order to
build
> up a reputation and gain experience from peer review.

It does work (for you) by the way. I do know your name and if that name
would be under some product I had to use I had an extra reason to trust it.

In article <3F994DD3.334E9EE4@Sonnack.com>, Programmer Dude <Chris@Sonnack.com> wrote:
>Corey Murtagh wrote:
>
>> Noah's argument is that any 'new' idea is built on the masses of
>> knowledge provided, via society, by all of the old ideas you've
>> been exposed to.
>> 
>> Personally I think he's cheapening the whole creative process
>> with that assertion.
>
>I think that Noah is correct in a sense, though.
>
>Consider that every different English story ever written uses the
>same 26 letters.  They all use very heavily a subset of English
>words and well-known concepts IN THE SERVICE OF some hopefully
>new and original combination.
>
>Finding new ways to combine and express perceptions of our rather
>well-known reality *is* to my mind a pretty good definition of
>the creative process, and that the inputs may be "old hat" doesn't
>cheapen it at all for me.

But Noah goes further, and suggests that the author adds little of 
significance to the culture, given that the alphabet was already there.

- Gerry Quinn

In article <bnd1o1$kij$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>, Thom Kevin Gillespie <thom@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>Gore's exact words were

[blah]

It's funny the way some people feel free to laugh hysterically at the 
minor verbal infelicities of various Republicans, but get all upset when 
Gore's silly porky pies are alluded to.

- Gerry Quinn

In article <Pine.LNX.4.58-035.0310241557280.12488@unix44.andrew.cmu.edu>, "Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <ajo@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Gerry Quinn wrote:

>> Information *isn't* free - I pay quite a lot for it.
>
>I don't.  (And before you say it -- I would consider that my university
>tuition pays for salaries, food, room and board, and suchlike, not the
>"information" we're supposed to be learning.)

Then why don't you go to a hotel instead - they do that kind of stuff 
better?  And aren't some of the salaries paid on condition the 
recipients will impart information to you?  And some of the fees go to 
your internet access (most people pay for that).

I assume you use books, movies, music recordings etc. Do you use the 
university library?  Given the newsgroups, you probably use software, 
some of which is free and some of which is quite expensive.

>> >What do you consider the "raw materials" involved in the production
>> >of software?  The brains of the guy who built it?  The diskette he
>> >stores it on?  The electricity that powers the server that holds the
>> >project's CVS?
>>
>> I don't see any obvious way to extend the metaphor to software - I
>> should imagine that any conclusions you might draw from deciding "X is
>> the raw material of software" would be whimsical and/or silly.
>
>Okay.  That's kind of what I was getting at -- you had said that "raw
>materials are not free" in regard to open-source software, and I
>thought perhaps you had some particular raw material in mind.  If you're
>talking about hardware instead, then sure, raw materials aren't free.
>I don't claim that the world owes me an automobile, just an OS. ;-)

I only referred to a thesis that Josh Sebastian had introduced making an 
analogy between software and other goods.  And you've got a free OS, I 
hope you're happy with it.  Personally I prefer a commercial one.

>As I said, it was hard to tell what you were trying to say.  I *thought*
>you were trying to claim that anyone who sells software to a hairdresser
>is automatically in the "services" business, and that's silly.  Or else
>that anyone who sells software, period, is in the services business, and
>that's equally silly.
>
>If you didn't see a point to my "counter-"definition, then I was probably
>misinterpreting your paragraph -- and agreeing with what you really said.

I think you must have missed the post I was replying to.  This thread is 
all over the place on my newsreader, I don't know why.

[--]

>> Well, you seem to be agreeing with me after all - open source is
>> software communism.  I just don't see why you fail to follow your
>> statements above to their logical conclusions.  I've put them in for you
>> at the end of each one.
>
>Perhaps open-source *is* communism -- and by open-source, again, I
>think I really mean free software.  But it's nothing like the socialist
>forms of government that arose in the USSR or in China, due to the
>completely different way of the digital world.  So to claim that
>free software will inevitably stagnate or "lead to the charnel house,"
>simply because one can use a certain C-word to describe its
>philosophy, is a rather shallow analysis, in my opinion.

No, I was referring to the communist ideology, not open source. And open 
source won't ever threaten closed source anyway, unless the laws are 
heavily stacked against the latter.

- Gerry Quinn

In article <slrnbpivp0.cr4.willem@toad.stack.nl>,
Willem  <willem@stack.nl> wrote:
>
>Protocol specifications can be every bit as much open source as code.
>I'm not at all sure how you can license a protocol, however...

Insert into it some trivial form of encryption or obscuration, call it
a copy protection mechanism, and have it protected by the DMCA.

Rot-13-coding all the characters in it should be enough.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Cheers
	Bent D
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs

In article <Plrmb.2450$bD.11379@news.indigo.ie>,
Gerry Quinn <gerryq@indigo.ie> wrote:
>In article <bnd1o1$kij$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>, Thom Kevin Gillespie <thom@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>Gore's exact words were
>
>[blah]
>
>It's funny the way some people feel free to laugh hysterically at the 
>minor verbal infelicities of various Republicans, but get all upset when 
>Gore's silly porky pies are alluded to.

Yeah, I too would spurn a presidential candidate who went around
saying "[blah]" all the time when presented with serious, political
questions.

Cheers
	Bent D
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs

Gerry Quinn wrote:
> 
.... snip ...
> 
> I think you must have missed the post I was replying to.  This
> thread is all over the place on my newsreader, I don't know why.

It is due to the excessive cross-posting, which is fixable if
people would simply set followups.  I have so done.

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!

Gerry Quinn wrote:

> In article <bnd1o1$kij$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>, Thom Kevin Gillespie
> <thom@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>Gore's exact words were
> 
> [blah]
> 
> It's funny the way some people feel free to laugh hysterically at the
> minor verbal infelicities of various Republicans, but get all upset when
> Gore's silly porky pies are alluded to.

I should think that rather less than 5% of the population of the world cares 
either way. Some of us neither know nor care about the difference between 
Democrats and Republicans (if indeed there /is/ any difference).

Perhaps we could talk about programming now.

-- 
Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

Programmer Dude wrote:

> So it seems to me open source is a good thing in some contexts and
> is less appropriate in others.
> 

There is nothing wrong with open source. What is wrong is the
notion that closed source is morally wrong.

-- 
Thomas.

Thomas Stegen wrote:

> Programmer Dude wrote:
> 
>> So it seems to me open source is a good thing in some contexts and
>> is less appropriate in others.
>> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with open source. What is wrong is the
> notion that closed source is morally wrong.

Closed source is only morally wrong if it's /other people's/ source. :-)

More seriously, I don't open all my source code, but I do open some of it. 
For example, I haven't released my bignum library. Now, if there were some 
desperate need for an open source bignum lib, I'd gladly release mine. 
Since there isn't, I don't bother; that way, nobody gets to laugh at my 
code. ;-)

If people don't want to release their source code, that's up to them, but if 
you have a choice of Package A, source available, free, and Package B, 
source not available, costly, any sensible person is going to use Package A 
if there's no other distinguishing feature between the two packages.

-- 
Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:29:37 +0000, Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:

> In alt.games.programming Sheldon Simms <sheldonsimms@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> ?!  Did Al Gore used to work at MS?!
>>> 
>>> The Al Gore quote about the internet is technically correct. He didn't say 
>>> he invented it. He said he provided initial funding and governmental 
>>> support, aka $$$$s in some circles and having amazing motivating 
>>> capabilities in some circles.
> 
>> Ah... Well seeing as how that isn't true either I guess it doesn't
>> really matter all that much.
> 
> 
> Gore's exact words were
> 
> "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in
> creating the Internet."
> 
> Which was true because as an elected official he " increased funding for
> NSFNet, which became the High Performance Computing Act of 1991."

I see, so although I had internet access in 1988, it wasn't really
the internet yet, even though we called it "the internet"?

Gerry Quinn wrote:

> But Noah goes further, and suggests that the author adds little of 
> significance to the culture, given that the alphabet was already there.

Little by comparison.

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

Nathan Mates wrote:

> In article <ob%lb.188539$JA5.4691984@news.xtra.co.nz>,
> Peter Ashford  <me@here.there.com> wrote:
> 
>>>>Actually there is quite a bit of expectations in this area.  How many
>>>>Linux kernels are there?  Very few.
> 
>>>The fact that there's more than one speaks *volumes* about the expected
>>>nature of open source.
> 
>>There isn't more than one.
> 
>    False. There are various patch branches to the core to include
> various features not in the "official" releases. (I assume that this
> is what the original poster was referring to, not the continual
> development of 2.2.x after 2.4.x was out, etc) Alan Cox's "ac*" series

Although those forks of the kernel do exist, I agree with Peter that 
there is only one Linux Kernel... ie: the official one.  The rest are 
/based/ on the Linux Kernel, but are not /The/ Linux Kernel.

There can be only one :>

-- 
Corey Murtagh
The Electric Monk
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!"

Sheldon Simms wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:29:37 +0000, Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:
> 
> > In alt.games.programming Sheldon Simms <sheldonsimms@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Gore's exact words were
> >
> > "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in
> > creating the Internet."
> >
> > Which was true because as an elected official he " increased funding for
> > NSFNet, which became the High Performance Computing Act of 1991."
> 
> I see, so although I had internet access in 1988, it wasn't really
> the internet yet, even though we called it "the internet"?

I was there too. What makes you think it wasn't the internet yet in
1988? It certainly was in my view (albeit at 2400 bps to a Sun box at
netcom.com). 
-- 
Joe Wright                                 http://www.jw-wright.com
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
                    --- Albert Einstein ---

Bent C Dalager wrote:
>
> Yeah, I too would spurn a presidential candidate who went around
> saying "[blah]" all the time when presented with serious, political
> questions.

"blah" is not so bad.  What you really need to watch out for is "blah!  blah
blah blah!  blah!"

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Noah Roberts wrote:
> Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
>> But Noah goes further, and suggests that the author adds little of
>> significance to the culture, given that the alphabet was already
>> there.
>
> Little by comparison.

I think we need to imprison you on an island of brilliant philosophers and
deprive you of many luxuries of modern life.  Then, you would see what the
efforts of raw intelligence does and doesn't accomplish.  I predict that in
this herd of cats, you'd find many people not interested in working on what
*you* want to work on, or doing it in *your way*.  Maybe then you'd start to
understand why your individual thought and discipline is crucial to new
achievements.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> Noah Roberts wrote:
> 
>>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But Noah goes further, and suggests that the author adds little of
>>>significance to the culture, given that the alphabet was already
>>>there.
>>
>>Little by comparison.
> 
> 
> I think we need to imprison you on an island of brilliant philosophers and
> deprive you of many luxuries of modern life.  Then, you would see what the
> efforts of raw intelligence does and doesn't accomplish.  I predict that in
> this herd of cats, you'd find many people not interested in working on what
> *you* want to work on, or doing it in *your way*.  Maybe then you'd start to
> understand why your individual thought and discipline is crucial to new
> achievements.
> 

I don't understand how this experiment would prove anything.  Please 
explain yourself better.

For one, why philosophers?  That is a very interesting choice.  I 
predict that the experiment /might/ result in new ideas in philosophy 
but not much material accomplishments.  The only reason it could result 
in new ideas not otherwise created is that the forcing of these 
philosophers to be contained in a small region with little to do would 
probably result in massive debate and/or collaboration, which is 
probably the single best way for society to create new things.  How many 
of those philosophers would walk of that island and claim these new 
ideas as their own?

For my part, I never said individual thought was not crucial to new 
achievements.  What I said is that it is a small part of the total that 
goes into it.  Each new achievment is based on the work of people 
before, and at this time and age that previous work far outweighs 
anything that is new.  Also of importance is the current culture and 
society surrounding the individual, these things have a great impact on 
the ideas the individual is capable of.  In fact, I might go so far as 
to say that cultural influence has a greater impact than the previous 
works the idea/invention/artpiece is based upon.

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

In alt.games.programming Gerry Quinn <gerryq@indigo.ie> wrote:
> In article <bnd1o1$kij$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>, Thom Kevin Gillespie <thom@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>Gore's exact words were

> [blah]

> It's funny the way some people feel free to laugh hysterically at the 
> minor verbal infelicities of various Republicans, but get all upset when 
> Gore's silly porky pies are alluded to.

How many people died because of recent, say last 3 years, minor verbal 
infelicities of various Republicans? Maybe 50,000? 

Gore's 'silly porky pies' were the beginnings of the 'minor verbal 
infelicities of various Republicans' I actually think it was only 3 
republicans. The rest were sheep, both dems and repubs.

--Thom

In alt.games.programming Joe Wright <joewwright@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Sheldon Simms wrote:
>> 
>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:29:37 +0000, Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:

> I was there too. What makes you think it wasn't the internet yet in
> 1988? It certainly was in my view (albeit at 2400 bps to a Sun box at
> netcom.com). 

I was there also but no one called it the 'internet' We were all using
Usenet at the time and amazed to have that. Lynx was wandering around but
no one seriously used it because no one could figure out what the
underlined blue lines meant or where they went to. Actually at that time
we were all happy to be gophering but that also died a sudden death when
Mosaic first launched and we all 'got it.'

Gore's part in it all actually funded the really big NSFnet backbone which 
seriously ramped up the pipes and made all sorts of visions possible.

--Thom

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 04:34:22 +0000, Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:

> In alt.games.programming Joe Wright <joewwright@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Sheldon Simms wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 05:29:37 +0000, Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:
> 
>> I was there too. What makes you think it wasn't the internet yet in
>> 1988? It certainly was in my view (albeit at 2400 bps to a Sun box at
>> netcom.com). 
> 
> I was there also but no one called it the 'internet' We were all using
> Usenet at the time and amazed to have that.

"No one" is clearly false. I have already told you that I (and everyone
I knew) called it "the internet" back in 1988. We had accounts on a
Unix machine and it all functioned remarkably similar to how it does
today, apart from the lack of the WWW (aside: Al Gore didn't invent the
WWW either). I read usenet news, I leeched from FTP servers, I spent
some late nights on IRC and another chat system called "forum". That
was the internet, and Al Gore did not "invent" it in any way.

> Gore's part in it all actually funded the really big NSFnet backbone
> which seriously ramped up the pipes and made all sorts of visions
> possible.

Since when does voting for a spending bill constitute "invention"?

In article <bni6t0$d4f$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu>, Thom Kevin Gillespie <thom@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>In alt.games.programming Gerry Quinn <gerryq@indigo.ie> wrote:
>> In article <bnd1o1$kij$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>, Thom Kevin Gillespie
> <thom@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>>>Gore's exact words were
>
>> [blah]
>
>> It's funny the way some people feel free to laugh hysterically at the 
>> minor verbal infelicities of various Republicans, but get all upset when 
>> Gore's silly porky pies are alluded to.
>
>How many people died because of recent, say last 3 years, minor verbal 
>infelicities of various Republicans? Maybe 50,000? 

I don't think anyone died because of verbal infelicities.

The current and in my opinion necessary phase of geopolitical cancer 
surgery naturally results in a certain amount of bloodletting.  

If you say it's unnecessary, how do you see the world in ten years if 
nothing was done?  What's Saddam up to, without sanctions (or would you 
have left Iraq to fester under sanctions harsh enough to be effective?). 
Have Al Qaeda members decided to devote their lives to the peaceful 
development of Islamic culture in Afghanistan? It's not good enough to 
moan about the present without providing a plausible alternative.

- Gerry Quinn

In article <bnhd1f$acq$1@quark.scn.rain.com>, Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>> 
>> I think we need to imprison you on an island of brilliant philosophers and
>> deprive you of many luxuries of modern life.  Then, you would see what the
>> efforts of raw intelligence does and doesn't accomplish.  I predict that in
>> this herd of cats, you'd find many people not interested in working on what
>> *you* want to work on, or doing it in *your way*.  Maybe then you'd start to
>> understand why your individual thought and discipline is crucial to new
>> achievements.
>
>For one, why philosophers?  That is a very interesting choice.  I 
>predict that the experiment /might/ result in new ideas in philosophy 
>but not much material accomplishments.  The only reason it could result 
>in new ideas not otherwise created is that the forcing of these 
>philosophers to be contained in a small region with little to do would 
>probably result in massive debate and/or collaboration, which is 
>probably the single best way for society to create new things. 

I would not make this assumption (at least for inventions or science). I 
think new ideas often arise from somebody following a unique path in 
relative isolation, often having a missing or even incorrect 
understanding of what has been done before.

Of course one needs access to ideas, but I am not convinced that debate 
and collaboration are the most important ways to creating new things.

From this point of view, closed source software leads to more creativity 
than open souce, because the idea of what it does is clear, but a 
software author's mind is not contaminated by the well-worn tracks of 
what has previously been implemented. 

Put it another way - closed source gives you algorithms, open source 
gives you algorithms and code.  Probably you will just blindly copy the 
code without thinking about the algorithms.  Convenient, but bad for 
creativity.

It's *important* to keep re-inventing the wheel.  One day, that will 
lead to a better wheel.

Gerry Quinn                                   
-- 
http://bindweed.com 
Screensavers and Games for Windows
Download free trial versions
New puzzler "Volcano" is just out...
 

In comp.games.development.design Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:

> For my part, I never said individual thought was not crucial to new 
> achievements.  What I said is that it is a small part of the total that 
> goes into it.  Each new achievment is based on the work of people 
> before,

Agreed.

> and at this time and age that previous work far outweighs 
> anything that is new.  

Why?


Carl

In article <7E7mb.2352$bD.11011@news.indigo.ie>,
Gerry Quinn <gerryq@indigo.ie> wrote:
>In article <87he1zb8rs.fsf@afghan.dogpound>, ant@afghan.dogpound wrote:

>>And to think that patents are the only incentive for progress, is well
>>just plain silly. The human mind is the greatest incentive for
>>progress, and I really doubt an inventive or creative mind would
>>simply cease to create simply because there is no monetary gain to be
>>made.
>
>What money does is gently push the creative minds to create in 
>directions that correspond to the current needs of others.

Yep.  However, when the other option is to do something uncreative to pay
the bills, having money involved increases (or, at the very least, has the
potential to increase) the total amount of creative work that gets done.

A system that allows innovators to profit from their creative work
also increases the incentive to make the results of that creative
work available to Everyone Else, which is generally considered to be a
Good Thing.


dave

-- 
Dave Vandervies                             dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Okay, Joona, I think you need to go outside and take a deep breath. Then 
either a) have a beer or b) stop having so many beers.
                                          --Mark A. Odell in comp.lang.c

In article <9FXlb.2305$bD.10455@news.indigo.ie>,
Gerry Quinn <gerryq@indigo.ie> wrote:
>In article <bn9cqd$ced$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
>dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Dave Vandervies) wrote:
>
>>Especially given that the whole point of patent law (and copyright law),
>>as originally formulated[1], is to encourage contributions to society,
>>by giving innovators the exclusive right to profit from their work for a
>>period long enough to allow them to recover the costs (in time, energy,
>>money, and probably more things I'm not thinking of) of producing it in
>>exchange for sharing the knowledge needed to make it work to allow others
>>to build on it and to use it directly without having to re-do the work.
>
>>[1] If I'm not mistaken, nobody here is trying to claim that their current
>>    interpretation is a Good Thing, and I have no intention of being
>>    the first to do so.
>
>Well, I will be, so.  Most copyright law has been much the same for 
>decades.  The main exception is the recent DMCA in the US, which seems a 
>reasonable attempt at thwarting violators in a new technological 
>environment.  What exactly do you think is wrong with either, or both?

The current interpretation, which is more often used to protect the
interests of established "entities that were once innovators" (for
lack of a more appropriate description) than to provide protection
for innovators who publish their work (and, by doing so, give them an
incentive to do so).

To summarize:  The current interetations of copyright and patent law
are used more often to stifle innovation than to encourage it.  This is
a Bad Thing.

In particular, the DMCA, as a (probably not unintended) side effect,
destroys the possibility of fair use of protected material and of
protected material entering the public domain after the copyright period
ends.  This is a nice benefit for, say, the entertainment industry or
a certain major software producer, but it also removes the "benefit to
the rest of us" that, in the original interpretation of copyright law,
was exchanged for the benefit to the creator of a copyrighted work
(the ability to profit from it for a limited time).

The key principle to remember here is that copyright law, if it's going to
be useful for advancing the state of the art in creative fields, should
assume neither an obligation to society on the part of the innovator
or an obligation to the innovator on the part of society; instead, it
should arrange for an exchange of benefits (protection for long enough
to profit from the work for the innovator, and eventual contribution
to the pool of public-domain ideas for society).  The interpretation
that has been used more often in the recent past (mostly by entities
large enough to no longer need the protection) gives the "innovator"
protection without a corresponding benefit to The Rest Of Us, which
is fine for encouraging innovation, but limits the ability to advance
the state of the art and, by doing so, reduces the motivation to do any
"real" innovation (because it isn't worth the effort to get the paperwork
done to build on anything that was done in the last fifty years).


dave

-- 
Dave Vandervies                             dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Okay, Joona, I think you need to go outside and take a deep breath. Then 
either a) have a beer or b) stop having so many beers.
                                          --Mark A. Odell in comp.lang.c

In article <OY8nb.2651$bD.12480@news.indigo.ie>,
Gerry Quinn <gerryq@indigo.ie> wrote:
>In article <bnhd1f$acq$1@quark.scn.rain.com>, Noah Roberts
><nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:

>>For one, why philosophers?  That is a very interesting choice.  I 
>>predict that the experiment /might/ result in new ideas in philosophy 
>>but not much material accomplishments.  The only reason it could result 
>>in new ideas not otherwise created is that the forcing of these 
>>philosophers to be contained in a small region with little to do would 
>>probably result in massive debate and/or collaboration, which is 
>>probably the single best way for society to create new things. 
>
>I would not make this assumption (at least for inventions or science). I 
>think new ideas often arise from somebody following a unique path in 
>relative isolation, often having a missing or even incorrect 
>understanding of what has been done before.
>
>Of course one needs access to ideas, but I am not convinced that debate 
>and collaboration are the most important ways to creating new things.
>
>From this point of view, closed source software leads to more creativity 
>than open souce, because the idea of what it does is clear, but a 
>software author's mind is not contaminated by the well-worn tracks of 
>what has previously been implemented. 
>
>Put it another way - closed source gives you algorithms, open source 
>gives you algorithms and code.  Probably you will just blindly copy the 
>code without thinking about the algorithms.  Convenient, but bad for 
>creativity.
>
>It's *important* to keep re-inventing the wheel.  One day, that will 
>lead to a better wheel.

Well, yes.  But, at the same time, if everybody who wanted to make a car
(or even a bicycle) had to start by inventing the wheel, we wouldn't
have cars or bicycles, or even very good wheels.
You can't get a better wheel if you start with chipping stone into
something resembling a circle or with slicing a mostly-circular tree
trunk; you can only get a better wheel by taking somebody else's wheel
and asking "How can I improve this?".

It's important to have people who are willing to go back and re-work
something that's already been done to see if they can do it better, but
it's equally important to have people who are willing (and able) to build
on work that's already been done and come up with something beyond it.


dave

-- 
Dave Vandervies                             dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Okay, Joona, I think you need to go outside and take a deep breath. Then 
either a) have a beer or b) stop having so many beers.
                                          --Mark A. Odell in comp.lang.c

In article <bnjp8a$1bc$2@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>, dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Dave Vandervies) wrote:
>In article <9FXlb.2305$bD.10455@news.indigo.ie>,
>Gerry Quinn <gerryq@indigo.ie> wrote:

>>Well, I will be, so.  Most copyright law has been much the same for 
>>decades.  The main exception is the recent DMCA in the US, which seems a 
>>reasonable attempt at thwarting violators in a new technological 
>>environment.  What exactly do you think is wrong with either, or both?
>
>The current interpretation, which is more often used to protect the
>interests of established "entities that were once innovators" (for
>lack of a more appropriate description) than to provide protection
>for innovators who publish their work (and, by doing so, give them an
>incentive to do so).

Anyone publishing a copyright work is trying to profit from innovation 
that they have done in the past.  You are trying to create a false 
distinction here.

>To summarize:  The current interetations of copyright and patent law
>are used more often to stifle innovation than to encourage it. 

