12 Jul
2004
12 Jul
'04
8:10 a.m.
On 11-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote:
} Hi Rick,
}
} Sorry for the delay responding. Since Thursday, have seen Ibrahim
} Ferrer, Dianne Reeves, Carol Welsman, Peter Cincotti, Oliver Jones, and
} Oscar Peterson at the Montreal Jazz Festival. CW was okay, the rest
} were amazing!
I'm not really a fan of modern-day jazz {prefering noise, electronic bleeps,
concrete, spacey stuff {TD, Jarre, etc..}, experimental stuff, and rock {Maybe
a bit of classical} I really prefer *old* school jazz. I will not listen to
fusion.} Most of those people elude me.
} RickTaylor(a)Speakeasy.Net wrote:
} > On 09-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote:
} > } RickTaylor(a)Speakeasy.Net wrote:
} > } > The GPL?
} > }
} > } All the GPL says is that you must promise to give the source code to
} > } anybody you provide a binary to, for up to three years, and if they make
} > } derivations and distribute binaries, they must also promise source code
} > } to the recipients. Specifically, it does NOT say, "you must make all
} > } GPL'd software you release available to the public, even if you haven't
} > } given said public copies of your program." If you pay me $5000 for
} > } GPL'd software, we can sign an agreement that I won't give it to anyone
} > } else for 6 months, and neither will you, and we'll both still get the
} > } source code. This is a key business point, IMO.
} >
} > I suppose you and I are reading this a bit differently.
} >
} > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
}
} I think that's consistent with what I wrote. Read the FAQ (or the
} license itself) pretending you have been paid to develop GPL'd software
} for a client, and ask yourself if you or they are required to give it to
} anyone else. Also read the next next question about demanding a copy.
}
} Section 6 does say, "You may not impose any further
} restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
}
} so that probably means you can't make them sign an NDA. It does sound
} like you could work out a mutual understanding like, "if either of us
} gives this to anyone else, our employment contract is void".
}
} Anyway, I don't think this is necessarily "right" (especially if the
} source _never_ gets released to the public), but if businessmen /
} researchers are that worried about competition, it seems like a good
} option for keeping ahead of the game a bit.
I don't think there's an argument... I think it's just in the way you look
at
it. I have no intention of charging for programming. If I were to do anything
open source my intent would be to give it away. I doubt any other solution
would even occur to me. {:} It never has...}
} > } > I'm thinking more along the lines of a open source system with
} > shareware
} > } > apps.
} > } > I think the system itself would go down the tubes if you started
} > getting
} > } > internal competition, etc.
} > }
} > } I guess ... I guess I've stopped distinguishing between system and
} > } application. Is Mozilla part of the system? Or is it definitely an
} > } application? Do you define application by replaceable, non-essential
} > } part? What's essential? Is X essential? How about bash? Is the linux
} > } kernel even essential? Can't you run this software with a different
} > } kernel? I basically view everything as a set of interoperating programs
} > } -- including the music stuff -- although I might concede that the kernel
} > } is perhaps the only "true" system component.
} >
} > If it's essential for system operation {I think this has to include X
} > because
} > so many apps are dependant on it.} it's system. I imagine this could vary
} > depending the function of the system... For the most part I think it's
} > pretty
} > clear cut.
}
} I guess for me the components of a system are defined by ones'
} workcycle, and would include a mastering tool and sequencer for an audio
} system, and a photo editor in a graphics workstation. I spend 8-10
} hours a day connected via ssh to a headless machine, without any X
} forwarding at all -- X isn't really part of that system.
}
} Moreover, I see a system as a collection of boxes, holding programs.
} You can fill the boxes as you see fit, and organize them to work with
} each other to achieve a goal. All of the boxes used to meet a given
} goal are essential. There is no difference between them, except that
} some will be used for almost every task (e.g. kernel box).
}
} In a _good_ system, each box interacts easily with the others, and
} redundancy between them is reduced. And, with open standards and open
} source, it's easier to enhance or replace pieces that aren't working
} well, for whatever reason.
I was envisioning a standard desktop system {word processor, financial
stuff, net stuff, audio, video, etc...} in which the only essential anything is
the system. {I'd include an audio or video workstation in that... they're still
diverse enough that you can make a distinction between essential and
non-essential fairly easily {applications being interchangeable for the most
part and "essential", in this case, meaning the system software}
Of course... on an Oracle server anything other than the Oracle software
is non-essential.
:} I think the distinction is fairly arbitrary and should probabably depend
entirely on whether or not the developer wants to charge for their software
and just how they decide to license it.
This would be the one major problem I have with "open source" and to some
extent with the GPL. In practice it seems to me that, more often than not, one
doesn't really have a choice.
An example that's pretty easy would be linux audio... copyrighted stuff seems
to pretty much excluded. If that's the case... I don't see any future at all
for this movement. Folk that get excluded are going to walk away... there's
going to be all sorts of {more} bad blood and I, frankly, just don't see it
going anywhere. This whole thing depends on much cooperation. There needs to be
a way to reconcile things... I think shareware fits that need fairly well.
{Exclusionary anything just sucks.}
To me... the "Linux Audio Developers" are the couple thousand{s} or so folk
that have contributed to this since the beginning. Much of that software is
copyrighted. I think those folk deserve to be recognized and included and
should be able to charge for their stuff if that's the way they choose to live
their life.
} However, non-free software companies often want to create vendor
} lock-in, and they've shown a good way to do this is to decrease
} interoperability betw
For some strange reason this message ends right here... {It's either the
fact that I rearranged mailboxes last night or it's that consultants web page,
filled with all them lovely escape sequences, that someone sent me... {most
of this mailbox is like this.} feel free to mail me the rest of it should you
still have it. {sorry}
----------------------------------
E-Mail: RickTaylor(a)Speakeasy.Net
Date: 12-Jul-2004
Time: 04:06:35
This message was sent by XFMail
----------------------------------