playogg.com - how not to promote open source

emet wrote:

">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid%3D7707585592627775409%26q%3DRevolution%2BOS&usg=AL29H21cGBEalVC6o68zxsDiyu_M7q60WA">

I mostly agree with him. I think that society would be a better place if people shared and communicated ideas instead of hiding.

OK; if you believe that then surely it would be better for that agenda to push Vorbis as Vorbis, not Vorbis and VLC. Start people off gently; enable them to use their existing software, but with the free codec, instead of pushing them to abandon their emotional and monetary investment in iTunes and WMP.

(I also find it somewhat funny that gnu is pushing what is effectively a BSD licensed format)

emet wrote:



iTunes or WMP is not free software under these rules.

Of course it's easy to exclude when you redefine words.

I think I'll redefine "healthy" to mean "full of sugar".

emet wrote:


You are not getting. The FSF is not trying to push Vorbis. They are using Vorbis to push their philosophy.

Which is rather cheap is it not? Pushing your philosophy with someone else's work.

emet wrote:


free:

grant freedom to; free from confinement

Free software is defined by the concept of freedom, and the freedom which it provides is enumerated by the FSF.

Free from confinement? well that rules up the gpl then; especially gpl v3 which confines software licensed under it to only certain uses.

[6]

emet wrote:



I can tell you did not read RMS's essays. The FSF does not ever use the word "ownership" to describe the author's relation to a work.

That's missing the point; and also illustrating it. It's not about what the FSF feels about someone else's work; it's how the work's author feels about it. The "highjacking" of someone else's work to push a personal philosophy is rather cheap.

gnu and bsd licensed software is still copyrighted and that copyright asigned to a person or entity; for all effects and purposes in the eyes of the law that entity "owns" the software.

emet wrote:



Copyright does not imply ownership. And that is the exact type of thinking the FSF fights against. You may find it cheap, but I find it quite noble. And I don't think you should be putting words into the Vorbis developer's mouth if you are respectful of "ownership" of software.

But gnu is putting words in the mouth of the Vorbis developers. That's ok is it because they're gnu?

(And you must have ownership in order to enforce licenses. Legally gnu owns the licenses for their software; without an owner they could not enforce the gpl on their software in court; why do you think people hand over "ownership" of software to the FSF?)

k2t0f12d wrote:



blowdart wrote: gnu and bsd licensed software is still copyrighted and that copyright asigned to a person or entity; for all effects and purposes in the eyes of the law that entity "owns" the software.

emet wrote: Copyright does not imply ownership.

The former is totally wrong.  A copyright is not a legal mechanism for people or entities, and are not assigned to people or entities it is a legal mechanism an author assigns to their work to authorize who may legally reproduce that work on their behalf.  The purpose of copyright law was originally created to defend the legal agreement between an author and a printer and prevent another printer from hijacking that author's work for their own advantage.

 If you look at open source projects which have multiple contributers you will see that copyright is assigned to the sponsor or project lead (generally), or to the FSF. The linux kernel is the one big exception.

I don't think I'm arguing that copyright implies ownership; but it indicates ownership of the copyright, and that (for free software) is what enables the enforcement of the license.

k2t0f12d wrote:

A copyright is not a legal mechanism for people or entities, and are not assigned to people or entities.  It is a legal mechanism an author assigns to their work to authorize who may legally reproduce that work on their behalf.

Oh and to be more specific; not true; as an author can reassign copyright to another entity. Copyright can and is assigned to people or entities. Open source projects can assign the copyright to the FSF, at which point the author is no longer the holder of the copyright. Music recordings tend to have the copyright assigned to the music company that paid for that recording to be made.

Yes copyright indicates who may copy or reproduce; but in order to assign it it must be assigned to someone/something for that work. However to say it's not a legal mechanism for people or entities is wrong; and you say that in your second sentence; for what is an author if not a person/entity?

k2t0f12d wrote:



The copyright isn't stating that the author owns the work, it is stating the legal mechanism by which the author condones reproduction of the work and that's all.  How you are putting the chicken before the egg isn't making any sense to me.

Except the creator of a work; the owner gets copyright by default. You cannot intially assign it without having an owner/creator. The owner is the egg here.

I am NOT saying copyright indicates ownership; although often it does, what I am saying is you cannot have copyright without an original creator/owner.

k2t0f12d wrote:



blowdart wrote: Oh and to be more specific; not true; as an author can reassign copyright to another entity. Copyright can and is assigned to people or entities. Open source projects can assign the copyright to the FSF, at which point the author is no longer the holder of the copyright. Music recordings tend to have the copyright assigned to the music company that paid for that recording to be made.

There is absolutely nothing in a copyright that defines the exchange of ownership.  The fact that the author gives their work to someone else is completely independent of copyright law.  All you are saying is that someone gives their stuff to someone else who then defines the legal mechanism for which their work may be reproduced.

That's not what I'm saying. Note the word assigned above. And holder. What I am saying is that the original copyright holder; the creator of that work, the owner of the original copyright may assign someone else to be the holder of the copyright. It is NOT a change of ownership of the original work, but it IS a change of ownership of the copyright. You can completely assign copyright to someone else, and that point you no longer "own" the copyright, it is "owned" by someone else. This is a seperate mechanism to licensing copyright to an entity.

k2t0f12d wrote:



blowdart wrote: I am NOT saying copyright indicates ownership; although often it does, what I am saying is you cannot have copyright without an original creator/owner.

Yes and all I am saying is that the flow of logic only goes one way.  The owner defines the copyright, the copyright never ever defines the owner.

Except for initially; as you can assign copyright without an owner/creator/author; and at that stage the two are intrinsically linked, not in law, but in circumstance.

Anyway; time to go to work