I don't see how you can make such a claim.  ALL copyright and patent law 
stifles actions that some people want to do, in the hope of creating a 
greater good.

>In particular, the DMCA, as a (probably not unintended) side effect,
>destroys the possibility of fair use of protected material and of
>protected material entering the public domain after the copyright period
>ends.  This is a nice benefit for, say, the entertainment industry or
>a certain major software producer, but it also removes the "benefit to
>the rest of us" that, in the original interpretation of copyright law,
>was exchanged for the benefit to the creator of a copyrighted work
>(the ability to profit from it for a limited time).

The 'fair use' argument may have some force, but to be honest I don't 
find it very credible that the effect is important on those who are not 
trying to stretch the boundaries of what is considered fair use.

The second issue (that of protected material entering the public domain 
after the copyright period elapses) could be fixed quite easily by 
making such eventual release (transmission of a copy to a central 
library, for example) a condition on a copyright holder who releases 
products under some form of digital rights management.  The condition 
would transfer with the copyright and would be a charge on a company 
that liquidates without selling any owned copyrights.  Releasing the 
work earlier to eliminate the future obligation would of course be 
legal, if the owner did not wish to use the work further, or store the 
data for long periods.

>The key principle to remember here is that copyright law, if it's going to
>be useful for advancing the state of the art in creative fields, should
>assume neither an obligation to society on the part of the innovator
>or an obligation to the innovator on the part of society; instead, it
>should arrange for an exchange of benefits (protection for long enough
>to profit from the work for the innovator, and eventual contribution
>to the pool of public-domain ideas for society).  The interpretation
>that has been used more often in the recent past (mostly by entities
>large enough to no longer need the protection) gives the "innovator"
>protection without a corresponding benefit to The Rest Of Us, which
>is fine for encouraging innovation, but limits the ability to advance
>the state of the art and, by doing so, reduces the motivation to do any
>"real" innovation (because it isn't worth the effort to get the paperwork
>done to build on anything that was done in the last fifty years).

My own view is that the benefit to society of artworks of various kinds 
(which are what copyright protects) comes from their use per se, and is 
not greatly affected by whether such usage is free or charged.  For 
example, if I buy a book for $20 with $2 going to the author, I am 
nearly as well off as if I buy the same book for $18 with nothing going 
to the author.  The copyright protection costs society practically 
nothing.  Probably the book is only in print in the first place because 
copyright protection allows a profit to be extracted by the author and 
publisher.

Consequently, the balance of benefits favours strong copyright 
protection in order to encourage innovation, since copyright protection 
does very little harm.  

Remember, copyright does *not* protect ideas.  The *ideas* in a 
published work may be accessed immediately by all readers / viewers / 
whatevers, and freely disseminated with no copyright charges.  Thus 
society benefits immediately from its publication, and indeed, the vast 
majority of copyrighted works have exhausted their usefulness to society 
long before the copyright period runs out.

The argument about innovations coming into the public domain applies 
much more to patents than to copyrights.  My new dry cell battery may be 
the only good way to make such batteries, and it limits you if you can't 
copy it.  But my cartoon mouse in no way impinges on your ability to 
make a cartoon mouse of your own.  My new 'Volcano' game is copyright, 
but you can make your own game 'Eruption' with the same play mechanism - 
my copyright really imposes practically no restrictions on you.

Gerry Quinn                                   
-- 
http://bindweed.com 
Screensavers and Games for Windows
Download free trial versions
New puzzle just out - "Volcano"

[snipped some groups]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> dj3vande@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Dave Vandervies) wrote:
> >Gerry Quinn <gerryq@indigo.ie> wrote:
> >
> >>Well, I will be, so.  Most copyright law has been much the same for
> >>decades.  The main exception is the recent DMCA in the US, which seems a
> >>reasonable attempt at thwarting violators in a new technological
> >>environment.  What exactly do you think is wrong with either, or both?
> >
> >The current interpretation, which is more often used to protect the
> >interests of established "entities that were once innovators" (for
> >lack of a more appropriate description) than to provide protection
> >for innovators who publish their work (and, by doing so, give them an
> >incentive to do so).
>
> Anyone publishing a copyright work is trying to profit from innovation
> that they have done in the past.  You are trying to create a false
> distinction here.

Well, the publicized problems with the DMCA in particular are concerned
mostly with the "circumvention devices" clauses -- I'm sure you know
that it's still illegal in the U.S.A. to watch a commercially-produced
DVD on a DVD player that is not specifically endorsed by the studio
producing the DVD, because the unlicensed DVD player is considered
a "circumvention device."
  The DMCA also has a general stifling effect (or perceived effect) on
the cryptological community, since no new encryption schemes can legally
be analyzed without explicit permission from the corporation sponsoring
the encryption scheme.  It is, as far as I know, illegal to attempt to
break any watermarking scheme developed by a U.S. company -- and double
illegal to publish the results!
  Finally, as seen from the Skylarov and DeCSS cases, the notion of
"fair use" has been subverted (admittedly by both sides) in the past --
Adobe claimed that it was not "fair use" to convert legally purchased
books to another format; the MPAA claimed that it was not "fair use" to
develop open source DVD players.

  And in regard to the "false distinction": it's true that the DMCA
does not in general add any incentive to produce original works.  It
mainly serves to protect those works originally created (over 70
years ago) by Walt Disney (long since dead), and to make life more
difficult for hackers.


> The second issue (that of protected material entering the public domain
> after the copyright period elapses) could be fixed quite easily by
> making such eventual release (transmission of a copy to a central
> library, for example) a condition on a copyright holder who releases
> products under some form of digital rights management.

Do you really think that such a technological "gotcha" would stand
up in court, if the original copyright holder were to challenge it?

Or are you proposing to change U.S. copyright law to something more
sensible? and in that case, why defend the current mess?

> The condition
> would transfer with the copyright and would be a charge on a company
> that liquidates without selling any owned copyrights.  Releasing the
> work earlier to eliminate the future obligation would of course be
> legal, if the owner did not wish to use the work further, or store the
> data for long periods.

It is already legal (and actually quite often done) to place an
original work in the public domain.  No "central library" is needed,
although you might be interested in Project Gutenberg or the various
Wiki-like projects on the Web.

> My own view is that the benefit to society of artworks of various kinds
> (which are what copyright protects) comes from their use per se, and is
> not greatly affected by whether such usage is free or charged.  For
> example, if I buy a book for $20 with $2 going to the author, I am
> nearly as well off as if I buy the same book for $18 with nothing going
> to the author.

[Of course, you are $20 *worse* off than if you could "buy" the book
for free through the public domain.  But I think you know my views on
that by now.]

> The copyright protection costs society practically
> nothing.

Isn't someone's point here that excessive copyright protections,
by stifling the public domain, actually make it more difficult to
get creative work done?  From that point of view, sure, copyright
protection costs the *consumer* nothing, but it costs the *artist*
huge sums of money (if he wants to use a copyrighted idea) or his
integrity (if he can't afford to produce his original vision).
Then society is worse off for not having as much creative work
done.


> Consequently, the balance of benefits favours strong copyright
> protection in order to encourage innovation, since copyright protection
> does very little harm.

But does strong copyright protection do any *help*?  You haven't
demonstrated that a 90-year copyright, with thousand-dollar penalties,
makes the artist feel any more productive than a 10-year copyright
with $5 penalties for violation.

> Remember, copyright does *not* protect ideas.  The *ideas* in a
> published work may be accessed immediately by all readers / viewers /
> whatevers, and freely disseminated with no copyright charges.  Thus
> society benefits immediately from its publication, and indeed, the vast
> majority of copyrighted works have exhausted their usefulness to society
> long before the copyright period runs out.

....and yet they *remain* under copyright long after their usefulness
has run out!  Do you have any idea how many books, how many maps and
vinyl recordings and comic books are at this moment rotting away in
attics because it is considered criminal to digitize them or to make
them accessible to the public?


> The argument about innovations coming into the public domain applies
> much more to patents than to copyrights.  My new dry cell battery may be
> the only good way to make such batteries, and it limits you if you can't
> copy it.  But my cartoon mouse in no way impinges on your ability to
> make a cartoon mouse of your own.

You can't possibly be serious!  Ever heard of Mickey Mouse?  How far
do you think you could get with a similar design before being pounced
upon by Disney's lawyers?
  Consider the popularity of "look-and-feel" lawsuits in the software
industry; and consider that you've never, ever seen a "cartoon mouse"
similar to Mickey that wasn't produced by a Disney artist.  Except
that one "Family Guy" episode. :)
  [Side note: Parodies are another story.  Sticking with the cartoon
mouse theme, consider "The Itchy and Scratchy Show" from "The
Simpsons."  As far as I know, Hanna-Barbera has let them get away
with it.]

> My new 'Volcano' game is copyright,
> but you can make your own game 'Eruption' with the same play mechanism -
> my copyright really imposes practically no restrictions on you.

Only if we accept your word that you won't ever try to sue
for infringement.  After all, if I really could make the same game
you made, and sell it cheaper, you *would* want legal recourse,
right?  That's basically what copyright is, in part -- making sure
nobody does it like you, but better (because you want all the money).
The other part is making sure nobody does it like you, but worse
(because you want to keep your reputation clean).

HTH,
-Arthur

A remarkable case of topic drift.  I think I'll help it drift along!

Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> If you say it's unnecessary, how do you see the world in ten years if
> nothing was done?  What's Saddam up to, without sanctions (or would
> you
> have left Iraq to fester under sanctions harsh enough to be effective?).

I still support the war in Iraq, for the strategic reasons you mentioned.  I
do believe, however, that the lack of WMDs proves that Bush was too
aggressive and impatient in the UN.  We did not need to be in such a hurry,
we definitely could have afforded to do it "more the French way."  I don't
think another year with our troops on the ground would have been acceptable,
but probably we could have compromised.  If we had gone into Iraq with the
UN behind us, then we wouldn't be mostly footing the bill for Iraq.  We'd
still have the terrorist attacks we do now, but I think Iraq would be on a
quicker road to recovery.

If Saddam had continued to confound UN weapons inspectors for another 6
months or so, and then we went in without the UN, I think the number of
people saying "what the hell are we doing in Iraq?" would be less.  I wonder
if in that scenario it would have made much operative difference though.
People have a way of paying attention to what they want to pay attention to,
and I wonder if 6 months vs. 1 year of screwing around with weapons
inspections really means a whole lot to most people.  On the other hand,
maybe more countries would have been willing to support the US, even without
the UN.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Noah Roberts wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>>
>> I think we need to imprison you on an island of brilliant
>> philosophers and deprive you of many luxuries of modern life.  Then,
>> you would see what the efforts of raw intelligence does and doesn't
>> accomplish.  I predict that in this herd of cats, you'd find many
>> people not interested in working on what
>> *you* want to work on, or doing it in *your way*.  Maybe then you'd
>> start to understand why your individual thought and discipline is
>> crucial to new achievements.
>
> I don't understand how this experiment would prove anything.  Please
> explain yourself better.

I'll try an example closer to real life.  Have you ever participated in a
volunteer arts organization?  Ever tried to get people to do projects *your
way* ?  When you've got a room full of 200 people, many of them with their
own ideas about how to do such-and-such, there are going to be winners and
losers.  There's usually plenty of resources afoot for small projects, and
indeed I often preferred to do small projects without a lot of logistical
requirements, so that nobody could yabber about woulda coulda shoulda and
obstruct me.  But for big projects, manpower is a resource, mindshare is a
resource, and of course the organization's coffers are a resource.  Not
everyone is going to be pleased with the directions taken.  In extreme
cases, people who don't like the direction of the arts organization leave
and try to organize their own stuff.

Having engaged in a lot of creative work myself, both artistically and
technically, I'm very aware of the barriers "your fellow humans in society"
can throw up.  I think saying the artistic / technical achievements aren't
mine is utterly foolish, to about the 95% mark.  I'll give society about 5%
credit for existing, providing raw materials, having libraries and museums,
etc.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <HR_lb.188516$JA5.4691984@news.xtra.co.nz>, Peter Ashford <me@here.there.com> wrote:
> 
>>If I recall correctly, the orignal intention of patents explicly 
>>excluded ideas.  Patents could only apply to physical inventions.
>>
>>In fact, here's the quote from Jefferson's patent law:
>>
>>"any new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter 
>>and any new and useful improvement on any art, machine, manufacture or 
>>composition of matter"
> 
> 
> How do you know the word "art" refers to a physical invention?  You may 
> very well be right, in that colloquial English today need not be the 
> same as legal English in Jefferson's time.  But the word does not scream 
> "physical process" at me.
> 
> Gerry Quinn                                   

I don't, but I'd heard from another source (which I can't remember) that 
  Jefferson's patents were definitely for physical things.

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:

> Peter Ashford wrote:
> 
>>That's true, but Noah's point - that it was rude to not even inform
>>him (as original author and active project maintainer) that they were
>>going to fork the code, is quite valid.
>>
>>These things happen in OSS, but usually after some discussion.
> 
> 
> Maybe people aren't understanding how commercial developers use open source?
> They simply use it.  If talking to the authors helps their business agenda,
> they do that.  If they're only looking for starter code for their own
> project and their own people, they do that.  This is why the code is open,
> so that people can do what they want with it, within the terms of a license.
> Maybe this is more obvious to people on the BSD "do what you want with it"
> side of things?
> 
> Noah's competitors did 2 things: (1) use his open source code, which was
> totally within any reasonable expectation of what people do with open
> source.  (2) Advertize on his website.  The latter is certainly very, very
> rude, and I personally would take steps to make it illegal.  But I think
> Noah has conflated and confounded these 2 issues.
> 

Perhaps, Brandon, perhaps.  I don't think this thread needed to get 
anywhere as nasty is has thou.

Peter.

Gerry Quinn wrote:

> The 'fair use' argument may have some force, but to be honest I don't 
> find it very credible that the effect is important on those who are not 
> trying to stretch the boundaries of what is considered fair use.

I don't know, I would like to be able to view DVD's with the Operating 
System that /I/ choose rather than the system some media group decides 
to license the encryption scheme for.  When and if I write my own 
operating system I want it to be able to view DVD's read CDROMS, and 
access the hard drive and other aspects of the system (that last bit 
under the assumption that something stupid like paladium gets forced on 
us).  These are fair uses.

Also fair use means I can make a backup copy.  I myself rarely do, but 
by law I have that right yet by law I can't use that right.  Fair use 
means I can make excerpts from any media and use it as quotes in my own 
works.  By law I have this right, yet by law I can't use that right.
> 
> The second issue (that of protected material entering the public domain 
> after the copyright period elapses) could be fixed quite easily by 
> making such eventual release (transmission of a copy to a central 
> library, for example) a condition on a copyright holder who releases 
> products under some form of digital rights management.  The condition 
> would transfer with the copyright and would be a charge on a company 
> that liquidates without selling any owned copyrights.  Releasing the 
> work earlier to eliminate the future obligation would of course be 
> legal, if the owner did not wish to use the work further, or store the 
> data for long periods.

What if the people releasing the product under DRM are not the same 
people who created the DRM?  The company that holds the rights to the 
DRM can't be expected to release something unprotected which they 
themselves do not own, and the people that own the protected work not 
doing their duty can't free people to create viewers that break the DRM. 
  All one has to do is create a corperate separation and it won't work. 
  For instance, your scheme would not open public domain movies 
encrypted with CSS and it would be illegal to attempt accessing them or 
provide others with the means to.

> Consequently, the balance of benefits favours strong copyright 
> protection in order to encourage innovation, since copyright protection 
> does very little harm.  

It depends upon the methods used to protect the copyright.  Drafting 
laws like the DMCA which put people in jail for unrelated inventions, 
encryption research, and just plain attempting to access something they 
purchased fairly and legally is wrong.  What is even worse is the 
current attempts to enact even worse laws such as those that force 
hardware manufacturers to implement these protected protection schemes. 
  If the succeed, and I have little hope that they won't, it will be 
impossible to freely invent new software without paying an arm and a leg 
to some two bit company who managed to get their half-ass protection 
scheme imposed on the rest of us.

> The argument about innovations coming into the public domain applies 
> much more to patents than to copyrights.  My new dry cell battery may be 
> the only good way to make such batteries, and it limits you if you can't 
> copy it.  But my cartoon mouse in no way impinges on your ability to 
> make a cartoon mouse of your own.

But currently your cartoon mouse is keeping me from installing (legally) 
a DVD player on my computer.  It is keeping people from legally 
providing me with the software necissary to access my DVD's on my 
computer.  Your stupid mouse is unrepentantly stomping my rights into 
the ground and continues to do so.  If I could I would burn your mouse down.

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

In alt.games.programming Gerry Quinn <gerryq@indigo.ie> wrote:
>>
>>How many people died because of recent, say last 3 years, minor verbal 
>>infelicities of various Republicans? Maybe 50,000? 

> I don't think anyone died because of verbal infelicities.

What beach is your head buried in?

> The current and in my opinion necessary phase of geopolitical cancer 
> surgery naturally results in a certain amount of bloodletting.  

I love it when folks talk about 'certain amount of bloodletting' being 
needed as long as it isn't their blood or the blood of their loved ones. 

> If you say it's unnecessary, how do you see the world in ten years if 
> nothing was done?  What's Saddam up to, without sanctions (or would you 
> have left Iraq to fester under sanctions harsh enough to be effective?). 
> Have Al Qaeda members decided to devote their lives to the peaceful 
> development of Islamic culture in Afghanistan? It's not good enough to 
> moan about the present without providing a plausible alternative.

Yo Ger, AlQaeda was never part of Saddam's Iraq. AlQaeda is religiously 
motivated, Saddam is/was not particularly religious. No connections 
between Saddam and Al Qaeda. But, Al Qaeda is definitely in Iraq today. 
Guess why? Wrong answers don't count. Correct answer is 'verbal 
infelicities' which lead to a war which did not need to be waged: no 
connections to Al Qaeda, 911 or weapons of mass destruction unless you 
count the 39,000 bombs we dropped on Iraq, particularly the ones with 
depleted uranium, half life of centuries, radition level in Baghdad over 
1000 times normal.

You can find this information pretty much open sourced at NY Times, CNN, 
InformationClearing House, Guardian.uk, etc. 

--Thom

In alt.games.programming Sheldon Simms <sheldonsimms@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Gore's part in it all actually funded the really big NSFnet backbone
>> which seriously ramped up the pipes and made all sorts of visions
>> possible.

> Since when does voting for a spending bill constitute "invention"?

He pretty much spearheaded the funding. I think I posted a link previously
which described Gore as spearheading funding before anyone else
(historical fact). Those Sun boxes and NSFnet pipes cost a lot of loot
otherwise we'd all be doing this on BBSs like most of the wordl was in 
1988. I was at Berkeley at the time so I was pretty far into the net at 
that time and no one I knew was calling it the Internet but we all used 
Usenet.

I'm sitting here looking at John Qaurterman's book 'The Matrix, Computer 
Networks and Conferencing Systems Worldwide' 1990 which was a ground 
breaker when it came out. The word 'internet' is used in that book but in 
the context of 'internets' connections of networks. 'The Internet' didn't 
exist then. He used the phrase 'matrix' because of Gibson's Neuromancer 
reference to consensual hallucinations. Matrix was hot in 1990 bot 
internet anything.

--Thom

Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:
>
>> The current and in my opinion necessary phase of geopolitical cancer
>> surgery naturally results in a certain amount of bloodletting.
>
> I love it when folks talk about 'certain amount of bloodletting' being
> needed as long as it isn't their blood or the blood of their loved
> ones.

Are you a US citizen?  We had this little thing called 9/11.  Granted, 9/11
hasn't proven to be a convincing rationale for the Iraq war, at least not in
the timeframe the Iraq war has been waged.  Strategically, however, Iraq was
a threat that had to be dealt with sooner or later.  We should have worked
more with the UN and done it later.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:

> Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:
>>
>>> The current and in my opinion necessary phase of geopolitical cancer
>>> surgery naturally results in a certain amount of bloodletting.
>>
>> I love it when folks talk about 'certain amount of bloodletting' being
>> needed as long as it isn't their blood or the blood of their loved
>> ones.
> 
> Are you a US citizen?

No.

> We had this little thing called 9/11.

Very true, and very tragic, as I'm sure we all agree. But I thought the 
subject was Iraq. As far as anyone knows, there's no link between 9/11 and 
Iraq.

> Granted,
> 9/11 hasn't proven to be a convincing rationale for the Iraq war,

Indeed, so why bring 9/11 into it at all?

> at least
> not in
> the timeframe the Iraq war has been waged.  Strategically, however, Iraq
> was
> a threat that had to be dealt with sooner or later.  We should have worked
> more with the UN and done it later.

No. It should have been done much *sooner* - in fact, back in 1991. The 
Iraqi people suffered 12 more years of misery than could have been the 
case. 

-- 
Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>> Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:
>>>
>>>> The current and in my opinion necessary phase of geopolitical
>>>> cancer surgery naturally results in a certain amount of
>>>> bloodletting.
>>
>> Granted,
>> 9/11 hasn't proven to be a convincing rationale for the Iraq war,
>
> Indeed, so why bring 9/11 into it at all?

In regard to Gerry's statement above, because Al Qaeda is one cancer and
Saddam Hussein is another.  Kim Jong Il is a third, but there's not much we
can do about him aside from negotiate.  That one, I predict, will not result
in any of the bloodletting that Gerry alluded to.

>> at least
>> not in
>> the timeframe the Iraq war has been waged.  Strategically, however,
>> Iraq was
>> a threat that had to be dealt with sooner or later.  We should have
>> worked more with the UN and done it later.
>
> No. It should have been done much *sooner* - in fact, back in 1991.
> The Iraqi people suffered 12 more years of misery than could have
> been the case.

Yes, but at the time, the US was working with the UN.  The UN coalition was
expressly against taking Saddam out.  To have done so back then would have
been decidedly un-international of us.  Which is, in large part, why the USA
was so un-international about it this time.

I think we should have worked more with France and the UN this time.  But I
don't think the USA should have put up with UN bullshit indefinitely.  The
UN is a dysfunctional organization.  5 countries have got vetos, and nobody
should have a veto.  The USA contributes the vast majority of military
enforcement to the UN, and the burden should be spread equally.  France
would have sung a much different tune if they'd had their own troops on the
ground along with ours!

The problem is, the veto holding countries aren't going to give up their
power, and the sissy pacifist countries enjoy letting other countries do the
world policing jobs.  That way they spend less GNP on military stuff, and
they have someone to blame when things go awry.  Can you imagine what the
USA would be like if we didn't have local law enforcement agencies funded by
local taxes?  If we just imported all of our cops from NYC, at NYC taxpayer
expense?  That's what the international stage looks like today.  And I don't
mean that NYC is rich and other cities in the USA are poor.  The industrial
nations can jolly well cough up troop strength for equitable world policing
operations.  But they're sissies who like a good nuclear reactor deal or
two.

Really cracked me up when those same UN pansies wanted us to go handle
Liberia for them.  Bush sure made the right call on that one: "let the
Africans do it."  I don't care if Nigerian soldiers are corrupt, if the
shooting goes down they can't be *that* bad.  Front page, the Nigerian
colonel gets a hero's welcome, carried on people's shoulders.  Think any
whitey would get a welcome like that?

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

"Going to war without France is like going bear hunting without your
accordion." - Someone

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:11:31 +0000, Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:

> I was at Berkeley at the time so I was pretty far into the net at 
> that time and no one I knew was calling it the Internet

You are either spouting nonsense because your mind is being warped
by political partisanship, or you are intentionally lying. I'll
charitably assume the former.

Here is a usenet post from 1983 using the term "the internet" to
mean "the single network developed by ARPA based on the internet
protocol"

http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=3976%40sri-arpa.UUCP

Here's the excerpt, even, so you don't have to go clicking around:

  Bill Westfield, 08/08/1983:
  Well, you see,  on a real network (In this case, the ARPANet/Internet),
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  you are able to transfer files directly between arbitary hosts on
  the internet, using something called the "File Tranfer Protocol"
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^

There are thousands of more such messages. Here's one randomly
selected from 1985:

http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=199%40mit-eddie.UUCP

And the excerpt:

  Jim Gettys, 10/25/1985:
  We (MIT Project Athena and MIT Laboratory for Computer Science)
  have developed a network transparent window system called "X"
  for 4.2BSD Unix and Ultrix.
  ...
  For further information on getting X, send a mail request to
  "Xrequest@mit-athena.arpa" ("Xrequest@athena.mit.edu for those
  out there running domain name servers on the internet).
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> 'The Internet' didn't exist then.

You are wrong. I have proved it.

Now be nice and admit that Al Gore DID NOT invent the internet.
If you do it I might even be able to believe that you are capable
of maintaining intellectual honesty in spite of your rabid political
partisan viewpoints.

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:38:51 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> 
>> 9/11 hasn't proven to be a convincing rationale for the Iraq war,
> 
> Indeed, so why bring 9/11 into it at all?

I am an American, but I lived in Germany from February 1999 to
May 2003. I was in Germany on 9/11 and stayed there a good while
afterwards. What Europeans do not understand, and what I myself
did not understand myself until I came back to the U.S., is that
the U.S. is a different country than it was before 9/11.

Even while I was still in Germany I could see through the
cynical game France was playing in the security council, but I
didn't quite understand why the U.S. government would want to
so blatantly tell the rest of the security council "If you
aren't going to help, then fuck off, we'll do it all by
ourselves"

Now that I've been back in the U.S. a while, I understand a
little bit better. There are a *lot* of really pissed off
people here, who are willing to do what pretty much whatever
it takes to eliminate international terrorism and "rogue
states". Granted, there are a lot of people who disagree
with the actions of the current government too, but there
has been a big shift of opinion too, that occurred on 9/11.
That shift isn't so much from left to right as it is from
apathetic to interested about the world outside the U.S.

So the fact that there was no direct connection between 9/11
and Iraq (and actually I never understood how anyone could have
been under the impression that there was), 9/11 made the U.S.
public willing, even ready, to deal with the other existing
international problems, including Iraq.

-Sheldon

Sheldon Simms wrote:
>
> Now that I've been back in the U.S. a while, I understand a
> little bit better. There are a *lot* of really pissed off
> people here, who are willing to do what pretty much whatever
> it takes to eliminate international terrorism and "rogue
> states".

Yep.  I myself have contemplated career changes, to either military sniper,
cryptographic spook, or bomb designer.  But military pay is lousy, and these
poor schmucks who sign up are getting run ragged.  They're getting treated
exactly like corporate America has been treating all of its workers for the
past 2 decades with all the downsizing, with the added bonus that they get
the chance to die.  Plus I'm a lone wolf and really have trouble seeing
myself taking orders.  Now, maybe I could swing all of that, if someone
could articulate how exactly I'm going to get to put a bullet in some
Feyadeen's head.  As opposed to standing around at the UN HQ waiting for a
suicide bomber to blow me up.  That's the deal breaker right there!
Proactive, I can wrap my head around that.  Reactive, that's idiocy.

So there's the CIA, the NSA, etc.  Problem is, they're all in Washington,
D.C.  My friends are all in Seattle and I'm staying put, thank you very
much.  There's no defense work up here either, which is the sector of high
tech you'd logically expect to be doing ok right now.  I've tossed my
resumes at civilian military positions, not a nibble.  And pretty much, I've
thought better of all this crap.  My goal is to design games, not get caught
up in some crusade against terrorism and tinpot dictators.

The reality is, we've had 2 years since 9/11 and not shit has happened.
Maybe our spooks are doing a good job.  Maybe "beginner's gains" were easy,
considering the gross incompetence and negligence exerted until the
airplanes hit.  I fell for the "Oh, we need more federal wiretapping!"
bullshit early on.  Turned out they didn't need more surveillance powers,
they needed to do something with the surveillance they already had.

Now most of us feel we've been yanked around on the WMD thing.  The liberals
say we were lied to.  The more moderate, like myself, say we were given a
hard sell based on inconclusive data.  Not in the least of which was
Saddam's deliberate strategy of keeping us guessing, so that he could look
powerful in the eyes of Arab neighbors.  Those were his priorities, go
figure.  Anyways, a lot of us are happy to have deposed him, and to have
freed the Iraqis.  Even if we're not out of the woods yet, and even if it
wasn't handled very well in the UN.

I've watched a lot of Vietnam War tapes recently.  I am reminded not to
trust the government too quickly, that trust is easily abused.  I'm starting
to feel like, yeah, we've got terrorism.  So what?  Show me a real crisis,
I'll go shoot up someone's country.  Short of that, I'm not interested in
any more bullish prognostications on the need for military action anywhere.

> Granted, there are a lot of people who disagree
> with the actions of the current government too, but there
> has been a big shift of opinion too, that occurred on 9/11.
> That shift isn't so much from left to right as it is from
> apathetic to interested about the world outside the U.S.
>
> So the fact that there was no direct connection between 9/11
> and Iraq (and actually I never understood how anyone could have
> been under the impression that there was), 9/11 made the U.S.
> public willing, even ready, to deal with the other existing
> international problems, including Iraq.

Yes, Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld seized upon the anger after 9/11
to mobilize the USA to do something about Saddam Hussein.  Gore would not
have.  It's pretty clear that knocking off Iraq has been a neo-Conservative
agenda for quite some time, awaiting an opportunity.  Liberals say it's for
oil, like they always do.  Moderates say it's for a combination of factors.
Oil is in there, but so are strategic WMD threats and tortured Iraqis.  The
USA would never intervene somewhere just to save tortured anybody, but as
long as there's a strategic WMD threat and some oil, them's good hunting
grounds.

Doesn't hurt to have some nice big threats on both sides of Iran either.
Plenty happy to see Iran evole into a democracy under its own power.
Despite the fundamentalist hardliners, they're a much more evolved society
than Saddam's Iraq.  They've got moderates, elections, political debates.
They've been known to free political prisoners and not to kill rioters.
They weren't the bad guys in the Iran-Iraq war either, the USA was just in a
tiff with them over the Iranian hostages and didn't want fundamentalist
Islam spreading all the way to Saudi Arabia.  Very pleased at Iran's recent
announcement that they'll allow UN weapons inspectors, let's hope they make
good on their stated intentions.  Doesn't hurt to have some reminders next
door about other options.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

[Followups set to comp.programming - please observe if at all possible - 
this crosspost is far too wide - thanks.]

Sheldon Simms wrote:

> Now that I've been back in the U.S. a while, I understand a
> little bit better. There are a *lot* of really pissed off
> people here, who are willing to do what pretty much whatever
> it takes to eliminate international terrorism and "rogue
> states".

In that case, there's a lot of work to do. France, for example, is clearly a 
rogue state (case in point: the destruction of the Rainbow Warrior and the 
murder of one of its crew). Not only that, but France has weapons of mass 
destruction which it refuses to give up. So do Britain, China, Israel, 
India, Russia, and of course the USA. It's high time we dealt with all 
these threats, is it not?

I'm not quite sure what all this has to do with programming, but it occurs 
to me that programmers ought to be able to think about these issues a 
little more clearly than most. For example, what, specifically, is the 
moral difference between, say, Iraqi chemical weapons under Saddam Hussein 
and US chemical weapons under Nixon? Would you have supported a UN invasion 
of the USA during or up to 12 years after the Vietnam War, in which napalm 
was freely used?

-- 
Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:55:01 -0800, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:

> Doesn't hurt to have some nice big threats on both sides of Iran either.
> Plenty happy to see Iran evole into a democracy under its own power.
> Despite the fundamentalist hardliners, they're a much more evolved society
> than Saddam's Iraq.  They've got moderates, elections, political debates.
> They've been known to free political prisoners and not to kill rioters.

To dredge this swap just a bit deeper, I had a nice looong talk with
a pleasant young man from Iran while I was in Germany. He was pro-
democracy, wanted to see the back of the mullahs (at least in
government), was a big supporter of President Khatami, wanted Iran
to become a modern society.

His opinion of the middle east problems:
  Israel must be destroyed. If it takes 1000 years, we will never
  cease to struggle. No islamic land can be allowed to become
  non-muslim.

His opinion of Europe:
  Many muslims are living in Europe. It will become a muslim land.

His opinion of America:
  I like America, but it must be friendly to muslim countries or
  we must fight it.

and so on. A slightly different world view than you'd find speaking
to the typical european.

-Sheldon

"Brandon J. Van Every" wrote:

> My goal is to design games, not get caught
> up in some crusade against terrorism and tinpot dictators.

On behalf of all citizens of the United States of America, thank you for
not joining the defense industry.

-- 
   Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 __ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/  \ Bring me men / Bring me men to match my plains
\__/  Lamya

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 06:16:14 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

> [Followups set to comp.programming - please observe if at all possible - 
> this crosspost is far too wide - thanks.]
> 
> Sheldon Simms wrote:
> 
>> Now that I've been back in the U.S. a while, I understand a
>> little bit better. There are a *lot* of really pissed off
>> people here, who are willing to do what pretty much whatever
>> it takes to eliminate international terrorism and "rogue
>> states".
> 
> In that case, there's a lot of work to do. France, for example, is clearly a 
> rogue state (case in point: the destruction of the Rainbow Warrior and the 
> murder of one of its crew).

See? This illustrates my point perfectly. You think this is
ridiculous, but there are many Americans who are dead serious about
finding a way to "deal with" France. Not in the same way Iraq was
"dealt with", of course, but in a way that ensures that France can
never be allowed to limit what the US can do for its own security.

As an experiment, imagine what the reaction of the US would be if,
in some future situation, France pulled a stunt like they did in
the security council deliberations about Iraq and, as a result
(perhaps provably so, or merely seemingly so), some large-scale
terrorist attack succeeded in killing hundreds or thousands of
Americans. The typical European newspaper editorial in the after-
math might call it a "french mistake", "grandstanding gone wrong",
a "diplomatic miscalculation by the french president", etc.

I would not be surprised if (post 9/11 and post hypothetical future
calamity) the typical US newpaper editorials called it "an act
of war", "proof of french complicity in international terrorism",
"the final straw", and so on.

I am telling you. This is a different country than it was.

> Not only that, but France has weapons of mass 
> destruction which it refuses to give up. So do Britain, China,
> Israel, India, Russia, and of course the USA. It's high time we
> dealt with all these threats, is it not?

Don't think there aren't those who would like to. At least,
as regards China and Russia (especially the former). Not Britain,
though, of course. Americans like Britain, we'd even fight a war
for Britain again were it necessary, I expect.

> I'm not quite sure what all this has to do with programming,
> but it occurs to me that programmers ought to be able to think
> about these issues a little more clearly than most. For example,
> what, specifically, is the moral difference between, say, Iraqi
> chemical weapons under Saddam Hussein and US chemical weapons
> under Nixon? Would you have supported a UN invasion of the USA
> during or up to 12 years after the Vietnam War, in which napalm 
> was freely used?

Well Richard, you're old enough to know that there's not much point
in talking about morals when it comes to international politics (or
any politics for that matter).

It probably makes more sense to talk about law, but international
law is a pretty stretchy thing itself. Some rules have been
written down, but there's no means of enforcement except the
good old one: military and economic power.

I was quite amused by the heated debates in the German press and
politic about whether the US had broken international law in
invading Iraq, and which laws were broken etc. as if there were
actually any authority capable of rendering a legal decision on
the matter.

Actually my whole time in Germany I was astonished by the fact
that the political fortunes of German politicians and even
governments could be made or lost on the basis of reaction to the
statements and actions of various members of the US government.
Whereas in the US no one hears, much less cares, about *anything*
that any politician in Germany says. German papers have front page
headlines: "BUSH ACCEPTS PHONE CALL FROM SCHRÖDER", whereas the
5 minute conversation most likely wouldn't be reported in a US
newspaper at all, and if so would be on the 24th page of the 2nd
section in the 4th column under "other events" and would say
"German Chancellor Schroeder called the President and pledged to
work more closely in the future".

Sorry for writing so much... To answer your question: If the UN
had had a resolution requiring the US to provably eliminate all
stocks of napalm under threat of force, and the US had spent 12
years playing games and trying to hide what it did have, then
sure I would support a UN invasion of the US - in the sense that
I think it would be an entirely rational response to the
situation (apart from considerations of likelihood of success).

-Sheldon

Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> In that case, there's a lot of work to do. France, for example, is
> clearly a rogue state (case in point: the destruction of the Rainbow
> Warrior and the murder of one of its crew). Not only that, but France
> has weapons of mass destruction which it refuses to give up. So do
> Britain, China, Israel, India, Russia, and of course the USA. It's
> high time we dealt with all these threats, is it not?

We knocked off Iraq because they did *not* have WMDs yet.  It's foolish to
wait until someone has joined the nuclear club.  Compare North Korea.
Nothing we can do about those guys now.

> I'm not quite sure what all this has to do with programming, but it
> occurs to me that programmers ought to be able to think about these
> issues a little more clearly than most.

Nah.  In more than a year of face-to-face debating with some liberal locals,
I've come to the inexorable conclusion that people use their intelligence to
reinforce their beliefs.  Those with lotsa brain cells are particularly good
at constructing elaborate intellectual edifices to defend their beliefs
against all avenues of attack.

> For example, what,
> specifically, is the moral difference between, say, Iraqi chemical
> weapons under Saddam Hussein and US chemical weapons under Nixon?

We didn't use them.  We know for fact that Saddam did, and would again.  The
differences between democracies, communist police states, and dictatorships
have everything to do with the moral assessments.  Also, we eventually
participated in inspections regimes and dismantled said weapons.

> Would you have supported a UN invasion of the USA during or up to 12
> years after the Vietnam War, in which napalm was freely used?

As Dubya would say, "Bring 'em on!"  We were and are, oh, only the most
powerful nation on Earth and most of the UN's military force.  I suppose
you're proposing a civil war?  Also, who would you be liberating?  The
downtrodden liberals, repressed by the Evil Democracy of Washington, D.C.?
I can see the lineup of all the political prisoners and torture victims
being released, right on the front page of Pravda.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Sheldon Simms wrote:
>
> His opinion of the middle east problems:
>   Israel must be destroyed. If it takes 1000 years, we will never
>   cease to struggle. No islamic land can be allowed to become
>   non-muslim.

Your Iranian friend is quite the optimist!  I'll be impressed if *any*
god-fearing religion can survive the next 1000 years of human evolution.

> His opinion of Europe:
>   Many muslims are living in Europe. It will become a muslim land.

Again, quite the optimist.

> His opinion of America:
>   I like America, but it must be friendly to muslim countries or
>   we must fight it.

Guess it's been awhile since the Muslims got to kick some booty.  They had a
great empire before the Mongols wiped them out.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

In article <bnmtb7$13e0dk$1@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Brandon J. Van Every <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> wrote:
>  5 countries have got vetos, and nobody
>should have a veto.

You couldn't have a UN if the big boys didn't have a veto. They simply
would not participate. The US attitude to the international crimes
court is a good example of this.

What _does_ need to happen is an update to reflect the current world
situation. France and the UK should lose their permanent seats and one
each should be given to India and the EU. Not that the EU would ever
be able to agree what to do with their seat, but that's their problem.

>The problem is, the veto holding countries aren't going to give up their
>power, and the sissy pacifist countries enjoy letting other countries do the
>world policing jobs.  That way they spend less GNP on military stuff, and
>they have someone to blame when things go awry.

What we are seeing is the remnant of the time when the US was happy
being the protector of the free world and Europe was happy to let
it. Now that the divide between the two has opened, there is no
avoiding a painful period of transition during which the US grows
increasingly reluctant to be Europe's knight in shining armour and the
EU grows increasingly aware that they need to build up a military of
their own. Eventually, the EU will get its act together and start
doing something or other that is actually useful.

>Really cracked me up when those same UN pansies wanted us to go handle
>Liberia for them.  Bush sure made the right call on that one: "let the
>Africans do it."

That was really fun. "You bad bad people, you can just go and invade
someone like that! ... errr ... d'you think you could go invade
Liberia please?"

Of course, in Liberia it seemed very much like both the warring sides
were inviting them in, so it's not really much of an invasion.

>  I don't care if Nigerian soldiers are corrupt, if the
>shooting goes down they can't be *that* bad.  Front page, the Nigerian
>colonel gets a hero's welcome, carried on people's shoulders.  Think any
>whitey would get a welcome like that?

You could have sent Powell :-)

Cheers
	Bent D
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs

In article <bnntid$13uhrf$1@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Brandon J. Van Every <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Sheldon Simms wrote:
>>
>> His opinion of the middle east problems:
>>   Israel must be destroyed. If it takes 1000 years, we will never
>>   cease to struggle. No islamic land can be allowed to become
>>   non-muslim.
>
>Your Iranian friend is quite the optimist!  I'll be impressed if *any*
>god-fearing religion can survive the next 1000 years of human evolution.

What evolution? If anything, modern medicine is causing us to
devolve. The only hope we have of improving our gene pool is through
engineering, not evolution.

Unless you were talking about social evolution.

>> His opinion of Europe:
>>   Many muslims are living in Europe. It will become a muslim land.
>
>Again, quite the optimist.

Given half a chance and decent wages, I bet moslems will become just
as decadent as us (nominal) christians have become.

Cheers
	Bent D
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs

Sheldon Simms <sheldonsimms@yahoo.com> wrote:

> His opinion of the middle east problems:
>   Israel must be destroyed. If it takes 1000 years, we will never
>   cease to struggle. No islamic land can be allowed to become
>   non-muslim.

I would hope than in 1000 years, people would be wondering what all the
fuss was about.

I still boggle at the about of fuss caused by the reformation by King Henry
VIII. Apparently, if it wasn't for that event, the Americas would be all
Spanish.

My opinion of the middle east problem (and coincidenly, northen ireland)
involves sticking people in a room until they can either play nice or kill
each other.

Bill, failed diplomat.

(Oh yes, followups set to comp.programming only. It's not topical there
either, but I just happen to be reading that group.)

-- 
   The address in the reply to header is correct, but I'll
   read it quicker if you drop the word "usenet".

Bent C Dalager wrote:
> In article <bnmtb7$13e0dk$1@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Brandon J. Van Every <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>  5 countries have got vetos, and nobody
>> should have a veto.
>
> You couldn't have a UN if the big boys didn't have a veto.

In principle, yes you could.

> They simply would not participate.

In practice, yes I agree that they won't give up their power.

> What _does_ need to happen is an update to reflect the current world
> situation. France and the UK should lose their permanent seats and one
> each should be given to India and the EU. Not that the EU would ever
> be able to agree what to do with their seat, but that's their problem.

And of course it's France's and the UK's problem.  So it won't happen.

> Of course, in Liberia it seemed very much like both the warring sides
> were inviting them in, so it's not really much of an invasion.

Oh, suuuure, we don't mind if you spend *your* military resources on world
peacekeeping missions, Mr. USA.  Bush's policy was as much about "let Africa
foot the bill, and BTW we're overextended" as much as anything else.

>>  I don't care if Nigerian soldiers are corrupt, if the
>> shooting goes down they can't be *that* bad.  Front page, the
>> Nigerian colonel gets a hero's welcome, carried on people's
>> shoulders.  Think any whitey would get a welcome like that?
>
> You could have sent Powell :-)

Hm, hadn't thought of that.  Would he have gotten the Uncle Tom treatment?

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Bent C Dalager wrote:
> In article <bnmtb7$13e0dk$1@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Brandon J. Van Every <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> 5 countries have got vetos, and nobody
>>should have a veto.
> 
> 
> You couldn't have a UN if the big boys didn't have a veto. They simply
> would not participate.

Before the UN there was the League of Nations and I believe that the US 
was the only major player that didn't sign.  This was because the 
people, and congress agreed, did not want to be obligated to fight a war 
based on the decisions of an external governing body.  Congress required 
that it have a veto over anything the UN agreed to, this led to others 
wanting the same thing.

I am on both sides of the issue on this one.  The Security Councily is a 
big mistake.  It allows the members to do anything they want and the UN 
is helpless to stop it.  For instance, the US or its allies have often 
been in violation of UN law, but since the US can veto anything the UN 
agrees to, nothing can or will be done about it.

However, I firmly agree with the notion that our government should be 
free of external influence.  Unfortunately in the areas I feel are 
important in this regard the government chooses to give up its power. 
Like in the case of the DMCA and in cases when we are found in violation 
of the WTO agreement.  The laws that the people of this country decide 
to enact should not be overruled by an external party.  Congress should 
not be enacting laws contrary to the constitution to bring us into 
compliance with some treaty.

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 07:42:13 -0800, Noah Roberts wrote:

> The laws that the people of this country decide 
> to enact should not be overruled by an external party.  Congress should 
> not be enacting laws contrary to the constitution to bring us into 
> compliance with some treaty.

A treaty is itself a law to which the U.S. is bound

  Article VI, Clause 2:
  This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
  made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
  Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
  any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
  notwithstanding.

This doesn't mean that a treaty is binding if it violates the
U.S. constitution, of course. A treaty can be found unconstitutional
just as "the Laws of the United States" can. But it has to actually
be found unconstitutional, otherwise it is "the supreme Law of the Land".

Richard Heathfield wrote:

> If people don't want to release their source code, that's up to
> them, but if you have a choice of Package A, source available,
> free, and Package B, source not available, costly, any sensible
> person is going to use Package A if there's no other distinguishing
> feature between the two packages.

True, but how often are there *NO* other distinguishing features
between free and non-free?  I work in a corporate environment that
actively discourages developers from free and shareware due to the
*perception* of impermanence, lack of support or lower quality.

(And I fully recognize the perception is often wrong, but I suspect
it tends to be right more than not, based on my own explorations of
freeware and shareware software.  That said, I have a couple of
shareware or free apps I wouldn't want to be without (e.g. vim).)

There is also a legitimate issue with regard to the "I spent money
on this, it doesn't work, fix it now" aspect of things.  Again, in
the corporate environment, that's a valuable consideration.


In any event, there is that *perception* problem, which does have
a foundation, but which sometimes fools people, too.  The family
that owned my dog's mother originally was giving away the puppies
free.  No one was interested.  They raised the price to 25 USD, and
people snapped'm up.  (Best 25 bucks *I* ever spent!! :-)

-- 
|_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|

Gerry Quinn wrote:

>> Consider that every different English story ever written uses the
>> same 26 letters.  They all use very heavily a subset of English
>> words and well-known concepts IN THE SERVICE OF some hopefully
>> new and original combination.
>>
>> Finding new ways to combine and express perceptions of our rather
>> well-known reality *is* to my mind a pretty good definition of
>> the creative process, and that the inputs may be "old hat" doesn't
>> cheapen it at all for me.
> 
> But Noah goes further, and suggests that the author adds little of
> significance to the culture, given that the alphabet was already
> there.

So,... HAMLET didn't add anything to the culture?

Hmmmm......

-- 
|_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|

> Your Iranian friend is quite the optimist!  I'll be impressed if *any*
> god-fearing religion can survive the next 1000 years of human evolution.
baghdad already has almost 3000 years history, and what age of
american fast-food culture? :)

In article <bnon4p$91j$1@quark.scn.rain.com>,
Noah Roberts  <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>
>I am on both sides of the issue on this one.  The Security Councily is a 
>big mistake.  It allows the members to do anything they want and the UN 
>is helpless to stop it.  For instance, the US or its allies have often 
>been in violation of UN law, but since the US can veto anything the UN 
>agrees to, nothing can or will be done about it.

The Security Council was built in the only way possible. Pure
pragmatism tells us that if there is to be a Security Council at all,
then the big players in the world need to be largely immune from
it. Might rules. The UN was built to try and impose _some_ degree of
order onto the chaotic world scene within this essential restriction.

The Security Council cannot right all wrongs. This could only happen
if there was one single overwhelmingly powerful nation that could run
things. The US is far from being that nation and there are no other
contenders. So we are left with diplomacy. The UN is a good scene to
conduct this diplomacy but, obviously, the results that come out of it
will only be as good as the will of those who participate. There is
little reason to believe that the equivalent diplomacy that would have
happened had the UN not existed would have yielded any better
outcomes.

Cheers
	Bent D
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs

In article <Pine.LNX.4.58-035.0310271822210.20143@unix47.andrew.cmu.edu>, "Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <ajo@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
>[snipped some groups]

Then I'll be very brief, because I don't even know whether most of the 
people previously reading this thread can read it now due to your 
arbitrary actions.  Also I'm busy...

>Well, the publicized problems with the DMCA in particular are concerned
>mostly with the "circumvention devices" clauses -- I'm sure you know
>that it's still illegal in the U.S.A. to watch a commercially-produced
>DVD on a DVD player that is not specifically endorsed by the studio
>producing the DVD, because the unlicensed DVD player is considered
>a "circumvention device."

And very possibly IS a circumvention device.

>  The DMCA also has a general stifling effect (or perceived effect) on
>the cryptological community, since no new encryption schemes can legally
>be analyzed without explicit permission from the corporation sponsoring
>the encryption scheme.  It is, as far as I know, illegal to attempt to
>break any watermarking scheme developed by a U.S. company -- and double
>illegal to publish the results!

"The cryptological community" can analyse any new encryption scheme that 
they have the right to analyse.  Locksmiths can't test their tools on my 
back door without permission, and the situation is perfectly analogous.

>  Finally, as seen from the Skylarov and DeCSS cases, the notion of
>"fair use" has been subverted (admittedly by both sides) in the past --
>Adobe claimed that it was not "fair use" to convert legally purchased
>books to another format; the MPAA claimed that it was not "fair use" to
>develop open source DVD players.

The company that Skylarov worked for specialised in producing 'cracks' 
for commercial software - the purpose of the Adobe cracks was no 
different from the rest.  "Fair use" is a defence against certain 
charges of copying - it does not in general confer any rights to the 
viewer of a copyright work, and it most certainly does not confer any 
rights on Russian pirates.

>  And in regard to the "false distinction": it's true that the DMCA
>does not in general add any incentive to produce original works.  It
>mainly serves to protect those works originally created (over 70
>years ago) by Walt Disney (long since dead), and to make life more
>difficult for hackers.

The DMCA applies to copyright works without distinction according to 
date of copyright.  If by hackers you mean pirates, its intention is to 
make life more difficult for them.  Let honest hackers hack something 
they have a right to hack.

>> The second issue (that of protected material entering the public domain
>> after the copyright period elapses) could be fixed quite easily by
>> making such eventual release (transmission of a copy to a central
>> library, for example) a condition on a copyright holder who releases
>> products under some form of digital rights management.
>
>Do you really think that such a technological "gotcha" would stand
>up in court, if the original copyright holder were to challenge it?

There's no 'gotcha' and not 'technology' - I'm just proposing that 
those issuing digitally-protected works be subjected to a not-very 
onerous and not at all technological requirement, in the interests of 
defeating a highly dubious but often-made objection.

>Or are you proposing to change U.S. copyright law to something more
>sensible? and in that case, why defend the current mess?

I'm just suggesting a minor change, to alleviate some peoples' concerns 
about the sky falling (i.e. Kylie's videos being lost to posterity when 
they enter the public domain.)

>> The condition
>> would transfer with the copyright and would be a charge on a company
>> that liquidates without selling any owned copyrights.  Releasing the
>> work earlier to eliminate the future obligation would of course be
>> legal, if the owner did not wish to use the work further, or store the
>> data for long periods.
>
>It is already legal (and actually quite often done) to place an
>original work in the public domain.  No "central library" is needed,
>although you might be interested in Project Gutenberg or the various
>Wiki-like projects on the Web.

Of course it's legal, I'm just saying the obligation could be discharged 
earlier if the company didn't want to hold the data until the copyright 
runs out.

>> My own view is that the benefit to society of artworks of various kinds
>> (which are what copyright protects) comes from their use per se, and is
>> not greatly affected by whether such usage is free or charged.  For
>> example, if I buy a book for $20 with $2 going to the author, I am
>> nearly as well off as if I buy the same book for $18 with nothing going
>> to the author.
>
>[Of course, you are $20 *worse* off than if you could "buy" the book
>for free through the public domain.  But I think you know my views on
>that by now.]

I don't understand - do you mean some sort of a text-file?  Books are 
physical and will cost money whatever you do.

>> The copyright protection costs society practically
>> nothing.
>
>Isn't someone's point here that excessive copyright protections,
>by stifling the public domain, actually make it more difficult to
>get creative work done?  From that point of view, sure, copyright
>protection costs the *consumer* nothing, but it costs the *artist*
>huge sums of money (if he wants to use a copyrighted idea) or his
>integrity (if he can't afford to produce his original vision).
>Then society is worse off for not having as much creative work
>done.

Society isn't any the worse for losing the work of 'artists' who rip 
off copyrighted works (you can't copyright ideas).  If he does have an 
original vision, on the other hand, I don't see how copyright law 
affects him, except it may prevent him going hungry if his vision 
catches on.

>> Consequently, the balance of benefits favours strong copyright
>> protection in order to encourage innovation, since copyright protection
>> does very little harm.
>
>But does strong copyright protection do any *help*?  You haven't
>demonstrated that a 90-year copyright, with thousand-dollar penalties,
>makes the artist feel any more productive than a 10-year copyright
>with $5 penalties for violation.

So long as the period is long and the penalties bite, there is an 
effective copyright law.  If those don't apply, there isn't.  

>> Remember, copyright does *not* protect ideas.  The *ideas* in a
>> published work may be accessed immediately by all readers / viewers /
>> whatevers, and freely disseminated with no copyright charges.  Thus
>> society benefits immediately from its publication, and indeed, the vast
>> majority of copyrighted works have exhausted their usefulness to society
>> long before the copyright period runs out.
>
>....and yet they *remain* under copyright long after their usefulness
>has run out!  Do you have any idea how many books, how many maps and
>vinyl recordings and comic books are at this moment rotting away in
>attics because it is considered criminal to digitize them or to make
>them accessible to the public?

No, they are rotting away in attics because nobody wants to read or 
listen to them.  If they did want to, the copyright laws would encourage 
rather than discourage their dissemination.

>> The argument about innovations coming into the public domain applies
>> much more to patents than to copyrights.  My new dry cell battery may be
>> the only good way to make such batteries, and it limits you if you can't
>> copy it.  But my cartoon mouse in no way impinges on your ability to
>> make a cartoon mouse of your own.
>
>You can't possibly be serious!  Ever heard of Mickey Mouse?  How far
>do you think you could get with a similar design before being pounced
>upon by Disney's lawyers?

Yes, you have to make a dissimilar cartoon mouse.  Otherwise you are 
making a derivative work.  What was your point again?

>  Consider the popularity of "look-and-feel" lawsuits in the software
>industry; and consider that you've never, ever seen a "cartoon mouse"
>similar to Mickey that wasn't produced by a Disney artist.  Except
>that one "Family Guy" episode. :)

Look-and-feel suits are rather *unpopular*.

>> My new 'Volcano' game is copyright,
>> but you can make your own game 'Eruption' with the same play mechanism -
>> my copyright really imposes practically no restrictions on you.
>
>Only if we accept your word that you won't ever try to sue
>for infringement.  After all, if I really could make the same game
>you made, and sell it cheaper, you *would* want legal recourse,

You *can't* make the same game, or make a different game and pass it off 
as my game.  You *can* make your own game, with a different name and 
different graphics and sound,  but a similar play mechanism.  You can 
sell it cheaper or give it away if you like.

>right?  That's basically what copyright is, in part -- making sure
>nobody does it like you, but better (because you want all the money).
>The other part is making sure nobody does it like you, but worse
>(because you want to keep your reputation clean).

And copyright does not harshly restrict you, because there are unlimited 
expressions of any idea.  So you keep away from the particular 
expressions created by Disney or by me, and make your own.  Seems to me 
that constitutes the *encouragement* of creativity.

Gerry Quinn                                   
-- 
http://bindweed.com 
Screensavers and Games for Windows
Download free trial versions
New arcade-puzzler just out - "Volcano"

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:

> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>> In that case, there's a lot of work to do. France, for example, is
>> clearly a rogue state (case in point: the destruction of the Rainbow
>> Warrior and the murder of one of its crew). Not only that, but France
>> has weapons of mass destruction which it refuses to give up. So do
>> Britain, China, Israel, India, Russia, and of course the USA. It's
>> high time we dealt with all these threats, is it not?
> 
> We knocked off Iraq because they did *not* have WMDs yet.

That isn't what the US people were told. Either you're wrong, or your 
leaders lied to justify a war. Isn't there some kind of law against that?

> It's foolish to
> wait until someone has joined the nuclear club.  Compare North Korea.
> Nothing we can do about those guys now.

Well, we *could* leave them in peace.

<snip>

>> For example, what,
>> specifically, is the moral difference between, say, Iraqi chemical
>> weapons under Saddam Hussein and US chemical weapons under Nixon?
> 
> We didn't use them.

Oh. Napalm is a myth, then.

>> Would you have supported a UN invasion of the USA during or up to 12
>> years after the Vietnam War, in which napalm was freely used?
> 
> As Dubya would say, "Bring 'em on!"  We were and are, oh, only the most
> powerful nation on Earth and most of the UN's military force.  I suppose
> you're proposing a civil war?

No, I'm proposing that the USA either give up its WMD capability, or allow 
other sovereign nations the same privilege (of possessing WMDs).

> Also, who would you be liberating?

The rest of the world, from the tyranny of USA's WMD capability. (That was 
the whole deal with Iraq, after all; its WMD capability was seen as a 
threat to world peace.)

<snip>

-- 
Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

"Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> writes:

Please read carefully, pay close attention to the first sentence.

> We knocked off Iraq because they did *not* have WMDs yet.  It's foolish to
> wait until someone has joined the nuclear club.  Compare North Korea.
> Nothing we can do about those guys now.

Now read the following:

> We didn't use them.  We know for fact that Saddam did, and would again.  The
> differences between democracies, communist police states, and dictatorships
> have everything to do with the moral assessments.  Also, we eventually
> participated in inspections regimes and dismantled said weapons.

Brandon, you manage to contradict yourself so much I wonder if you
might require medication.

-- 
(incf *yankees-world-series-losses*)

gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote in
news:VhUnb.3049$bD.13941@news.indigo.ie: 

> In article
> <Pine.LNX.4.58-035.0310271822210.20143@unix47.andrew.cmu.edu>, "Arthur
> J. O'Dwyer" <ajo@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> wrote: 
>
>>  The DMCA also has a general stifling effect (or perceived effect) on
>>the cryptological community, since no new encryption schemes can
>>legally be analyzed without explicit permission from the corporation
>>sponsoring the encryption scheme.  It is, as far as I know, illegal to
>>attempt to break any watermarking scheme developed by a U.S. company
>>-- and double illegal to publish the results!
> 
> "The cryptological community" can analyse any new encryption scheme
> that they have the right to analyse.  Locksmiths can't test their
> tools on my back door without permission, and the situation is
> perfectly analogous. 

I think this one is better:

I can go to a store and buy a lock, which may happen to be the same kind of 
lock as is on your back door. I can then go and take my newly purchased 
lock and examine it for security flaws. If I find some then it might be 
worth me telling other people that they are not very good locks. It might 
well be in your interest to know that it's broken, since you're relying on 
it to protect your own stuff (ala DRM).

There also another difference: the schemes used for copy protection are 
typically patented. That means that there's a description of their function 
and behaviour in the public domain which I can examine and critique if I 
wish. Why shouldn't I be able to publish the results of that critique?

Ian Woods

Ian Woods wrote:

> There also another difference: the schemes used for copy protection are
> typically patented. That means that there's a description of their
> function and behaviour in the public domain which I can examine and
> critique if I wish. Why shouldn't I be able to publish the results of that
> critique?

You can, because you are not in US jurisdiction, so the DMCA doesn't apply 
to you.

[Followups set to c.p]

-- 
Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> "Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <ajo@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >[snipped some groups]
>
> Then I'll be very brief, because I don't even know whether most of the
> people previously reading this thread can read it now due to your
> arbitrary actions.  Also I'm busy...

Understood.  However, I believe the majority of interested respondents
post from comp.programming, and this thread is certainly off-topic
everywhere it's posted anyway -- but especially those groups I snipped.
I only left on *.programming and *.misc because they sound like good
broad groups who might not care that we're carrying on a U.S.-oriented
political debate (between a college student and a resident of --
apparently -- Ireland?) under their noses.
  I've added misc.misc to the crosspost just for the hell of it.
Anyone who subscribes to misc.misc will undoubtedly enjoy this a
heck of a lot more than the guys in alt.games.programming or wherever.

> >Well, the publicized problems with the DMCA in particular are concerned
> >mostly with the "circumvention devices" clauses -- I'm sure you know
> >that it's still illegal in the U.S.A. to watch a commercially-produced
> >DVD on a DVD player that is not specifically endorsed by the studio
> >producing the DVD, because the unlicensed DVD player is considered
> >a "circumvention device."
>
> And very possibly IS a circumvention device.

That's my point, I think -- it IS considered a circumvention device,
and the DMCA criminalizes the distribution of such devices (although
apparently *not* their possession; I think I misspoke earlier).  I
consider the DMCA's definition of "circumvention device" to be pretty
arbitrary.

(On a related note, I'm sure you've heard about how Stanford grad
student Alex Halderman almost got sued over the following paper:
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/
Sunncomm, the corporation behind the shift-key "protection" scheme,
backed down after realizing that they weren't getting much in the
way of public accolades.  Do you believe Halderman committed a
moral crime in publishing his paper?  Do you believe he violated
the DMCA?  I say no and yes, respectively.)


> "The cryptological community" can analyse any new encryption scheme that
> they have the right to analyse.  Locksmiths can't test their tools on my
> back door without permission, and the situation is perfectly analogous.

This assertion has been adequately addressed by Ian Woods's response in
this thread.

> The company that [Sklyarov] worked for specialised in producing 'cracks'
> for commercial software - the purpose of the Adobe cracks was no
> different from the rest.  "Fair use" is a defence against certain
> charges of copying - it does not in general confer any rights to the
> viewer of a copyright work, and it most certainly does not confer any
> rights on Russian pirates.

I do not pretend to be an expert on the Sklyarov case, but
according to the (admittedly biased) EFF:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Elcomsoft/us_v_elcomsoft_faq.html

   ElcomSoft Co. Ltd. is a Russian software company that develops various
   security-related products, including password products used by US
   government agencies to recover Word and Quicken files. One of their
   products is the Advanced eBook Processor (AEBPR). Dmitry Sklyarov is a
   programmer employed by ElcomSoft.

The company's website is www.elcomsoft.com; their products *seem*
legitimate enough.  Do you have references for the "Russian pirates"
quote?


> >  And in regard to the "false distinction": it's true that the DMCA
> >does not in general add any incentive to produce original works.  It
> >mainly serves to protect those works originally created (over 70
> >years ago) by Walt Disney (long since dead), and to make life more
> >difficult for hackers.
>
> The DMCA applies to copyright works without distinction according to
> date of copyright.  If by hackers you mean pirates, its intention is to
> make life more difficult for them.  Let honest hackers hack something
> they have a right to hack.

No; by "hackers" I mean hackers.  Sure, some pirates are hackers and
vice versa, but in general the DMCA makes life more dangerous for
anyone interested in interesting things.

However, you are partly correct in your assertion that the DMCA does
not distinguish between works.  (I mean, obviously it only "applies"
in a real sense to works defended by large companies with lots of
money and lawyers, but...)  When I spoke of Walt Disney, I was thinking
of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, signed into law on
October 21, 1998, not the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, signed into
law on October 28, 1998.  My mistake.


> >> The second issue (that of protected material entering the public domain
> >> after the copyright period elapses) could be fixed quite easily by
> >> making such eventual release (transmission of a copy to a central
> >> library, for example) a condition on a copyright holder who releases
> >> products under some form of digital rights management.
> >
> >Do you really think that such a technological "gotcha" would stand
> >up in court, if the original copyright holder were to challenge it?
>
> There's no 'gotcha' and not 'technology' - I'm just proposing that
> those issuing digitally-protected works be subjected to a not-very
> onerous and not at all technological requirement, in the interests of
> defeating a highly dubious but often-made objection.

What's the objection?
What's the requirement?

I must have misunderstood your paragraph; what I *thought* you were
saying was:

  The problem of how to make sure protected material is preserved
  long enough to enter the public domain (after the copyright period
  elapses) can be fixed by
  making the transmission of a copy to a central library
  an integral part of "digital rights management" -- that is to say,
  a certain kind of digital technology through which the work is
  originally distributed.


> I'm just suggesting a minor change, to alleviate some peoples' concerns
> about the sky falling (i.e. Kylie's videos being lost to posterity when
> they enter the public domain.)

The problem isn't that public domain will lose your videos; there are
a lot of pack rats in the world.  The problem is that *you* will lose
your videos, inadvertently, before the public gets a chance to see them.
(Yes -- it is still your right to destroy your work.  But if you really
*want* the world to see your videos, but they get caught in a fire
or something before they can be widely freely disseminated through the
public domain, then they're lost forever.)


> >It is already legal (and actually quite often done) to place an
> >original work in the public domain.  No "central library" is needed,
> >although you might be interested in Project Gutenberg or the various
> >Wiki-like projects on the Web.
>
> Of course it's legal, I'm just saying the obligation could be discharged
> earlier if the company didn't want to hold the data until the copyright
> runs out.

And I'm saying that that's already legal, and quite widely done.
You don't need to push that idea, and you certainly don't need to
change any laws or anything to make it work.  It's not -- dare I
say -- an "original idea." ;-)


> >[Of course, you are $20 *worse* off than if you could "buy" the book
> >for free through the public domain.  But I think you know my views on
> >that by now.]
>
> I don't understand - do you mean some sort of a text-file?  Books are
> physical and will cost money whatever you do.

Naturally.  However, except for the sentimental value of a good
paperback and the CRT-induced eyestrain, I see no disadvantage
to distributing a book as "some sort of text-file."  See above in
re Project Gutenberg.


> >> The copyright protection costs society practically
> >> nothing.
> >
> >Isn't someone's point here that excessive copyright protections,
> >by stifling the public domain, actually make it more difficult to
> >get creative work done?  From that point of view, sure, copyright
> >protection costs the *consumer* nothing, but it costs the *artist*
> >huge sums of money (if he wants to use a copyrighted idea) or his
> >integrity (if he can't afford to produce his original vision).
> >Then society is worse off for not having as much creative work
> >done.
>
> Society isn't any the worse for losing the work of 'artists' who rip
> off copyrighted works (you can't copyright ideas).

   http://www.negativland.com/
   http://www.adultswim.com/
   http://www.rollingstone.com/features/featuregen.asp?pid=1891
   http://evolution-control.com/press/cbs/press_release.html


> >> Consequently, the balance of benefits favours strong copyright
> >> protection in order to encourage innovation, since copyright protection
> >> does very little harm.
> >
> >But does strong copyright protection do any *help*?  You haven't
> >demonstrated that a 90-year copyright, with thousand-dollar penalties,
> >makes the artist feel any more productive than a 10-year copyright
> >with $5 penalties for violation.
>
> So long as the period is long and the penalties bite, there is an
> effective copyright law.  If those don't apply, there isn't.

And does "effective copyright law" (to use your definition) do
any *help*?  Can you show any examples?


> >Do you have any idea how many books, how many maps and
> >vinyl recordings and comic books are at this moment rotting away in
> >attics because it is considered criminal to digitize them or to make
> >them accessible to the public?
>
> No, they are rotting away in attics because nobody wants to read or
> listen to them.  If they did want to, the copyright laws would encourage
> rather than discourage their dissemination.

Wrong.  They are rotting in attics because their current (physical)
*owners* do not want to read them or listen to them.  Even if their
owners *did* enjoy them immensely, U.S. copyright law would still
forbid them from sharing their enjoyment with their neighbors -- in
this country, copying copyrighted work without the (usually dead)
author's permission is illegal.  (Really think about that for a
little while.  I considered adding an ironic (!), but decided against
it, since I think I'm already caricaturing your position enough.)


> >> But my cartoon mouse in no way impinges on your ability to
> >> make a cartoon mouse of your own.
> >
> >You can't possibly be serious!  Ever heard of Mickey Mouse?  How far
> >do you think you could get with a similar design before being pounced
> >upon by Disney's lawyers?
>
> Yes, you have to make a dissimilar cartoon mouse.  Otherwise you are
> making a derivative work.  What was your point again?

Sometimes, especially in the "post-modern" world of pop culture,
it can be very original to make a "derivative" work.  Look at Andy
Warhol.  Or, if he's too pinko for your taste, look at Monet with
his images of the cathedral at Rouen.  Both artists created works
that blatantly "derived" from existing (and, in Warhol's case,
copyrighted and even trademarked) works of art.  And both certainly
contributed a heck of a lot to Western culture!


> >  Consider the popularity of "look-and-feel" lawsuits in the software
> >industry; and consider that you've never, ever seen a "cartoon mouse"
> >similar to Mickey that wasn't produced by a Disney artist.  Except
> >that one "Family Guy" episode. :)
>
> Look-and-feel suits are rather *unpopular*.

And yet... they exist.



> >right?  That's basically what copyright is, in part -- making sure
> >nobody does it like you, but better (because you want all the money).
> >The other part is making sure nobody does it like you, but worse
> >(because you want to keep your reputation clean).
>
> And copyright does not harshly restrict you, because there are unlimited
> expressions of any idea.  So you keep away from the particular
> expressions created by Disney or by me, and make your own.  Seems to me
> that constitutes the *encouragement* of creativity.

Kind of like putting up "Trespassers Will Be Shot" signs *encourages*
exploration, right?  After all, if we stake off certain areas with
these big "Already Explored -- Go Away" signs, certainly that will
only *encourage* people to explore new and interesting areas!


-Arthur

> So, in short to avoid confusion:  Society owns your ideas, not you.  If

That's a baffling concept. This doesn't leave much incentive to publish your
ideas, but write closed-source software instead and capitalize on it
silently. I thought you were in favour of Open Software, not against it.

Patents and copyrights are mechanism to publish, and protects your ideas.
Societies around the world generally seem to agree with this notion, and
with the idea that inventor should benefit from his contribution, even if
based on previous work.

I'm in favour of both, Open Source and closed source. Both have their
places. I write commercial projects for customers as closed source, but some
work I _want_ to share, so I put it out as Open Source with very liberal
license, in essence it says: "use this as you see fit, just don't claim you
are the original author"-- I don't care if someone makes millions with my OS
code, that just shows he is more inventive in finding ways using the
sourcecode than I ever was. Otherwise the code would be rotten, forgotten
and collecting dust on my hard-drive until it is obsolete in 10 years from
now.


-w

Noah Roberts wrote:
>
> Before the UN there was the League of Nations and I believe that the
> US was the only major player that didn't sign.  This was because the
> people, and congress agreed, did not want to be obligated to fight a
> war based on the decisions of an external governing body.  Congress
> required that it have a veto over anything the UN agreed to, this led
> to others wanting the same thing.

Refusing to commit one's troops is quite different than having a veto over
everything the UN might decide.  Get rid of the vetos, and have a formal
mechanism for refusing to commit one's troops.  This would make the UN a
clearinghouse for "Coalitions Of The Willing."

> The laws that the people of this
> country decide to enact should not be overruled by an external party.

Them's the breaks in matters of international cooperation.  I think wrapping
oneself in the flag should be reserved for rather serious matters, such as
life and limb.

> Congress should not be enacting laws contrary to the constitution to
> bring us into compliance with some treaty.

One thing to consider is that an international body can ask for a lot of
things, but if it has no actual powers of enforcement, the requests /
demands are irrelevant.  Laws can be passed about international trade
because other countries can impose tarriffs and sanctions.  But how would
another country ever do anything about our free speech, our right to bear
arms, or our willingness to keep capital punishment?  They can't do a damn
thing, they don't have cops over here to do any enforcement.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

Bent C Dalager wrote:
>
> The Security Council was built in the only way possible. Pure
> pragmatism tells us that if there is to be a Security Council at all,
> then the big players in the world need to be largely immune from
> it. Might rules. The UN was built to try and impose _some_ degree of
> order onto the chaotic world scene within this essential restriction.

To the extent that the Security Council is about taking military action, the
big players of the world are already immune to it.  Someone resolves that
the UN should invade the USA or China, then the USA or China shoots, bombs,
or nukes the invaders back to the stone age.  To say that the big players
require immunity through veto power is silly, they already have immunity in
practice.  All they need is a formal mechanism for saying "not with our
troops, you don't."  All countries should have the right to decline a war.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

veziak wrote:
>> Your Iranian friend is quite the optimist!  I'll be impressed if
>> *any* god-fearing religion can survive the next 1000 years of human
>> evolution.
>
> baghdad already has almost 3000 years history, and what age of
> american fast-food culture? :)

And of course, in terms of cultural spread we've totally kicked the Iraqi's
asses in a far shorter time.  If you haven't noticed, humanity isn't moving
as slowly as it was 1000..3000 years ago.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

Taking risk where others will not.

> The company's website is www.elcomsoft.com; their products *seem*
> legitimate enough.  Do you have references for the "Russian pirates"
> quote?

Of course he doesn't.  Quinn is off on a chest beating exercise.  Your 
thoughful posts are powerless here

:o)

Programmer Dude wrote:

> Gerry Quinn wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Consider that every different English story ever written uses the
>>>same 26 letters.  They all use very heavily a subset of English
>>>words and well-known concepts IN THE SERVICE OF some hopefully
>>>new and original combination.
>>>
>>>Finding new ways to combine and express perceptions of our rather
>>>well-known reality *is* to my mind a pretty good definition of
>>>the creative process, and that the inputs may be "old hat" doesn't
>>>cheapen it at all for me.
>>
>>But Noah goes further, and suggests that the author adds little of
>>significance to the culture, given that the alphabet was already
>>there.
> 
> 
> So,... HAMLET didn't add anything to the culture?
> 
> Hmmmm......
> 

Surely Hollywood's contribution to global culture has eclipsed anything 
that old :o)

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:32:40 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
> 
>> It's foolish to
>> wait until someone has joined the nuclear club.  Compare North Korea.
>> Nothing we can do about those guys now.
> 
> Well, we *could* leave them in peace.

Perhaps we will, but I wonder if you realize what the people of
North Korea have been going through for 50 years, and especially
for the last 10. More North Koreans have died due to the actions
of their dictator in the past 5 years than could possibly be
killed in any war fought to destroy the North Korean regime.

The best thing that could be done for the North Korean people
would be to attack North Korea as soon as possible and destroy
it's dictator and his henchmen as soon as possible. The main
thing making it difficult is not potential damage to the U.S.
That's not really a problem. It's the potential that Kim Jong
Il and his military commanders will kill a few million South
Koreans out of spite just before they go to hell.

-Sheldon

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:16:55 -0800, Brandon J. Van Every wrote:

> veziak wrote:
>>> Your Iranian friend is quite the optimist!  I'll be impressed if
>>> *any* god-fearing religion can survive the next 1000 years of human
>>> evolution.
>>
>> baghdad already has almost 3000 years history, and what age of
>> american fast-food culture? :)
> 
> And of course, in terms of cultural spread we've totally kicked the Iraqi's
> asses in a far shorter time.  If you haven't noticed, humanity isn't moving
> as slowly as it was 1000..3000 years ago.

More importantly, Baghdad is not the same Baghdad it was 500 years
ago. And that wasn't the same as the Baghdad of 1000 years ago, etc.
Peoples, cultures, and religions have come and gone while the
settlement location has stayed the same.

To claim that the age of Baghdad represents an accomplishment of
of the current inhabitants is a bit like crediting the Dutch for
the current status of New York City.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:53:55 -0600, Programmer Dude wrote:

> There is also a legitimate issue with regard to the "I spent money
> on this, it doesn't work, fix it now" aspect of things.  Again, in
> the corporate environment, that's a valuable consideration.

In every larger company I've worked, some people have mentioned
this as a reason to avoid free software, but when it came to
supporting their own products they were much more cavalier.

In alt.games.programming Brandon J. Van Every <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:
>>
>>> The current and in my opinion necessary phase of geopolitical cancer
>>> surgery naturally results in a certain amount of bloodletting.
>>
>> I love it when folks talk about 'certain amount of bloodletting' being
>> needed as long as it isn't their blood or the blood of their loved
>> ones.

> Are you a US citizen?  We had this little thing called 9/11.  Granted, 9/11
> hasn't proven to be a convincing rationale for the Iraq war, at least not in
> the timeframe the Iraq war has been waged.  Strategically, however, Iraq was
> a threat that had to be dealt with sooner or later.  We should have worked
> more with the UN and done it later.

Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the US or Britian than France, Germany
or Japan. Korea on the other hand seems to be a considerable threat which
we currently can not deal with because we havew all our troops in the
wrong place.

What does citizenship have to do with world events? We are all citizens of 
the world which seems to be blowing apart thanks to a 'certain amount of 
bloodletting' which did not need to be let.

--Thom

Programmer Dude wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
> There is also a legitimate issue with regard to the "I spent money
> on this, it doesn't work, fix it now" aspect of things.  Again, in
> the corporate environment, that's a valuable consideration.

I don't know of any commercial software group that is going to give a 
rats ass unless your are a MAJOR player.  Another often used, and 
related, FUD is "Who do I get to pay for the damage it does when it 
breaks?"  Even the companies selling the software use this as they make 
you sign an EULA that states plainly that you won't be getting THEM to 
pay if their software cost you money.  And this one has been held up in 
court.

If you are that major player, and you want something fixed, you will 
have no trouble hiring someone to do it if those in charge won't - not 
going to be doing that with proprietery software.  You might also be 
able to bribe an otherwise unsympathetic volunteer into doing it.
> 
> In any event, there is that *perception* problem, which does have
> a foundation, but which sometimes fools people, too.  The family
> that owned my dog's mother originally was giving away the puppies
> free.  No one was interested.  They raised the price to 25 USD, and
> people snapped'm up.  (Best 25 bucks *I* ever spent!! :-)
> 
Yes, many people are stupid.  However, at least on this issue, they are 
smartening up.  Open source is taking bigger and bigger bites of the 
market and it seems to have a rather snowball effect: "You tried that 
free stuff out, it works?  It works BETTER?!?!?  Can I have a copy?"

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

Gerry Quinn wrote:
>> Finally, as seen from the Skylarov and DeCSS cases, the notion of
>>"fair use" has been subverted (admittedly by both sides) in the past --
>>Adobe claimed that it was not "fair use" to convert legally purchased
>>books to another format; the MPAA claimed that it was not "fair use" to
>>develop open source DVD players.
> 
> 
> The company that Skylarov worked for specialised in producing 'cracks' 
> for commercial software - the purpose of the Adobe cracks was no 
> different from the rest.  "Fair use" is a defence against certain 
> charges of copying - it does not in general confer any rights to the 
> viewer of a copyright work, and it most certainly does not confer any 
> rights on Russian pirates.

It is obvious you are not in full possession of the facts.  The Adobe 
software in question was breaking Russian law by not allowing copies to 
be made.  The "pirate" software in question gave these rights back and 
required the user to enter in a key to prove they had the legal right to 
make the copy.  I am not even going to bother reading the rest of your 
post, it is way too long and already irritatingly ignorant.

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

Bent C Dalager wrote:
> In article <bnon4p$91j$1@quark.scn.rain.com>,
> Noah Roberts  <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
> 
>>I am on both sides of the issue on this one.  The Security Councily is a 
>>big mistake.  It allows the members to do anything they want and the UN 
>>is helpless to stop it.  For instance, the US or its allies have often 
>>been in violation of UN law, but since the US can veto anything the UN 
>>agrees to, nothing can or will be done about it.
> 
> 
> The Security Council was built in the only way possible. Pure
> pragmatism tells us that if there is to be a Security Council at all,
> then the big players in the world need to be largely immune from
> it. Might rules. The UN was built to try and impose _some_ degree of
> order onto the chaotic world scene within this essential restriction.

The problem is that the big players often use their power to push around 
the other countries and the whole thing ends up being only what one, or 
a few, want.  When this happens the rest of the world eventually says, 
"Ok, Fuck You!" and bad things happen.  The big guys loose because, as 
everyone who tried would say if they had survived, you can't fight the 
whole world and win.

Might only rules so long as those being ruled allow it.

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

In alt.games.programming Sheldon Simms <sheldonsimms@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:11:31 +0000, Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:

>> I was at Berkeley at the time so I was pretty far into the net at 
>> that time and no one I knew was calling it the Internet

> You are either spouting nonsense because your mind is being warped
> by political partisanship, or you are intentionally lying. I'll
> charitably assume the former.

> Here is a usenet post from 1983 using the term "the internet" to
> mean "the single network developed by ARPA based on the internet
> protocol"

The term internet has been used almost since 1970 but it has been used in
the sense of the internets, connections of nets. ARPAnet was decommisioned
in 1990 when control was handed off to NSFnet. It was at this same time
that the commercial restrictions were taken off use of the ARPAnet/NSFnet.  
This is when internet becomes Internet when we could officially 'sell
stuff' and the same time Gore championed funding. The Gore attribution was
from faulty writing in Wired magazine which was further embellished by you
know who. This is completely documented in any major news archive you
search. Lexis-Nexus finds them all.

--Thom

Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:

> What does citizenship have to do with world events? We are all citizens of 
> the world which seems to be blowing apart thanks to a 'certain amount of 
> bloodletting' which did not need to be let.

I thought it was because we have a monkey ruling the only superpower 
left: http://www.bushorchimp.com/

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

> More importantly, Baghdad is not the same Baghdad it was 500 years
> ago. And that wasn't the same as the Baghdad of 1000 years ago, etc.
> Peoples, cultures, and religions have come and gone while the
> settlement location has stayed the same.
> 
> To claim that the age of Baghdad represents an accomplishment of
> of the current inhabitants is a bit like crediting the Dutch for
> the current status of New York City.
i just meant that everything changes very fast, and nobody knows (and
can't predict) what will be in 1000 years, what religion or country
will be dominant, maybe in 100 years china will rule the world... who
knows  :)

"Thom Kevin Gillespie" <thom@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:bnq5m0$746$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
>
> Iraq posed absolutely no threat to the US or Britian than France, Germany
> or Japan. Korea on the other hand seems to be a considerable threat which
> we currently can not deal with because we havew all our troops in the
> wrong place.

In the short term, it is true that Iraq was not an immediate threat.  We
were given a hard sell on the imminence of Saddam's WMD programs.
Strategically, Iraq was definitely a threat.  It would be specious to talk
about North Korea being a threat, and not recognize that Iraq is exactly a
North Korea at an earlier point in time.  Ergo the doctrine of Preventive
War.  It is unfortunately a doctrine for our times, much as MAD was a
doctrine for the cold war.  Nobody has to like it, but it's sane doctrine.
The whole proposition of "terrorists could hook up with dictators providing
WMDs" is not just idle speculation, it's something North Korea has
threatened to do, i.e. sell to the highest bidder if they don't get
such-and-such from us.  The thing about Iraq is, that wasn't happening.  But
it's emminently reasonable to assume that it would happen eventually, if
Saddam were given the time.

> What does citizenship have to do with world events? We are all citizens of
> the world

Different citizens of different countries see the stakes differently.  A US
citizen is far more of a target for WMD terrorism than any other citizen.
[*]  We've seen many horrible events in human history, and I wouldn't
pretend 9/11 was the worst of them, not by a long shot.  But it is the
single biggest act of terrorism in peacetime ever.  No other country has had
the unique experience of having not 1, but 2 of their skyscrapers falling
down on an otherwise pleasant morning.  It pales in comparison to Japan
having not 1, but 2 cities blown apart by atom bombs, or indeed most of the
strategic bombing of WW II, but still it is quite an impressive event upon
the American psyche.

> which seems to be blowing apart thanks to a 'certain amount of
> bloodletting' which did not need to be let.

If you think North Korea is a problem, then your sentiment is contradictory.
If you *don't* think North Korea is a problem, if you think it's ok for them
to have nukes same as everyone else, then at least then your position would
be consistent.  Of course I don't agree with that, I don't think any
dictator should have nukes.  I'm on the side that says, "Let's kill these
asshole dictators before they can threaten us with WMDs."  It's just that in
the case of North Korea, we're too late.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

[*] That said, I really wonder what's stopping them from hitting Israel.
Fear of a return address?

"Noah Roberts" <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:bnq7hm$nk9$1@quark.scn.rain.com...
> Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:
>
> > What does citizenship have to do with world events? We are all citizens
of
> > the world which seems to be blowing apart thanks to a 'certain amount of
> > bloodletting' which did not need to be let.
>
> I thought it was because we have a monkey ruling the only superpower
> left: http://www.bushorchimp.com/

Clearly, Bush.  Not chimp.  The photos are not compelling.  If you had
enough photos of chimps, you could find facial exprssions and facial
structures to match anyone.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

In article <bnpkjh$147tii$1@ID-207230.news.uni-berlin.de>,
Brandon J. Van Every <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>To the extent that the Security Council is about taking military action, the
>big players of the world are already immune to it.  Someone resolves that
>the UN should invade the USA or China, then the USA or China shoots, bombs,
>or nukes the invaders back to the stone age.  To say that the big players
>require immunity through veto power is silly, they already have immunity in
>practice.  All they need is a formal mechanism for saying "not with our
>troops, you don't."  All countries should have the right to decline a war.

When it comes to military action, smaller states are of more interest
and smaller states _can_ be quite important to the big ones. The
Soviets would want to have the power to say "no" to UN peacekeepers in
Afghanistan at a time when they're about to send in their army to
support their puppet regime.

It also handles sanctions, which is more to the point. If it weren't
for veto power, chances are we'd have seen sanctions against Isral
long ago and the US wouldn't be in the UN anymore. Since there is veto
power, the sanctions aren't there and the US is happy to keep playing.

Cheers
	Bent D
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs

In article <bnq6fk$lr6$1@quark.scn.rain.com>,
Noah Roberts  <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>Bent C Dalager wrote:
>> 
>> The Security Council was built in the only way possible. Pure
>> pragmatism tells us that if there is to be a Security Council at all,
>> then the big players in the world need to be largely immune from
>> it. Might rules. The UN was built to try and impose _some_ degree of
>> order onto the chaotic world scene within this essential restriction.
>
>The problem is that the big players often use their power to push around 
>the other countries and the whole thing ends up being only what one, or 
>a few, want.  When this happens the rest of the world eventually says, 
>"Ok, Fuck You!" and bad things happen.  The big guys loose because, as 
>everyone who tried would say if they had survived, you can't fight the 
>whole world and win.
>
>Might only rules so long as those being ruled allow it.

That's rather the point. As mighty as the big players are, it doesn't
free them from diplomacy. Only when they are fairly confident that a
suitable majority of nations will be sympathetic or apathetic to their
action will they tend to act. This gives the smaller nations a chance
to band together in order to try and stop a big power from being
nasty. Again, the UN is a good place to organize this diplomacy. This
is part of the "some degree of order" I mention above. The small
nations are given a chance to get together, talk to eachother, and
decide upon common interests.

Cheers
	Bent D
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:12:47 +0000, Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:

> In alt.games.programming Sheldon Simms <sheldonsimms@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:11:31 +0000, Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:
> 
>>> I was at Berkeley at the time so I was pretty far into the net at 
>>> that time and no one I knew was calling it the Internet
> 
>> You are either spouting nonsense because your mind is being warped
>> by political partisanship, or you are intentionally lying. I'll
>> charitably assume the former.
> 
>> Here is a usenet post from 1983 using the term "the internet" to
>> mean "the single network developed by ARPA based on the internet
>> protocol"
> 
> The term internet has been used almost since 1970 but it has been used in
> the sense of the internets, connections of nets.

The term has been used (and still is used) generically. It was
*also* used specifically in the posts I quoted. You are wrong
to claim otherwise. Here they are again, shortened:

From 1983:
>   you are able to transfer files directly between arbitary hosts on
>   the internet, using something called the "File Tranfer Protocol"
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^

Notice the words "THE". This cannot refer to generic internets. It
is referring to the single network that was at that time transitioning
from being known as ARPANET to being known as "The Internet". The
second post is even more conclusive.

From 1985:
>   For further information on getting X, send a mail request to
>   "Xrequest@mit-athena.arpa" ("Xrequest@athena.mit.edu for those
>   out there running domain name servers on the internet).
>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Here the author is making a distinction between an ARPANET address
and an address on THE internet. Notice that the address for "those
.... on the internet" is exactly the same type still in use today.

You are wrong. Al Gore told a fat one that he probably didn't expect
anyone to call him on. Al Gore did not "invent the internet" in any
sense of the words "invent" or "internet".

If you can't admit those things, then you are a liar as well.

-Sheldon

Sheldon Simms <sheldonsimms@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>

I saw the old TV drama "Threads" last night. Funny old world.

Bill, we win, we win!

-- 
   The address in the reply to header is correct, but I'll
   read it quicker if you drop the word "usenet".

In article <Xns9423D3971194Cnewspubwuggyorg@217.32.252.50>, Ian Woods <newspub2@wuggyNOCAPS.org> wrote:
>gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote in
>news:VhUnb.3049$bD.13941@news.indigo.ie: 
>>
>>>  The DMCA also has a general stifling effect (or perceived effect) on
>>>the cryptological community, since no new encryption schemes can
>>>legally be analyzed without explicit permission from the corporation
>>>sponsoring the encryption scheme.  It is, as far as I know, illegal to
>>>attempt to break any watermarking scheme developed by a U.S. company
>>>-- and double illegal to publish the results!
>> 
>> "The cryptological community" can analyse any new encryption scheme
>> that they have the right to analyse.  Locksmiths can't test their
>> tools on my back door without permission, and the situation is
>> perfectly analogous. 
>
>I think this one is better:
>
>I can go to a store and buy a lock, which may happen to be the same kind of 
>lock as is on your back door. I can then go and take my newly purchased 
>lock and examine it for security flaws. If I find some then it might be 
>worth me telling other people that they are not very good locks. It might 
>well be in your interest to know that it's broken, since you're relying on 
>it to protect your own stuff (ala DRM).
>
>There also another difference: the schemes used for copy protection are 
>typically patented. That means that there's a description of their function 
>and behaviour in the public domain which I can examine and critique if I 
>wish. Why shouldn't I be able to publish the results of that critique?

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17usc1201.htm

<<< BEGIN QUOTE >>>
2) Permissible acts of encryption research.--Notwithstanding the 
provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that 
subsection for a person to circumvent a technological measure as applied 
to a copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of a published work in 
the course of an act of good faith encryption research if-- 
  
(A) the person lawfully obtained the encrypted copy, phonorecord, 
performance, or display of the published work; 
(B) such act is necessary to conduct such encryption research; 
(C) the person made a good faith effort to obtain authorization before 
the circumvention;  and 
(D) such act does not constitute infringement under this title or a 
violation of applicable law other than this section, including section 
1030 of title 18 and those provisions of title 18 amended by the 
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.
(3) Factors in determining exemption.--In determining whether a person 
qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be 
considered shall include-- 
  
(A) whether the information derived from the encryption research was 
disseminated, and if so, whether it was disseminated in a manner 
reasonably calculated to advance the state of knowledge or development 
of encryption technology, versus whether it was disseminated in a manner 
that facilitates infringement under this title or a violation of 
applicable law other than this section [17 U.S.C.A. S 1 et seq.], 
including a violation of privacy or breach of security; 
(B) whether the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is 
employed, or is appropriately trained or experienced, in the field of 
encryption technology;  and 
(C) whether the person provides the copyright owner of the work to which 
the technological measure is applied with notice of the findings and 
documentation of the research, and the time when such notice is 
provided.
<<< END QUOTE >>>

Does that answer your question?

- Gerry Quinn

Noah Roberts wrote:

>> There is also a legitimate issue with regard to the "I spent money
>> on this, it doesn't work, fix it now" aspect of things.  Again, in
>> the corporate environment, that's a valuable consideration.
> 
> I don't know of any commercial software group that is going to give
> a rats ass unless your are a MAJOR player.

My own experience as an individual contradicts this.  I recently had
a complaint about a recent version of a icon-editing tool I use.  I
emailed the company, they responded.  When it became apparent that my
complaint wasn't resolvable (they'd removed a function I used and
"needed" from the Personal Edition, although something similar was in
the Corporate Edition)... they sent me a free upgrade from Personal
to Corporate.


> Noah Roberts
>    - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

Or you are, but don't *see* it the same way.  One size DON'T fit all.

-- 
|_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|

In article 
<Pine.LNX.4.58-035.0310291801230.18445@unix40.andrew.cmu.edu>, "Arthur 
J. O'Dwyer" <ajo@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
>(On a related note, I'm sure you've heard about how Stanford grad
>student Alex Halderman almost got sued over the following paper:
>http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/
>Sunncomm, the corporation behind the shift-key "protection" scheme,
>backed down after realizing that they weren't getting much in the
>way of public accolades.  Do you believe Halderman committed a
>moral crime in publishing his paper?  Do you believe he violated
>the DMCA?  I say no and yes, respectively.)

Just about every law on the statute book may result in amusing cases 
involving technical breaches - the DMCA is hardly unique in this 
respect, and such occasions don't affect the validity of a law.

>> "The cryptological community" can analyse any new encryption scheme that
>> they have the right to analyse.  Locksmiths can't test their tools on my
>> back door without permission, and the situation is perfectly analogous.
>
>This assertion has been adequately addressed by Ian Woods's response in
>this thread.

The situation is also addressed by the DMCA.

>> The company that [Sklyarov] worked for specialised in producing 'cracks'
>> for commercial software - the purpose of the Adobe cracks was no
>> different from the rest.  "Fair use" is a defence against certain
>> charges of copying - it does not in general confer any rights to the
>> viewer of a copyright work, and it most certainly does not confer any
>> rights on Russian pirates.
>
>I do not pretend to be an expert on the Sklyarov case, but
>according to the (admittedly biased) EFF:
>http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Elcomsoft/us_v_elcomsoft_faq.html
>
>   ElcomSoft Co. Ltd. is a Russian software company that develops various
>   security-related products, including password products used by US
>   government agencies to recover Word and Quicken files. One of their
>   products is the Advanced eBook Processor (AEBPR). Dmitry Sklyarov is a
>   programmer employed by ElcomSoft.
>
>The company's website is www.elcomsoft.com; their products *seem*
>legitimate enough.  Do you have references for the "Russian pirates"
>quote?

To be fair, I should have said that Elcomsoft produced cracking tools, 
rather than implying that they were pirates.  Since 2001, they seem to 
have hived off some of the products they used to sell, notably 'Advanced 
Email Extractor', 'Advanced Direct Remailer', and 'Advanced NT Security 
Explorer'

"This program is very applicable for NT workstations, where users can 
access a hard drive from another computer in the network and copy a SAM 
registry key, where password hashes are stored. Also, users can sniff a 
network and recover password hash from sniffer results. Advanced NT 
Security Explorer (ANTExp) will help you in your way to complete system 
security"  Oh, yes.  And you mustn't use the e-mail tools for sending 
spam.

>> >> The second issue (that of protected material entering the public domain
>> >> after the copyright period elapses) could be fixed quite easily by
>> >> making such eventual release (transmission of a copy to a central
>> >> library, for example) a condition on a copyright holder who releases
>> >> products under some form of digital rights management.
>> >
>> >Do you really think that such a technological "gotcha" would stand
>> >up in court, if the original copyright holder were to challenge it?
>>
>> There's no 'gotcha' and not 'technology' - I'm just proposing that
>> those issuing digitally-protected works be subjected to a not-very
>> onerous and not at all technological requirement, in the interests of
>> defeating a highly dubious but often-made objection.
>
>What's the objection?
>What's the requirement

The objection was DRM-protected artworks being lost after the copyright 
period elapses.  The proposal was that those issuing DRM-protected works 
be obliged to file an unprotected version at the end of the copyright 
period, or earlier if they so choose.

>> I'm just suggesting a minor change, to alleviate some peoples' concerns
>> about the sky falling (i.e. Kylie's videos being lost to posterity when
>> they enter the public domain.)
>
>The problem isn't that public domain will lose your videos; there are
>a lot of pack rats in the world.  The problem is that *you* will lose
>your videos, inadvertently, before the public gets a chance to see them.
>(Yes -- it is still your right to destroy your work.  But if you really
>*want* the world to see your videos, but they get caught in a fire
>or something before they can be widely freely disseminated through the
>public domain, then they're lost forever.)

I don't understand your complaint here.  It seems unlikely that I would 
distribute works under a protection scheme, somehow lose the original, 
and be unable to recreate unprotected works.  I see no reason to take 
such possibilities into account when framing laws.

>> >[Of course, you are $20 *worse* off than if you could "buy" the book
>> >for free through the public domain.  But I think you know my views on
>> >that by now.]
>>
>> I don't understand - do you mean some sort of a text-file?  Books are
>> physical and will cost money whatever you do.
>
>Naturally.  However, except for the sentimental value of a good
>paperback and the CRT-induced eyestrain, I see no disadvantage
>to distributing a book as "some sort of text-file."  See above in
>re Project Gutenberg.

Even then, if you value your time at all reasonably, the time you spend 
reading a book will 'cost' much more than any royalty you would be 
paying the author.  Royalties simply aren't a significant drag on the 
value added by works of protected IP. 

>> >> The copyright protection costs society practically
>> >> nothing.
>> >
>> >Isn't someone's point here that excessive copyright protections,
>> >by stifling the public domain, actually make it more difficult to
>> >get creative work done?  From that point of view, sure, copyright
>> >protection costs the *consumer* nothing, but it costs the *artist*
>> >huge sums of money (if he wants to use a copyrighted idea) or his
>> >integrity (if he can't afford to produce his original vision).
>> >Then society is worse off for not having as much creative work
>> >done.
>>
>> Society isn't any the worse for losing the work of 'artists' who rip
>> off copyrighted works (you can't copyright ideas).
>
>   http://www.negativland.com/
>   http://www.adultswim.com/
>   http://www.rollingstone.com/features/featuregen.asp?pid=1891
>   http://evolution-control.com/press/cbs/press_release.html

Two seem to be about bands stretching the boundaries of sampling.  There 
will always be a boundary, unless there is no protectioin whatsoever.  
Another is about copyright battles between musicians, both of whom 
presumably are propfiting from IP protection but differ about ownership. 
 The fourth I'm not sure about, it seems to be have clips from 
forthcoming TV shows, so maybe it's bing accused of piracy, I don't know 
or care.

>And does "effective copyright law" (to use your definition) do
>any *help*?  Can you show any examples?

For heaven's sake, look at the explosion of works created over the past 
few hundred years by artists who were able to make money creating them 
and who otherwise would have had to do something else.  How can you 
possibly argue that IP doesn't encourage creation?

>> >Do you have any idea how many books, how many maps and
>> >vinyl recordings and comic books are at this moment rotting away in
>> >attics because it is considered criminal to digitize them or to make
>> >them accessible to the public?
>>
>> No, they are rotting away in attics because nobody wants to read or
>> listen to them.  If they did want to, the copyright laws would encourage
>> rather than discourage their dissemination.
>
>Wrong.  They are rotting in attics because their current (physical)
>*owners* do not want to read them or listen to them.  Even if their
>owners *did* enjoy them immensely, U.S. copyright law would still
>forbid them from sharing their enjoyment with their neighbors -- in
>this country, copying copyrighted work without the (usually dead)
>author's permission is illegal. 

Rubbish, they can sell the works if anyone wants to buy them (you could 
argue that this is a problem with DRM, but then again if works are being 
sold under DRM they are not rotting away forgotten.

> (Really think about that for a
>little while.  I considered adding an ironic (!), but decided against
>it, since I think I'm already caricaturing your position enough.)

As for the last bit, I think you have forgotten that the dead own no 
property, and any copyrights subsist in a living heir or an extant legal 
person such as a corporation.  So the ! would just have made your 
'point' sillier.

>> >> But my cartoon mouse in no way impinges on your ability to
>> >> make a cartoon mouse of your own.
>> >
>> >You can't possibly be serious!  Ever heard of Mickey Mouse?  How far
>> >do you think you could get with a similar design before being pounced
>> >upon by Disney's lawyers?
>>
>> Yes, you have to make a dissimilar cartoon mouse.  Otherwise you are
>> making a derivative work.  What was your point again?
>
>Sometimes, especially in the "post-modern" world of pop culture,
>it can be very original to make a "derivative" work.  Look at Andy
>Warhol.  Or, if he's too pinko for your taste, look at Monet with
>his images of the cathedral at Rouen.  Both artists created works
>that blatantly "derived" from existing (and, in Warhol's case,
>copyrighted and even trademarked) works of art.  And both certainly
>contributed a heck of a lot to Western culture!

And it would appear that they did not fall foul of IP law, suggesting 
that the law does not prevent the creation of sucvh works.

>> And copyright does not harshly restrict you, because there are unlimited
>> expressions of any idea.  So you keep away from the particular
>> expressions created by Disney or by me, and make your own.  Seems to me
>> that constitutes the *encouragement* of creativity.
>
>Kind of like putting up "Trespassers Will Be Shot" signs *encourages*
>exploration, right?  After all, if we stake off certain areas with
>these big "Already Explored -- Go Away" signs, certainly that will
>only *encourage* people to explore new and interesting areas!

In the first place, the space open to art is essentially unlimited, so 
your metaphor of the usable area being whittled away is false.  In the 
second, those 'explored areas' were not pre-existing areas that have 
been discovered and walled off - they were created by the owners (or 
those who have bought them from the oriiginal owners.)  Bad metaphor all 
round.

- Gerry Quinn

In article <bnq628$l4s$1@quark.scn.rain.com>, Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>Gerry Quinn wrote:
>>> Finally, as seen from the Skylarov and DeCSS cases, the notion of
>>>"fair use" has been subverted (admittedly by both sides) in the past --
>>>Adobe claimed that it was not "fair use" to convert legally purchased
>>>books to another format; the MPAA claimed that it was not "fair use" to
>>>develop open source DVD players.
>> 
>> 
>> The company that Skylarov worked for specialised in producing 'cracks' 
>> for commercial software - the purpose of the Adobe cracks was no 
>> different from the rest.  "Fair use" is a defence against certain 
>> charges of copying - it does not in general confer any rights to the 
>> viewer of a copyright work, and it most certainly does not confer any 
>> rights on Russian pirates.
>
>It is obvious you are not in full possession of the facts.  The Adobe 
>software in question was breaking Russian law by not allowing copies to 
>be made.  The "pirate" software in question gave these rights back and 
>required the user to enter in a key to prove they had the legal right to 
>make the copy.  I am not even going to bother reading the rest of your 
>post, it is way too long and already irritatingly ignorant.

The points you make are completely irrelevant.

Mr. Sklyarov was arrested on US soil as an officer of the company, and 
charged with selling in the US (over the internet) software that broke 
US law.

Whether Elcomsoft did or did not break Russian law in Russia is not 
germane to the case.

Whether Adobe did or did not break Russian law in Russia is not germane 
to the case.  

Furthermore, it is not a defence in law to claim that a case should be 
thrown out because the victim broke other laws.

Finally, the fact that A may have a fair use defence if charged with 
violating copyrights made by B, does not confer rights on C to make 
cracking software, just as I said.

I was incorrect to say that Elcomsoft specialised in cracks for software 
- they mainly produced cracks for what we would call data, e.g. 
passwords for Word files, or the passwords of network users, as well as 
a sideline in spammers tools.   I take back the implied suggestion that 
Sklyarov was a pirate.

- Gerry Quinn

gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote in
news:Cjbob.3193$bD.14425@news.indigo.ie: 

> In article <Xns9423D3971194Cnewspubwuggyorg@217.32.252.50>, Ian Woods
> <newspub2@wuggyNOCAPS.org> wrote: 
>>
>>There also another difference: the schemes used for copy protection
>>are typically patented. That means that there's a description of their
>>function and behaviour in the public domain which I can examine and
>>critique if I wish. Why shouldn't I be able to publish the results of
>>that critique? 
> 
> http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17usc1201.htm
> 
<snip - stuff from the above article about who and how someone falling 
under that law can publish something without getting their arse dragged up 
in front of a court>
> 
> Does that answer your question?
> 
> - Gerry Quinn

Not really - that tells me how I might be able to publish, if I were 
employed as a cryptographer or 'appropriately trained' to be one, without 
risking being arrested if I ever went to the USA.

The question I asked was "Why shouldn't I be able to publish the results of 
that critique?" - a moral question rather than an 'is it legal', since the 
DMCA doesn't apply to me.

Ian Woods

"Thom Kevin Gillespie" <thom@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:bnmegb$tq3$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
[...]
> connections to Al Qaeda, 911 or weapons of mass destruction unless you
> count the 39,000 bombs we dropped on Iraq, particularly the ones with
> depleted uranium, half life of centuries, radition level in Baghdad over
> 1000 times normal.

DU's not used in bombs, it's used as a penetrator in certain types of
anti-armor ammunition and the half-life is measured in billions of years,
not centuries. (Which means it's not very radioactive at all; unfortunately,
there are trace elements in it which can be, and the metal itself isn't all
that nice to ingest/inhale.)

By the way, breaking up concrete or stone also releases radiation (and
a host of other nasty things). Let's face it, being on the receiving end of
war is just not healthy. -Wm

bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager) writes:

> It also handles sanctions, which is more to the point. If it weren't
> for veto power, chances are we'd have seen sanctions against Isral
> long ago and the US wouldn't be in the UN anymore. Since there is veto
> power, the sanctions aren't there and the US is happy to keep playing.

Read up on the history of the UN, the Security Council and Israel: 

The most recent resolution against Israel was defeated by a US veto
just over two weeks ago. Regardless of our long standing freindship
with Israel, the US has found times where it has no choice but to vote
on resolutions condemming Israel. My numbers are off the top of my
head but there have been somewhere over 70 proposed resolutions
against Israel, the majority of which were defeated by US vetos,
however There are something near twenty SC resolutions that have been
passed against Israel. If you spend more time reading legitimate news
sources and give less faith to TV News, you might be more aware of the
truth.

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions.html
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/unisrael.html
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/sctoc.html
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/israel_un.html

-- 
(incf *yankees-world-series-losses*)

Sheldon Simms <sheldonsimms@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:32:40 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> 
> The best thing that could be done for the North Korean people
> would be to attack North Korea as soon as possible and destroy
> it's dictator and his henchmen as soon as possible. The main
> thing making it difficult is not potential damage to the U.S.
> That's not really a problem. It's the potential that Kim Jong
> Il and his military commanders will kill a few million South
> Koreans out of spite just before they go to hell.

Stick to the your rationale of attacking the North Koreans, I mean a
few million dead South Koreans is a fair price to pay so they don't
have to have Kim Jong Il ruling North Korea right. The ones that live
will thank you for it, hell I bet they'll have parades for Dubya.

-- 
(incf *yankees-world-series-losses*)

Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> writes:

> I thought it was because we have a monkey ruling the only superpower
> left: http://www.bushorchimp.com/

That's very insulting to the Chimps.

Cornelius and Zira would be insulted.

-- 
(incf *yankees-world-series-losses*)

> In the short term, it is true that Iraq was not an immediate threat.  We
> were given a hard sell on the imminence of Saddam's WMD programs.
> Strategically, Iraq was definitely a threat. 
hmm then strategically many country can be threat - china, iran,
pakistan, and so on.
but it's funny to hear that country what didn't have mass destructive
weapons, any sirious missiles, had a weak economy, had un inspectors
at the objects and located 10000km far to america?
what was a threat? (maybe threat that someone else could get iraq's
oil :) )

> Different citizens of different countries see the stakes differently.  A US
> citizen is far more of a target for WMD terrorism than any other citizen.

have you ever thought why us citizen is far more of a target for
terrorism than citizen of uk, france, canada, australia and other
countries?

> If you think North Korea is a problem, then your sentiment is contradictory.
> If you *don't* think North Korea is a problem, if you think it's ok for them
> to have nukes same as everyone else, then at least then your position would
> be consistent.  Of course I don't agree with that, I don't think any
> dictator should have nukes.  I'm on the side that says, "Let's kill these
> asshole dictators before they can threaten us with WMDs."  It's just that in
> the case of North Korea, we're too late.
it's funny but leaders of north korea follow your logic. america it's
threat for them, real threat, they saw it in iraq. and they decided
"let's fight with that asshole america before they start to kill us".
:)
as for me, american politics as stupid as politics of iraq and
n.korea.
point of that politics is "i do what i want and don't care"
paranoia......

"Brandon J. Van Every" <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> writes:

> In the short term, it is true that Iraq was not an immediate threat.  We
> were given a hard sell on the imminence of Saddam's WMD programs.
> Strategically, Iraq was definitely a threat.  It would be specious to talk
> about North Korea being a threat, and not recognize that Iraq is exactly a
> North Korea at an earlier point in time.  Ergo the doctrine of Preventive
> War.  It is unfortunately a doctrine for our times, much as MAD was a
> doctrine for the cold war.  Nobody has to like it, but it's sane doctrine.
> The whole proposition of "terrorists could hook up with dictators providing
> WMDs" is not just idle speculation, it's something North Korea has
> threatened to do, i.e. sell to the highest bidder if they don't get
> such-and-such from us.  The thing about Iraq is, that wasn't happening.  But
> it's emminently reasonable to assume that it would happen eventually, if
> Saddam were given the time.

That's ridiculous, you're feeding the same sales pitch the whitehouse
fed the General public and expecting it to fly. Sure everything you
say makes sense on the surface, but just a little thought shows it is
an irrational assumption. 

The very nature of a dictator is that of a control freak Saddam had
built a Stalinist regime, where everything was tightly and carefully
controlled. A terrorist group like Al-Queda on the other hand is more
along the lines of a revolutionary force, which completely contradicts
Saddam's regime. By giving WMD to a terrorist group, Saddam would be
running a large risk that those terrorists could have turned around
and used those same weapons against him. It makes no sense that a
power hungry ruler would gice weapons or support to a renegade force
which he has no control over.

North Korea has already sold Scud missles to foreign powers, in fact
shortly before the "Shock and Awe" campaign, US ships stopped a ship
transporting Scuds from N. Korea to Yemen. They inspected the ship,
saw it's cargo, and let it proceed, because Yemen is an ally, and
there was no violation of international law in the sale.

> > What does citizenship have to do with world events? We are all citizens of
> > the world

> Different citizens of different countries see the stakes differently.  A US
> citizen is far more of a target for WMD terrorism than any other citizen.
> [*]  We've seen many horrible events in human history, and I wouldn't
> pretend 9/11 was the worst of them, not by a long shot.  But it is the
> single biggest act of terrorism in peacetime ever.  No other country has had
> the unique experience of having not 1, but 2 of their skyscrapers falling
> down on an otherwise pleasant morning.  

Pay attention to what you are saying, if you follow the logic that we
have to rid the world of WMD because of the September 11th attacks, then I
suppose we should take all the jumbo jets and razor blades away from
our enemies. 

> It pales in comparison to Japan
> having not 1, but 2 cities blown apart by atom bombs, or indeed most of the
> strategic bombing of WW II, but still it is quite an impressive event upon
> the American psyche.

As a resident of the New York metro area, I should probably tell you
that most of the people I know feel like the rest of the country
really does not have the same impression that we do. I don't think I
know many people who did not lose a friend, family member, co-worker,
or loved-one on that day. In my opinion, the whitehouse has not done a
simgle positive thing since Spetember 11th. I would much rather have
some answers as to how this could have been prevented, and why it
wasn't prevented. I'm also uncomfortable with the fact that the large
scale terrorist attack that succeeded it, which DID include use of a
weapon of mass destruction, has gone unsolved, with no coverage by the
commercial media.

> If you think North Korea is a problem, then your sentiment is contradictory.
> If you *don't* think North Korea is a problem, if you think it's ok for them
> to have nukes same as everyone else, then at least then your position would
> be consistent.  Of course I don't agree with that, I don't think any
> dictator should have nukes.  I'm on the side that says, "Let's kill these
> asshole dictators before they can threaten us with WMDs."  It's just that in
> the case of North Korea, we're too late.

Why is it alright for a democratic republic, whose president has
supreme control over the military force, to possess these weapons when
it is not alright for a dictator to have them ?

-- 
(incf *yankees-world-series-losses*)

In article <873cdah4vr.fsf@afghan.dogpound>,
Anthony Ventimiglia  <aventi@optonline.net> wrote:
>bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C Dalager) writes:
>
>> It also handles sanctions, which is more to the point. If it weren't
>> for veto power, chances are we'd have seen sanctions against Isral
>> long ago and the US wouldn't be in the UN anymore. Since there is veto
>> power, the sanctions aren't there and the US is happy to keep playing.
>
>Read up on the history of the UN, the Security Council and Israel: 
>
>The most recent resolution against Israel was defeated by a US veto
>just over two weeks ago. Regardless of our long standing freindship
>with Israel, the US has found times where it has no choice but to vote
>on resolutions condemming Israel. My numbers are off the top of my
>head but there have been somewhere over 70 proposed resolutions
>against Israel, the majority of which were defeated by US vetos,
>however There are something near twenty SC resolutions that have been
>passed against Israel. If you spend more time reading legitimate news
>sources and give less faith to TV News, you might be more aware of the
>truth.

Heh. If you had spent more time reading the posts you reply to than
browsing news sources, you might have noticed that I was referring to
sanctions rather than resolutions.

Cheers
	Bent D
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs

Anthony Ventimiglia wrote:

> Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>I thought it was because we have a monkey ruling the only superpower
>>left: http://www.bushorchimp.com/
> 
> 
> That's very insulting to the Chimps.
> 
> Cornelius and Zira would be insulted.
> 
:P

"Several of you out there have been emailing and signing in the 
guestbook about how it is cruel to the chimps to compare them to George 
W. Bush. So, to show that we are caring, compassionate people, here are 
some webpages you might find interesting:"

Anthony Ventimiglia wrote:
> As a resident of the New York metro area, I should probably tell you
> that most of the people I know feel like the rest of the country
> really does not have the same impression that we do. I don't think I
> know many people who did not lose a friend, family member, co-worker,
> or loved-one on that day. In my opinion, the whitehouse has not done a
> simgle positive thing since Spetember 11th. I would much rather have
> some answers as to how this could have been prevented, and why it
> wasn't prevented. I'm also uncomfortable with the fact that the large
> scale terrorist attack that succeeded it, which DID include use of a
> weapon of mass destruction, has gone unsolved, with no coverage by the
> commercial media.

What are you refering too there?  I haven't heard anything of it, unless 
you are talking about the Anthrax scares....

NR

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 20:07:17 +0000, Anthony Ventimiglia wrote:

> Sheldon Simms <sheldonsimms@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:32:40 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> 
>> The best thing that could be done for the North Korean people
>> would be to attack North Korea as soon as possible and destroy
>> it's dictator and his henchmen as soon as possible. The main
>> thing making it difficult is not potential damage to the U.S.
>> That's not really a problem. It's the potential that Kim Jong
>> Il and his military commanders will kill a few million South
>> Koreans out of spite just before they go to hell.
> 
> Stick to the your rationale of attacking the North Koreans, I mean a
> few million dead South Koreans is a fair price to pay so they don't
> have to have Kim Jong Il ruling North Korea right. The ones that live
> will thank you for it, hell I bet they'll have parades for Dubya.

Reading comprehension isn't a strong point for you is it?

Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> writes:

> Anthony Ventimiglia wrote:
> > As a resident of the New York metro area, I should probably tell you
> > that most of the people I know feel like the rest of the country
> > really does not have the same impression that we do. I don't think I
> > know many people who did not lose a friend, family member, co-worker,
> > or loved-one on that day. In my opinion, the whitehouse has not done a
> > simgle positive thing since Spetember 11th. I would much rather have
> > some answers as to how this could have been prevented, and why it
> > wasn't prevented. I'm also uncomfortable with the fact that the large
> > scale terrorist attack that succeeded it, which DID include use of a
> > weapon of mass destruction, has gone unsolved, with no coverage by the
> > commercial media.
> 
> What are you refering too there?  I haven't heard anything of it,
> unless you are talking about the Anthrax scares....

That would be it, can you think of any other recent cases of a weapon
of mass destruction being used against the American people ? 

-- 
(incf *yankees-world-series-losses*)

Sheldon Simms wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:12:47 +0000, Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:
> 
> 
>>In alt.games.programming Sheldon Simms <sheldonsimms@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:11:31 +0000, Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:
>>
>>>>I was at Berkeley at the time so I was pretty far into the net at 
>>>>that time and no one I knew was calling it the Internet
>>>
>>>You are either spouting nonsense because your mind is being warped
>>>by political partisanship, or you are intentionally lying. I'll
>>>charitably assume the former.
>>
>>>Here is a usenet post from 1983 using the term "the internet" to
>>>mean "the single network developed by ARPA based on the internet
>>>protocol"
>>
>>The term internet has been used almost since 1970 but it has been used in
>>the sense of the internets, connections of nets.
> 
> 
> The term has been used (and still is used) generically. It was
> *also* used specifically in the posts I quoted. You are wrong
> to claim otherwise. Here they are again, shortened:
> 
> From 1983:
> 
>>  you are able to transfer files directly between arbitary hosts on
>>  the internet, using something called the "File Tranfer Protocol"
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> Notice the words "THE". This cannot refer to generic internets. It
> is referring to the single network that was at that time transitioning
> from being known as ARPANET to being known as "The Internet". The
> second post is even more conclusive.
> 
> From 1985:
> 
>>  For further information on getting X, send a mail request to
>>  "Xrequest@mit-athena.arpa" ("Xrequest@athena.mit.edu for those
>>  out there running domain name servers on the internet).
>>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> Here the author is making a distinction between an ARPANET address
> and an address on THE internet. Notice that the address for "those
> ... on the internet" is exactly the same type still in use today.
> 
> You are wrong. Al Gore told a fat one that he probably didn't expect
> anyone to call him on. Al Gore did not "invent the internet" in any
> sense of the words "invent" or "internet".

Correct, except for one thing: Gore never said `invent'. That was 
ascribed to him by his critics.

> 
> If you can't admit those things, then you are a liar as well.

See above.

> 
> -Sheldon
> 



-- 
Artie Gold -- Austin, Texas
Oh, for the good old days of regular old SPAM.

[I've narrowed the cross-posts again; please observe
follow-ups.  Goodbye, games groups.]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> Arthur J. O'Dwyer wrote in response to Gerry Quinn:
> >
> >(On a related note, I'm sure you've heard about how Stanford grad
> >student Alex Halderman almost got sued over the following paper:
> >http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/

> Just about every law on the statute book may result in amusing cases
> involving technical breaches - the DMCA is hardly unique in this
> respect, and such occasions don't affect the validity of a law.

As I'm sure you must be aware, I'm a literal-minded pedant. :)
I firmly believe that it is possible (in the vast majority of cases)
to construct laws which do *not* admit of "amusing cases" that
trample over the rights of scientists (or smartass students; or
anyone else, for that matter).  The DMCA contains so many loopholes
and reverse loopholes that it's completely useless as a tool for
the betterment of society; its only use is as a tool of corporations
out for easy money.

> >> The company that [Sklyarov] worked for specialised in producing 'cracks'
> >> for commercial software

> >The company's website is www.elcomsoft.com; their products *seem*
> >legitimate enough.  Do you have references for the "Russian pirates"
> >quote?

[Gerry replies, retracting "pirate" allegation and pointing out that
at least three of Elcomsoft's products have applications which break
U.S. law, and one looks like a spammers' tool.]

What can I say?  Although I don't like it, there is a lot of money in
spam, and probably even more in spammers' tools.  Did Elcomsoft break any
laws?  And by that I mean: Did Elcomsoft break any Russian laws? or any
international laws to which Russian nationals are bound?  (Hint: No.)
  While you may be correct that "good intentions" is no defense of
Sklyarov's actions, neither is "bad intentions" a legitimate prosecution
of Elcomsoft's actions.
  The more I consider both sides of this point, the more I'm convinced
that the real issue here is the rights of foreign nationals on U.S.
soil, not the DMCA itself.  For example, if the Justice Department can
detain a law-abiding Russian national for "American crimes," can it
also detain a law-abiding British national for having driven on the
left side of the road (illegal in the U.S.), or perhaps for some less
"amusing" past violation of U.S. law?
  To my knowledge, the U.S. government has in the past arrested foreign
nationals for extradition at the request of the nation involved; but
I don't think we've often arrested foreign nationals *not* wanted for
any crime by their own governments, who have not committed any crime
on U.S. soil.  And I think that's the way it should be.  Unfortunately,
the trend in U.S. domestic policy is going the exact opposite direction
at the moment.
  Anyway, I'm now willing to concede that while our views obviously
differ on the Elcomsoft case, it doesn't really pertain to the discussion
at hand as much as I thought it did at first.  I'll drop it now.


> >What's the objection?
> >What's the requirement
>
> The objection was DRM-protected artworks being lost after the copyright
> period elapses.

How?  Are you saying something like this:

   Leonardo releases a "trial version" of the Mona Lisa which can be
     "unlocked" with a product key.
   Nobody buys the product key, and eventually all product keys in the
     world are destroyed or lost.
   The "full version" of the Mona Lisa is thus lost forever.

>  The proposal was that those issuing DRM-protected works
> be obliged to file an unprotected version at the end of the copyright
> period, or earlier if they so choose.

Ah - so it's not a technological "gotcha"; it's a legal "gotcha."
Remember, the whole point I was making was that accidents can happen.
What if the original "full version" Mona Lisa gets lost in the
intervening years?  What happens then?  Does Leonardo (or his heirs)
get slapped with a hefty fine for violating your "obligation" to file
the (lost) work with the central library?  How would that help *anybody*?

I want to repeat this point:

> >The problem isn't that public domain will lose your videos; there are
> >a lot of pack rats in the world.  The problem is that *you* will lose
> >your videos, inadvertently, before the public gets a chance to see them.
> >(Yes -- it is still your right to destroy your work.  But if you really
> >*want* the world to see your videos, but they get caught in a fire
> >or something before they can be widely freely disseminated through the
> >public domain, then they're lost forever.)
>
> I don't understand your complaint here.  It seems unlikely that I would
> distribute works under a protection scheme, somehow lose the original,
> and be unable to recreate unprotected works.  I see no reason to take
> such possibilities into account when framing laws.

It has happened many times in the past.  The "protection scheme" in
question is "U.S. copyright law," which forbids making or distributing
copies of the protected work for 75 (or, since 1998, 95) years after
the original distribution.
  It is quite plausible that sometime in those 75 years, the 45rpm record
player will go out of style; or little Suzie will chew up her Little
Golden Books beyond recognition; or the last copy of "Gary's Anatomy"
will fail to sell at a used-book sale and be tossed into the trash;
or you'll die and your kids will format your hard disk.  Trust me, these
things happen regularly.
  Now, if copyright were de-extended to the original 14 years, or even
as much as 35 years, maybe Grandpa would be able to dust off his vinyl
and make MP3s of that polka tune; or the Little Gilded Book Co. could
still find a mint-quality Golden Book to "rip off" for the enjoyment
of Suzie's kids; or Project Gutenberg would get a hold of "Gary's Anatomy"
and digitize it; or some kid on the 'Net would think your stuff was
cool enough to distribute it to his buddies.  (Yes, this last one
happens anyway; but in that case, the data is already digitized so
not as much work needs doing.)

<snip>
> >Naturally.  However, except for the sentimental value of a good
> >paperback and the CRT-induced eyestrain, I see no disadvantage
> >to distributing a book as "some sort of text-file."  See above in
> >re Project Gutenberg.
>
> Even then, if you value your time at all reasonably, the time you spend
> reading a book will 'cost' much more than any royalty you would be
> paying the author.

I enjoy reading.  I find it fun and interesting.  If you find that
reading "costs" you physically or mentally, then perhaps you might
suggest some activities that you *do* like, and I'll try to find a
good analogy (but we all know how I am with analogies ;) .


> >> >> The copyright protection costs society practically
> >> >> nothing.
> >> >
> >> >Isn't someone's point here that excessive copyright protections,
> >> >by stifling the public domain, actually make it more difficult to
> >> >get creative work done?

> >> Society isn't any the worse for losing the work of 'artists' who rip
> >> off copyrighted works (you can't copyright ideas).
> >
> >   http://www.negativland.com/
> >   http://www.adultswim.com/
> >   http://www.rollingstone.com/features/featuregen.asp?pid=1891
> >   http://evolution-control.com/press/cbs/press_release.html
>
> Two seem to be about bands stretching the boundaries of sampling.  There
> will always be a boundary, unless there is no [protection] whatsoever.
> Another is about copyright battles between musicians, both of whom
> presumably are [profiting] from IP protection but differ about
> ownership.

*Good* IP protection would make the boundaries clear; it would make
ownership clear; it would agree with common law and common sense.

>  The fourth I'm not sure about, it seems to be have clips from
> forthcoming TV shows, so maybe it's [being] accused of piracy, I
> don't know or care.

American cartoon shows re-using characters from past decades' shows.
I believe the big ones have permission; e.g., Space Ghost.  I'm
less sure about the Harvey Birdman guest stars, and fairly sure
that Family Guy doesn't bother too much -- but then, "parody" covers
a lot of ground in fair-use circles.


> >And does "effective copyright law" (to use your definition) do
> >any *help*?  Can you show any examples?
>
> For heaven's sake, look at the explosion of works created over the past
> few hundred years

Do you have any idea how old "intellectual property" is, really?
What makes you think that just because Western civilization has
benefited from art over a "few hundred years," it's benefited *more*
in the past century due specifically to new IP laws?

> by artists who were able to make money creating them
> and who otherwise would have had to do something else.  How can you
> possibly argue that IP doesn't encourage creation?

Did IP encourage the creation of cavemen?  The Incas?
Gothic sculptors?  Michelangelo?  Roy Lichtenstein?
I say: no, not much.

> >[Art works] are rotting in attics because their current (physical)
> >*owners* do not want to read them or listen to them.  Even if their
> >owners *did* enjoy them immensely, U.S. copyright law would still
> >forbid them from sharing their enjoyment with their neighbors -- in
> >this country, copying copyrighted work without the (usually dead)
> >author's permission is illegal.
>
> Rubbish, they can sell the works if anyone wants to buy them

Wrong.  They can sell the works if they are able to contact anyone
who wants to buy them, for a price for which they want to sell them.
Humans are notoriously irrational when it comes to setting prices.
And despite your experience, eBay wasn't always this popular, and
some people don't even *have* Internet connections.  Some people,
especially in large, predominantly rural countries like the U.S.,
have very few opportunities to sell *anything*, for purely
geographical reasons.


> > (Really think about that for a
> >little while.  I considered adding an ironic (!), but decided against
> >it, since I think I'm already caricaturing your position enough.)
>
> As for the last bit, I think you have forgotten that the dead own no
> property, and any copyrights subsist in a living heir or an extant legal
> person such as a corporation.

....which doesn't usually give a rat's patootie about the wishes
of the late owner.  I seem to recall something of a brouhaha involving
the estate of the late J.R.R. Tolkien, for example; you might
investigate that.  -- In fact, Tolkien's works were at the center of
plenty of IP scandals; see for three of them

  http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html
  http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/misc/local/TolkLang/elfling-mirror/099nn/09963


> >> >> But my cartoon mouse in no way impinges on your ability to
> >> >> make a cartoon mouse of your own.

> >Sometimes, especially in the "post-modern" world of pop culture,
> >it can be very original to make a "derivative" work.  Look at Andy
> >Warhol.  Or, if he's too pinko for your taste, look at Monet with
> >his images of the cathedral at Rouen.  Both artists created works
> >that blatantly "derived" from existing (and, in Warhol's case,
> >copyrighted and even trademarked) works of art.  And both certainly
> >contributed a heck of a lot to Western culture!
>
> And it would appear that they did not fall foul of IP law, suggesting
> that the law does not prevent the creation of [such] works.

U.S. and other nations' IP laws have changed drastically in the past
few hundred years.  Even since the start of the Pop Art movement in the
United States, we've seen the passage of laws such as the... well, the
DMCA, which is the one we're arguing about, right?  So I don't see how a
historical argument is going to help you here.


> >> And copyright does not harshly restrict you, because there are unlimited
> >> expressions of any idea.  So you keep away from the particular
> >> expressions created by Disney or by me, and make your own.  Seems to me
> >> that constitutes the *encouragement* of creativity.
> >
> >Kind of like putting up "Trespassers Will Be Shot" signs *encourages*
> >exploration, right?  After all, if we stake off certain areas with
> >these big "Already Explored -- Go Away" signs, certainly that will
> >only *encourage* people to explore new and interesting areas!
>
> In the first place, the space open to art is essentially unlimited,

Do you have references for that?

> so your metaphor of the usable area being whittled away is false.  In the
> second, those 'explored areas' were not pre-existing areas that have
> been discovered and walled off

Do you have references for *that*?  Plato disagreed with you, for
one.

> - they were created by the owners (or those who have bought them from
> the original owners.)  Bad metaphor all round.

Yes, I'm good at bad metaphors. :)  Still, I think that rather than
"poking holes" in my simile, you're simply rejecting my assumptions.
I think that if I tell you, "Hey, you can't do <something>," then
that restricts your options.  Modern U.S. law tells you that "you
can't even do anything *derivative of* <something>," for many, many
values of <something>, and that, I think, certainly restricts your
options, and your creativity.  You disagree.  I think you're wrong.

By the way, *are* you an Irish national?
And which generation are you? -- because if you're over 30,
I can't trust you. ;-)

-Arthur

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 00:28:32 +0000, Artie Gold wrote:

> Sheldon Simms wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 05:12:47 +0000, Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>In alt.games.programming Sheldon Simms <sheldonsimms@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:11:31 +0000, Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I was at Berkeley at the time so I was pretty far into the net at 
>>>>>that time and no one I knew was calling it the Internet
>>>>
>>>>You are either spouting nonsense because your mind is being warped
>>>>by political partisanship, or you are intentionally lying. I'll
>>>>charitably assume the former.
>>>
>>>>Here is a usenet post from 1983 using the term "the internet" to
>>>>mean "the single network developed by ARPA based on the internet
>>>>protocol"
>>>
>>>The term internet has been used almost since 1970 but it has been used in
>>>the sense of the internets, connections of nets.
>> 
>> 
>> The term has been used (and still is used) generically. It was
>> *also* used specifically in the posts I quoted. You are wrong
>> to claim otherwise. Here they are again, shortened:
>> 
>> From 1983:
>> 
>>>  you are able to transfer files directly between arbitary hosts on
>>>  the internet, using something called the "File Tranfer Protocol"
>>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> 
>> Notice the words "THE". This cannot refer to generic internets. It
>> is referring to the single network that was at that time transitioning
>> from being known as ARPANET to being known as "The Internet". The
>> second post is even more conclusive.
>> 
>> From 1985:
>> 
>>>  For further information on getting X, send a mail request to
>>>  "Xrequest@mit-athena.arpa" ("Xrequest@athena.mit.edu for those
>>>  out there running domain name servers on the internet).
>>>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> 
>> 
>> Here the author is making a distinction between an ARPANET address
>> and an address on THE internet. Notice that the address for "those
>> ... on the internet" is exactly the same type still in use today.
>> 
>> You are wrong. Al Gore told a fat one that he probably didn't expect
>> anyone to call him on. Al Gore did not "invent the internet" in any
>> sense of the words "invent" or "internet".
> 
> Correct, except for one thing: Gore never said `invent'. That was 
> ascribed to him by his critics.

Ok. He didn't "create" the internet either, in any sense of the word
"create".

"Sheldon Simms" <sheldonsimms@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.30.02.04.12.608951@yahoo.com...
> To claim that the age of Baghdad represents an accomplishment of
> of the current inhabitants is a bit like crediting the Dutch for
> the current status of New York City.

Yes, let's turn the statue of liberty into a wooden shoe wearing statue!

In article <Pine.LNX.4.58-035.0310271822210.20143@unix47.andrew.cmu.edu>, "Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <ajo@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>> The argument about innovations coming into the public domain applies
>> much more to patents than to copyrights.  My new dry cell battery may be
>> the only good way to make such batteries, and it limits you if you can't
>> copy it.  But my cartoon mouse in no way impinges on your ability to
>> make a cartoon mouse of your own.

>industry; and consider that you've never, ever seen a "cartoon mouse"
>similar to Mickey that wasn't produced by a Disney artist.  Except
>that one "Family Guy" episode. :)

Mighty Mouse?
Tom & Jerry?

Alan

R. Alan Monroe wrote:

>>consider that you've never, ever seen a "cartoon mouse"
>>similar to Mickey that wasn't produced by a Disney artist.  Except
>>that one "Family Guy" episode. :)
> 
> Mighty Mouse?
> Tom & Jerry?

I don't recall what Mighty Mouse looks like, but Jerry looks nothing like 
Mickey Mouse.

-- 
Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

In article <bo0qdr$grn$1@hercules.btinternet.com>, binary@eton.powernet.co.uk wrote:
>R. Alan Monroe wrote:
>
>>>consider that you've never, ever seen a "cartoon mouse"
>>>similar to Mickey that wasn't produced by a Disney artist.  Except
>>>that one "Family Guy" episode. :)
>> 
>> Mighty Mouse?
>> Tom & Jerry?
>
>I don't recall what Mighty Mouse looks like, but Jerry looks nothing like 
>Mickey Mouse.

http://film.onet.pl/_i/news/duze/m/mighty_mouse_1.jpg

R. Alan Monroe wrote:

> In article <bo0qdr$grn$1@hercules.btinternet.com>,
> binary@eton.powernet.co.uk wrote:
>>R. Alan Monroe wrote:
>>
>>>>consider that you've never, ever seen a "cartoon mouse"
>>>>similar to Mickey that wasn't produced by a Disney artist.  Except
>>>>that one "Family Guy" episode. :)
>>> 
>>> Mighty Mouse?
>>> Tom & Jerry?
>>
>>I don't recall what Mighty Mouse looks like, but Jerry looks nothing like
>>Mickey Mouse.
> 
> http://film.onet.pl/_i/news/duze/m/mighty_mouse_1.jpg


Er, yes, there does seem to be grounds for a look-n-feel suit there. :-)


-- 
Richard Heathfield : binary@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton

Serve Lau wrote:
> "Sheldon Simms" <sheldonsimms@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.10.30.02.04.12.608951@yahoo.com...
>> To claim that the age of Baghdad represents an accomplishment of
>> of the current inhabitants is a bit like crediting the Dutch for
>> the current status of New York City.
>
> Yes, let's turn the statue of liberty into a wooden shoe wearing
> statue!

If someone wants to pay me $1 million, I will live in the Statue Of Liberty,
build the shoes, and lend my name to the cause.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

In article <bnkq7l$f95$1@quark.scn.rain.com>, Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
>Gerry Quinn wrote:

>Also fair use means I can make a backup copy.  I myself rarely do, but 
>by law I have that right yet by law I can't use that right.  Fair use 
>means I can make excerpts from any media and use it as quotes in my own 
>works.  By law I have this right, yet by law I can't use that right.

By law, you can't be sued for doing it.  By law, nobody is forced to 
facilitate you in doing it.  There is no paradox.

>What if the people releasing the product under DRM are not the same 
>people who created the DRM?  The company that holds the rights to the 
>DRM can't be expected to release something unprotected which they 
>themselves do not own, and the people that own the protected work not 
>doing their duty can't free people to create viewers that break the DRM.

The person (or legal [person) holding copyright on the work is the one 
who would be obliged to make a PD version available once copyright ran 
out.  The DRM company have no responsibility in the matter, and nobody 
has a right to issue cracks for the protected version.
 
>  All one has to do is create a corperate separation and it won't work. 
>  For instance, your scheme would not open public domain movies 
>encrypted with CSS and it would be illegal to attempt accessing them or 
>provide others with the means to.

If they are public domain in the first place, there's no need to break 
the encryption to access them. 

>> Consequently, the balance of benefits favours strong copyright 
>> protection in order to encourage innovation, since copyright protection 
>> does very little harm.  
>
>It depends upon the methods used to protect the copyright.  Drafting 
>laws like the DMCA which put people in jail for unrelated inventions, 
>encryption research, and just plain attempting to access something they 
>purchased fairly and legally is wrong.  What is even worse is the 
>current attempts to enact even worse laws such as those that force 
>hardware manufacturers to implement these protected protection schemes. 
>  If the succeed, and I have little hope that they won't, it will be 
>impossible to freely invent new software without paying an arm and a leg 
>to some two bit company who managed to get their half-ass protection 
>scheme imposed on the rest of us.

I think that's silly scaremongering.

>> The argument about innovations coming into the public domain applies 
>> much more to patents than to copyrights.  My new dry cell battery may be 
>> the only good way to make such batteries, and it limits you if you can't 
>> copy it.  But my cartoon mouse in no way impinges on your ability to 
>> make a cartoon mouse of your own.
>
>But currently your cartoon mouse is keeping me from installing (legally) 
>a DVD player on my computer.  It is keeping people from legally 
>providing me with the software necissary to access my DVD's on my 
>computer.  Your stupid mouse is unrepentantly stomping my rights into 
>the ground and continues to do so.  If I could I would burn your mouse down.

Does it ever occur to people like you that "I WANT I WANT I WANT I MUST 
HAVE EVERYTHING I WANT" is not a mature response to issues of copyright 
and technology?

- Gerry Quinn

In article <Xns9424B6C5ABDADnewspubwuggyorg@217.32.252.50>, Ian Woods <newspub2@wuggyNOCAPS.org> wrote:
>gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote in
>> 
>> http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17usc1201.htm
>> 
><snip - stuff from the above article about who and how someone falling 
>under that law can publish something without getting their arse dragged up 
>in front of a court>
>> 
>> Does that answer your question?
>
>Not really - that tells me how I might be able to publish, if I were 
>employed as a cryptographer or 'appropriately trained' to be one, without 
>risking being arrested if I ever went to the USA.
>
>The question I asked was "Why shouldn't I be able to publish the results of 
>that critique?" - a moral question rather than an 'is it legal', since the 
>DMCA doesn't apply to me.

Law is not determined solely in terms of what is moral.  There is no way 
of deciding on first principles whether a given act relating to a 
complicated technological issue is moral or not - the purpose of law in 
such areas is to balance conflicting rights or needs.

Your argument is of the type "if it's moral to take bread from a bakery 
to save a starving man, how can laws against robbery be acceptable?".

- Gerry Quinn

In article <Pine.LNX.4.58-035.0310301815390.26979@unix41.andrew.cmu.edu>, "Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <ajo@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>
>[I've narrowed the cross-posts again; please observe
>follow-ups.  Goodbye, games groups.]

Your activities in this regard are pointless and destructive.

>On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>> Arthur J. O'Dwyer wrote in response to Gerry Quinn:
>> >
>> >(On a related note, I'm sure you've heard about how Stanford grad
>> >student Alex Halderman almost got sued over the following paper:
>> >http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~jhalderm/cd3/
>
>> Just about every law on the statute book may result in amusing cases
>> involving technical breaches - the DMCA is hardly unique in this
>> respect, and such occasions don't affect the validity of a law.
>
>As I'm sure you must be aware, I'm a literal-minded pedant. :)
>I firmly believe that it is possible (in the vast majority of cases)
>to construct laws which do *not* admit of "amusing cases" that
>trample over the rights of scientists (or smartass students; or
>anyone else, for that matter).  The DMCA contains so many loopholes
>and reverse loopholes that it's completely useless as a tool for
>the betterment of society; its only use is as a tool of corporations
>out for easy money.

I haven't seen any better proposals. 

>> >> The company that [Sklyarov] worked for specialised in producing 'cracks'
>> >> for commercial software
>
>> >The company's website is www.elcomsoft.com; their products *seem*
>> >legitimate enough.  Do you have references for the "Russian pirates"
>> >quote?
>
>[Gerry replies, retracting "pirate" allegation and pointing out that
>at least three of Elcomsoft's products have applications which break
>U.S. law, and one looks like a spammers' tool.]
>
>What can I say?  Although I don't like it, there is a lot of money in
>spam, and probably even more in spammers' tools.  Did Elcomsoft break any
>laws?  And by that I mean: Did Elcomsoft break any Russian laws? or any
>international laws to which Russian nationals are bound?  (Hint: No.)
>  While you may be correct that "good intentions" is no defense of
>Sklyarov's actions, neither is "bad intentions" a legitimate prosecution
>of Elcomsoft's actions.
>  The more I consider both sides of this point, the more I'm convinced
>that the real issue here is the rights of foreign nationals on U.S.
>soil, not the DMCA itself.  For example, if the Justice Department can
>detain a law-abiding Russian national for "American crimes," can it
>also detain a law-abiding British national for having driven on the
>left side of the road (illegal in the U.S.), or perhaps for some less
>"amusing" past violation of U.S. law?

Sklyarov was charged with selling violating software in the US.  'Nuff 
said.

>> >What's the objection?
>> >What's the requirement
>>
>> The objection was DRM-protected artworks being lost after the copyright
>> period elapses.
>
>How?  Are you saying something like this:
>
>   Leonardo releases a "trial version" of the Mona Lisa which can be
>     "unlocked" with a product key.
>   Nobody buys the product key, and eventually all product keys in the
>     world are destroyed or lost.
>   The "full version" of the Mona Lisa is thus lost forever.

That's what you seemed to be saying.  If you don't know what you were 
objecting to, I certainly don't.

>>  The proposal was that those issuing DRM-protected works
>> be obliged to file an unprotected version at the end of the copyright
>> period, or earlier if they so choose.
>
>Ah - so it's not a technological "gotcha"; it's a legal "gotcha."
>Remember, the whole point I was making was that accidents can happen.
>What if the original "full version" Mona Lisa gets lost in the
>intervening years?  What happens then?  Does Leonardo (or his heirs)
>get slapped with a hefty fine for violating your "obligation" to file
>the (lost) work with the central library?  How would that help *anybody*?

So, some other picture gets the fame and cultural significance and the 
world rattles on blithely unaware of one more random contingency that 
might have been.

>I want to repeat this point:
>
>> >The problem isn't that public domain will lose your videos; there are
>> >a lot of pack rats in the world.  The problem is that *you* will lose
>> >your videos, inadvertently, before the public gets a chance to see them.
>> >(Yes -- it is still your right to destroy your work.  But if you really
>> >*want* the world to see your videos, but they get caught in a fire
>> >or something before they can be widely freely disseminated through the
>> >public domain, then they're lost forever.)

And it doesn't matter squat.  The world is awash with artworks, we 
should fear that in the future not enough will be lost, rather than the 
opposite.


>> Two seem to be about bands stretching the boundaries of sampling.  There
>> will always be a boundary, unless there is no [protection] whatsoever.
>> Another is about copyright battles between musicians, both of whom
>> presumably are [profiting] from IP protection but differ about
>> ownership.
>
>*Good* IP protection would make the boundaries clear; it would make
>ownership clear; it would agree with common law and common sense.

I can see you haven't thought much about law.

>> >And does "effective copyright law" (to use your definition) do
>> >any *help*?  Can you show any examples?
>>
>> For heaven's sake, look at the explosion of works created over the past
>> few hundred years
>
>Do you have any idea how old "intellectual property" is, really?
>What makes you think that just because Western civilization has
>benefited from art over a "few hundred years," it's benefited *more*
>in the past century due specifically to new IP laws?

It would be difficult to prove to your satisfaction, but you could 
consider the numbers gainfully employed in producing works of various 
kinds.

>> by artists who were able to make money creating them
>> and who otherwise would have had to do something else.  How can you
>> possibly argue that IP doesn't encourage creation?
>
>Did IP encourage the creation of cavemen?  The Incas?
>Gothic sculptors?  Michelangelo?  Roy Lichtenstein?
>I say: no, not much.

Our stock of cave paintings amounts to approximately one per thousand 
years.  I've never claimed that NO art would be created without IP 
protection.

>> And it would appear that they did not fall foul of IP law, suggesting
>> that the law does not prevent the creation of [such] works.
>
>U.S. and other nations' IP laws have changed drastically in the past
>few hundred years.  Even since the start of the Pop Art movement in the
>United States, we've seen the passage of laws such as the... well, the
>DMCA, which is the one we're arguing about, right?  So I don't see how a
>historical argument is going to help you here.

I don't see how the DMCA would have affected Monet or Warhol.

>> >Kind of like putting up "Trespassers Will Be Shot" signs *encourages*
>> >exploration, right?  After all, if we stake off certain areas with
>> >these big "Already Explored -- Go Away" signs, certainly that will
>> >only *encourage* people to explore new and interesting areas!
>>
>> In the first place, the space open to art is essentially unlimited,
>
>Do you have references for that?

Try information theory.

>> so your metaphor of the usable area being whittled away is false.  In the
>> second, those 'explored areas' were not pre-existing areas that have
>> been discovered and walled off
>
>Do you have references for *that*?  Plato disagreed with you, for
>one.

Feel free to enliven the debate on IP with arguments relating to Ideal 
Forms, if you have some useful ones to present.


>By the way, *are* you an Irish national?
>And which generation are you? -- because if you're over 30,
>I can't trust you. ;-)

Yes to both.  Note that "Don't trust anyone over 30" means "I'm about to 
sell you such a stinking pup that if you were a little bit older and 
wiser in the ways of the world you wouldn't touch it with a bargepole."

- Gerry Quinn

Anthony Ventimiglia wrote:
> 
.... snip ...
> 
> As a resident of the New York metro area, I should probably tell you
> that most of the people I know feel like the rest of the country
> really does not have the same impression that we do. I don't think I
> know many people who did not lose a friend, family member, co-worker,

Don't be so myopic.  The losses spread far and wide.

> or loved-one on that day. In my opinion, the whitehouse has not done
> a simgle positive thing since Spetember 11th. I would much rather
> have some answers as to how this could have been prevented, and why
> it wasn't prevented. I'm also uncomfortable with the fact that the
> large scale terrorist attack that succeeded it, which DID include use
> of a weapon of mass destruction, has gone unsolved, with no coverage
> by the commercial media.

On the contrary, the WH and gang have told lies that entrapped US
public opinion and enabled the letting of exclusive contracts to
Haliburton and family, in order to generally pillage Iraq oil. 
Like the trickle-down economy, the gang is forced to let some
slight benefits appear.  However, notice that they want all
further investment in Iraq to be in the form of unlimited grants,
rather than loans.  Loans could easily entail supervision, and
exposure of the end destination of monies, which is much less
conducive to unrestricted pillaging.

Meanwhile the administration success is obvious in that they are
able to report a 7 odd percent increase in GDP, accompanied by
further increases in unemployment and additions to the poverty
level rosters.  This is outstanding performance in the primary
task of reducing nasty taxation and other burdens on the rich, and
placing those responsibilities squarely where they belong, on the
non-campaign-contributing majority.

-- 
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
   Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
   <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>  USE worldnet address!

gerryq@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn) wrote in
news:n51pb.3599$bD.15306@news.indigo.ie: 

> In article <Xns9424B6C5ABDADnewspubwuggyorg@217.32.252.50>, Ian Woods
> <newspub2@wuggyNOCAPS.org> wrote: 

> Your argument is of the type "if it's moral to take bread from a
> bakery to save a starving man, how can laws against robbery be
> acceptable?". 
> 
> - Gerry Quinn

As far as I can see, there is no 'theft' involved in my question.

My argument is of the type "If I peer review someone's work which is the 
public domain, why can't I publish that review into the public domain?" 
particularly with regard to the fact that if the DMCA applied to me the  
exemptions for research certainly won't.

Ian Woods

Gerry Quinn wrote:
> In article <bnkq7l$f95$1@quark.scn.rain.com>, Noah Roberts <nroberts@dontemailme.com> wrote:
> 
>>Gerry Quinn wrote:
> 
> 
>>Also fair use means I can make a backup copy.  I myself rarely do, but 
>>by law I have that right yet by law I can't use that right.  Fair use 
>>means I can make excerpts from any media and use it as quotes in my own 
>>works.  By law I have this right, yet by law I can't use that right.
> 
> 
> By law, you can't be sued for doing it.  By law, nobody is forced to 
> facilitate you in doing it.  There is no paradox.

The paradox is that nobody is /allowed/ to facilitate me doing it.  My 
rights to make copies and quotes are undeniable by law, yet nobody can 
provide me the software to do it with.

>> All one has to do is create a corperate separation and it won't work. 
>> For instance, your scheme would not open public domain movies 
>>encrypted with CSS and it would be illegal to attempt accessing them or 
>>provide others with the means to.
> 
> 
> If they are public domain in the first place, there's no need to break 
> the encryption to access them. 

Your argument was against those that claim encryption schemes will need 
to be broken when a work is entered public domain due to copyright term 
completion.  Therefor it is necissary to break the encryption scheme if 
that work has not been re-released under non-protected media.  My 
response is a direct rebutle of that argument.
> 
> 
>>>Consequently, the balance of benefits favours strong copyright 
>>>protection in order to encourage innovation, since copyright protection 
>>>does very little harm.  
>>
>>It depends upon the methods used to protect the copyright.  Drafting 
>>laws like the DMCA which put people in jail for unrelated inventions, 
>>encryption research, and just plain attempting to access something they 
>>purchased fairly and legally is wrong.  What is even worse is the 
>>current attempts to enact even worse laws such as those that force 
>>hardware manufacturers to implement these protected protection schemes. 
>> If the succeed, and I have little hope that they won't, it will be 
>>impossible to freely invent new software without paying an arm and a leg 
>>to some two bit company who managed to get their half-ass protection 
>>scheme imposed on the rest of us.
> 
> 
> I think that's silly scaremongering.

You should really pay more attention to what the media companies are 
getting passed as law then.  I suggest going to the eff website 
(http://www.eff.org)  under the "Digital Rights Management" area.  You 
will find that this is exactly what is planned for the road ahead.

> 
> 
>>>The argument about innovations coming into the public domain applies 
>>>much more to patents than to copyrights.  My new dry cell battery may be 
>>>the only good way to make such batteries, and it limits you if you can't 
>>>copy it.  But my cartoon mouse in no way impinges on your ability to 
>>>make a cartoon mouse of your own.
>>
>>But currently your cartoon mouse is keeping me from installing (legally) 
>>a DVD player on my computer.  It is keeping people from legally 
>>providing me with the software necissary to access my DVD's on my 
>>computer.  Your stupid mouse is unrepentantly stomping my rights into 
>>the ground and continues to do so.  If I could I would burn your mouse down.
> 
> 
> Does it ever occur to people like you that "I WANT I WANT I WANT I MUST 
> HAVE EVERYTHING I WANT" is not a mature response to issues of copyright 
> and technology?

I never said "I WANT I WANT I WANT I MUST HAVE EVERYTHING I WANT".  I 
have the legal and moral right to use whatever software I want on my 
computer.  I also have the legal and moral right to use that software to 
view movies I have legally purchased.

If you can't argue against my points without putting words in my mouth, 
as above, then don't bother responding at all.  I think it is rather 
petty and small minded to do so.

-- 
Noah Roberts
   - "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

"Sheldon Simms" <sheldonsimms@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.31.04.24.13.661695@yahoo.com...
>
> Ok. He didn't "create" the internet either, in any sense of the word
> "create".

Obviously you aren't familiar with the political sense of the word
"create" (i.e., to get something funded). That was the context of
Gore's statement. -Wm

On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 18:33:26 -0600, William wrote:

> "Sheldon Simms" <sheldonsimms@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.10.31.04.24.13.661695@yahoo.com...
>>
>> Ok. He didn't "create" the internet either, in any sense of the word
>> "create".
> 
> Obviously you aren't familiar with the political sense of the word
> "create" (i.e., to get something funded). That was the context of
> Gore's statement. -Wm

Since the internet existed before Gore's supposed intervention
to provide funding for NSFNet, He didn't "create" it in that sense
either, even assuming that without his powers of persuasion the NSFNET
would never have been funded (doubtful).

Sorry. You're wrong.

In alt.games.programming Brandon J. Van Every <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In the short term, it is true that Iraq was not an immediate threat.  

What is short term to a country which was pretty much embargoed into the 
19th century? 'Short term' is a joke allowing you to skip into a 
'possible' future with no proof for foundation.

In case you haven't noticed the Isralies are using the 'doctrine of
Preventive War' to missle attack a group of people who have only their
bodies to offer up in defense. If you want to speculate on possible
futures imagine Pakistan or India using the 'doctrine of Preventive War'
or North Korea or South Korea using the 'doctrine of Preventive War' or
the Irish or English using the 'doctrine of Preventive' or Russia using
'the 'doctrine of Preventive War'

The 'doctrine of Preventive War' requires no proof thanks to the US.

> Different citizens of different countries see the stakes differently.  A US
> citizen is far more of a target for WMD terrorism than any other citizen.

Name a single citizen of the US who has been attacked by WMD terrorism? 
911 was not WMD terrorism.

The only country practicing WMD terrorism seems to me to be the US. We are 
the country with the most WMDs. Deplete uranium assualts definitely fall 
under WMD. How many fell on Iraq in both Gulf War 1 & 2?

--Thom

In alt.games.programming William <Reply@NewsGroup.Please> wrote:
> "Thom Kevin Gillespie" <thom@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:bnmegb$tq3$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> [...]
>> connections to Al Qaeda, 911 or weapons of mass destruction unless you
>> count the 39,000 bombs we dropped on Iraq, particularly the ones with
>> depleted uranium, half life of centuries, radition level in Baghdad over
>> 1000 times normal.

> DU's not used in bombs, it's used as a penetrator in certain types of
> anti-armor ammunition and the half-life is measured in billions of years,
> not centuries. (Which means it's not very radioactive at all; unfortunately,
> there are trace elements in it which can be, and the metal itself isn't all
> that nice to ingest/inhale.)

Absolutely not true. Try reading:

Depleted Uranium: A Post-War Disaster For Environment And Health
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article4406.htm

Death By Slow Burn How America Nukes Its Own Troops 
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article4074.htm

--Thom

On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> "Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <ajo@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
> >
> >[I've narrowed the cross-posts again; please observe
> >follow-ups.  Goodbye, games groups.]
>
> Your activities in this regard are pointless and destructive.

I'm a college student whose interests include number theory and
free software.  By your standards, *all* my activities are
pointless and destructive. (-:

> >On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> >>
> >> The objection was DRM-protected artworks being lost after the copyright
> >> period elapses.

[I reply: What, are you insane or something?  I wasn't objecting to DRM's
general infeasibility; I was objecting to the fact that a lot of artwork
is disappearing before it even enters the public domain.  At least
surviving, protected works can be cracked -- extinct works can never be
recovered.[1]]

> >>  The proposal was that those issuing DRM-protected works
> >> be obliged to file an unprotected version at the end of the copyright
> >> period, or earlier if they so choose.
> >
> >Ah - so it's not a technological "gotcha"; it's a legal "gotcha."
> >Remember, the whole point I was making was that accidents can happen.
> >What if the original "full version" Mona Lisa gets lost in the
> >intervening years?  What happens then?  Does Leonardo (or his heirs)
> >get slapped with a hefty fine for violating your "obligation" to file
> >the (lost) work with the central library?  How would that help *anybody*?
>
> So, some other picture gets the fame and cultural significance and the
> world rattles on blithely unaware of one more random contingency that
> might have been.

[Gerry goes on to point out that we already have more than enough
information in the world, and more than more than enough artwork.  We
shouldn't worry about losing too much information; we should worry that
we're not losing it quickly enough.]

M-hm.  Yes, sorry, you're right.  Better think of those poor art
students and literary critics of the future, who will barely remember
the difference between Ray Liotta and Man Ray.  Don't let's pile any
more innovative techniques on their plates!


> >*Good* IP protection would make the boundaries clear; it would make
> >ownership clear; it would agree with common law and common sense.
>
> I can see you haven't thought much about law.

I can see you haven't thought much about law.


> >> In the first place, the space open to art is essentially unlimited,
> >
> >Do you have references for that?
>
> Try information theory.

Been there, done that.  Obviously, the naive application of information
theory will tell you instantly that only a finite (and in fact fixed)
number of 10x10-foot canvases exist in the world, and thus the space open
to art is essentially limited.  Certainly you could argue back and forth
about that sort of thing for a while, but I think you'd look silly.

> >> In the second, those 'explored areas' were not pre-existing areas
> >> that have been discovered and walled off
> >
> >Do you have references for *that*?  Plato disagreed with you, for one.
>
> Feel free to enliven the debate on IP with arguments relating to Ideal
> Forms, if you have some useful ones to present.

No, I just wanted to point out that your philosophy isn't the only one
out there.  Argument from authority, and all that. ;-)


> >By the way, *are* you an Irish national?
> >And which generation are you? -- because if you're over 30,
> >I can't trust you. ;-)
>
> Yes to both.  Note that "Don't trust anyone over 30" means "I'm about to
> sell you such a stinking pup that if you were a little bit older and
> wiser in the ways of the world you wouldn't touch it with a bargepole."

Apparently it originally meant "Let's tell the newspaperman what he wants
to hear about student dissent."  But I was using it more in the Planet of
the Apes style of "While I understand that you're defending the status quo
because you feel you have to, and I can [almost] respect that, you must
bear in mind that I'm an idealist who would really rather that the world
made sense."  Great movie, BTW -- you should find a copy.  :-)



[1] At least surviving, protected works can be cracked...

  One of the beneficial aspects of the DMCA and related legislation is
that with the criminalization of decryption research came a proliferation
of naive, relatively simple-to-break "encryption" schemes, on par with
the shift-key encryption mentioned earlier.  This trend seemed for a
while to ensure that even though everything would eventually be fenced
off, at least the fences would be full of holes in case we ever needed
to get inside them.
  I believe another significant post-DMCA trend was the flight of
cryptographic research overseas; as you aren't governed by the DMCA,
maybe that's your hidden agenda. :-)

-Arthur

In article <Pine.LNX.4.58-035.0311022346540.27988@unix40.andrew.cmu.edu>, "Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <ajo@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>On Sun, 2 Nov 2003, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>> "Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <ajo@nospam.andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >[I've narrowed the cross-posts again; please observe
>> >follow-ups.  Goodbye, games groups.]
>>
>> Your activities in this regard are pointless and destructive.
>
>I'm a college student whose interests include number theory and
>free software.  By your standards, *all* my activities are
>pointless and destructive. (-:

You haven't been very specific about your activities, except that they 
don't involve "paying for information".  You even re-categorise your 
university as a hotel, perhaps in order to make more consistent some 
rancid and self-serving little piracy-justifying philosophy.

>> >> The objection was DRM-protected artworks being lost after the copyright
>> >> period elapses.
>
>[I reply: What, are you insane or something?  I wasn't objecting to DRM's
>general infeasibility; I was objecting to the fact that a lot of artwork
>is disappearing before it even enters the public domain.  At least
>surviving, protected works can be cracked -- extinct works can never be
>recovered.[1]]

I'm describing what I assume to be the mechanism by which you expect 
such works to be lost, i.e. only DRM-protected versions being available 
and all suddenly becoming unreadable or something.  How come you let 
this paragraph pass without objection first time?

>> So, some other picture gets the fame and cultural significance and the
>> world rattles on blithely unaware of one more random contingency that
>> might have been.
>
>[Gerry goes on to point out that we already have more than enough
>information in the world, and more than more than enough artwork.  We
>shouldn't worry about losing too much information; we should worry that
>we're not losing it quickly enough.]
>
>M-hm.  Yes, sorry, you're right.  Better think of those poor art
>students and literary critics of the future, who will barely remember
>the difference between Ray Liotta and Man Ray.  Don't let's pile any
>more innovative techniques on their plates!

You're stretching from the possibility of (probably obscure) works being 
lost, to a vision of gigantic lacunae in art history, the horrid 
consequences of this being that some future critic will have to use his 
imagination a bit more when investigating obscure twentieth-century 
techniques.  

As for the Mona Lisa, I should imagine that if it has sufficient IP 
value its protection and survival is more likely than if it had none.  
But in the end, what I said goes - it's NOT all that important as a 
piece of history (in fact it's practically useless as a piece of history 
because nobody knows much about it.  Pity it doesn't have a copyright 
information section, you could read that).  The Mona Lisa is just like 
Britney Spears, famous mostly for being famous.  It's a celebrity, the 
focus of a circus.  In an alternative world where it was lost, some 
other celebrity would get the limelight.  Leonardo's place in art 
history, at least in artistic terms, wouldn't be any different.  Heck, 
there would probably be some other work labelled "Probably La Gioconda". 
Art critics would point out how she bares her teeth when she smiles, 
demonstrating hostility to the oppressive culture of the day, and 
speculate on whether this means she was really a man.  

>> >*Good* IP protection would make the boundaries clear; it would make
>> >ownership clear; it would agree with common law and common sense.
>>
>> I can see you haven't thought much about law.
>
>I can see you haven't thought much about law.

You don't seriously believe that such laws are frameable in a way that 
logically avoids disputes of this kind?  If you have found a way to do 
that, you are indeed wasted in number theory.

>> >> In the first place, the space open to art is essentially unlimited,
>> >
>> >Do you have references for that?
>>
>> Try information theory.
>
>Been there, done that.  Obviously, the naive application of information
>theory will tell you instantly that only a finite (and in fact fixed)
>number of 10x10-foot canvases exist in the world, and thus the space open
>to art is essentially limited.  Certainly you could argue back and forth
>about that sort of thing for a while, but I think you'd look silly.

Observe the qualifier "essentially".  As usual, you're being silly.  In 
the first place, you failed to specify the depth or constituents of the 
canvas, so mathematically your argument fails.  In the second place, if 
we take a canvas with a very moderate information density of say 1 
binary pixel per tenth of a millimeter (well above the Beckenstein 
Bound if you want to bring physics into it), the number of possible 
10x10 foot canvases exceeds 10^279000000.  And if they run out, adding a 
millimeter to one edge will increase the number of canvases by a factor 
of 10^90000.  Finally, 'art' is not confined to canvases of a particular 
size and informational structure.  You were better off appealing to 
Plato.

Of course, vast quintillions of such canvases would be instantly 
actionable as works derivative of Mickey Mouse, so any assessment would 
become complicated.  The truth of the matter, though, is that I can make 
a cartoon mouse tomorrow with no fear of prosecution by Disney.  

- Gerry Quinn

In article <j%0pb.3598$bD.15299@news.indigo.ie>,
Gerry Quinn <gerryq@indigo.ie> wrote:
>
>The person (or legal [person) holding copyright on the work is the one 
>who would be obliged to make a PD version available once copyright ran 
>out.

With today's absurd copyright durations, the original author will be
long dead by then and even if you _do_ manage to track down whoever
the copyright ended up with, you'll be lucky to find them in
possession of an original, non-DRM copy.

Cheers
	Bent D
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs

CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> writes:

> Anthony Ventimiglia wrote:
>
> ... snip ...
> > 
> > As a resident of the New York metro area, I should probably tell you
> > that most of the people I know feel like the rest of the country
> > really does not have the same impression that we do. I don't think I
> > know many people who did not lose a friend, family member, co-worker,
> 
> Don't be so myopic.  The losses spread far and wide.

I don't claim to hold some higher position, I'm simply saying that
quite often I feel like the September 11th attacks have become nothing
more than a cliche for a majority of media and political
figures. Maybe I'm wrong, but I often get the feeling that it has
become that way because many of these people have no real strong
connection to the attacks. 

> > or loved-one on that day. In my opinion, the whitehouse has not done
> > a simgle positive thing since Spetember 11th. I would much rather
> > have some answers as to how this could have been prevented, and why
> > it wasn't prevented. I'm also uncomfortable with the fact that the
> > large scale terrorist attack that succeeded it, which DID include use
> > of a weapon of mass destruction, has gone unsolved, with no coverage
> > by the commercial media.
> 
> On the contrary, the WH and gang have told lies that entrapped US
> public opinion and enabled the letting of exclusive contracts to
> Haliburton and family, in order to generally pillage Iraq oil. 
> Like the trickle-down economy, the gang is forced to let some
> slight benefits appear.  However, notice that they want all
> further investment in Iraq to be in the form of unlimited grants,
> rather than loans.  Loans could easily entail supervision, and
> exposure of the end destination of monies, which is much less
> conducive to unrestricted pillaging.
> 
> Meanwhile the administration success is obvious in that they are
> able to report a 7 odd percent increase in GDP, accompanied by
> further increases in unemployment and additions to the poverty
> level rosters.  This is outstanding performance in the primary
> task of reducing nasty taxation and other burdens on the rich, and
> placing those responsibilities squarely where they belong, on the
> non-campaign-contributing majority.

Ok yes that's fine, but I consider none of that positive, unless you
see the rapid downfall of global opinion towards the United States,
and the dominance of an oligarchic US government as positives. The
only positive I can find with all this is that the power structure
that is currently dominates the country (and much of the world) may be
self-destructing.

-- 
(incf *yankees-world-series-losses*)

Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:
>
> What is short term to a country which was pretty much embargoed into
> the 19th century? 'Short term' is a joke allowing you to skip into a
> 'possible' future with no proof for foundation.

One thing I find very tiring in political debates is the notion "we're old;
we should do things like we're old."  This is the 21st century.  Things have
gotten quicker.

> In case you haven't noticed the Isralies are using the 'doctrine of
> Preventive War' to missle attack a group of people who have only their
> bodies to offer up in defense.

Bodies + explosives, to be rather more exact.

> If you want to speculate on possible
> futures imagine Pakistan or India using the 'doctrine of Preventive
> War'

Ok... they're not going towards each other, because they're both nuclear
powers.  Pakistan goes west, India goes east....

> or North Korea or South Korea using the 'doctrine of Preventive War'

They're in a bit of a force stalemate.

> or the Irish or English using the 'doctrine of Preventive'

Hmm, the English *could* conquer Ireland, again....

> or Russia using 'the 'doctrine of Preventive War'

They already are.

> The 'doctrine of Preventive War' requires no proof thanks to the US.

How much proof do you want?

>> Different citizens of different countries see the stakes
>> differently.  A US
>> citizen is far more of a target for WMD terrorism than any other
>> citizen.
>
> Name a single citizen of the US who has been attacked by WMD
> terrorism? 911 was not WMD terrorism.

Who do you think is going to get the 1st one?

> The only country practicing WMD terrorism seems to me to be the US.
> We are
> the country with the most WMDs. Deplete uranium assualts definitely
> fall
> under WMD. How many fell on Iraq in both Gulf War 1 & 2?

Whatever dude.  I know people get very emotional about the DU rounds, I'm
not convinced they're complaining with all paddles in the water.

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

Anthony Ventimiglia wrote:
> The
> only positive I can find with all this is that the power structure
> that is currently dominates the country (and much of the world) may be
> self-destructing.

Would that it were.  The revelation that "Yes, Matilda, there are people who
hold power and they are not you" makes a lot of people very uncomfortable.
One can rightly ask, however, what distribution of power in the real world
wouldn't have this quality?

-- 
Cheers,                     www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every           Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 03:57:29 +0000, Thom Kevin Gillespie wrote:

> In alt.games.programming William <Reply@NewsGroup.Please> wrote:
>> "Thom Kevin Gillespie" <thom@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>> news:bnmegb$tq3$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
>> [...]
>>> connections to Al Qaeda, 911 or weapons of mass destruction unless you
>>> count the 39,000 bombs we dropped on Iraq, particularly the ones with
>>> depleted uranium, half life of centuries, radition level in Baghdad over
>>> 1000 times normal.
> 
>> DU's not used in bombs, it's used as a penetrator in certain types of
>> anti-armor ammunition and the half-life is measured in billions of years,
>> not centuries. (Which means it's not very radioactive at all; unfortunately,
>> there are trace elements in it which can be, and the metal itself isn't all
>> that nice to ingest/inhale.)
> 
> Absolutely not true. Try reading:
>
> Depleted Uranium: A Post-War Disaster For Environment And Health
> http://informationclearinghouse.info/article4406.htm
> 
> Death By Slow Burn How America Nukes Its Own Troops
> http://informationclearinghouse.info/article4074.htm

Would you mind specifying exactly what "is not true" about what
William wrote?

The articles you cite say exactly what William said, only in a
much more long-winded fashion.