Coffeehouse Thread

47 posts

playogg.com - how not to promote open source

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    blowdart

    (Oh and this got way off topic, I still find it amusing that gnu is pushing their philosophy by using a codec where the implementations are BSD licensed *grin*)

  • User profile image
    k2t0f12d

    blowdart wrote:
    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.


    Yes I do understand what you are saying and I am telling you that it is completely not true.  You absolutely cannot give your copyright to someone else.  You can give them your work, and then they may declare their own copyright on that work.

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    k2t0f12d wrote:
    Yes I do understand what you are saying and I am telling you that it is completely not true.  You absolutely cannot give your copyright to someone else.  You can give them your work, and then they may declare their own copyright on that work.


    And I disagree. If only because you can look at your employment contract in the UK and in the US and generally you will find that works you create are owned by the company paying you (or paying that company for the work); you are assigning the ownership and copyright of  that work to your employer.

    And again the music business; when you record a single ownership of that recording and the copyright of that recording belongs to the label who paid for it, not you as the creator. Certainly you'd still own the copyright to the music and lyrics if you created them, but that recording is not yours, it is the labels.

  • User profile image
    k2t0f12d

    blowdart wrote:
    And I disagree. If only because you can look at your employment contract in the UK and in the US and generally you will find that works you create are owned by the company paying you (or paying that company for the work); you are assigning the ownership and copyright of  that work to your employer.


    No you are giving them ownership of the work and they are defining their copyright of the work.

  • User profile image
    Xaero_​Vincent

    I personally dont see any difference between OGG and MP3. On *nix, free legal MP3 codecs already exist. WMA is a different story but even those will be covered when I purchase the Fluendo codecs.

  • User profile image
    Xaero_​Vincent

    A GPL license arguement is the last thing you expect to see on a Microsoft forum.

    Heh, I'm sure folks!

    Move this conversation to #gnu @ irc.freenode.net.

  • User profile image
    mtz

    ixdatul wrote:
    
    emet wrote:
    

    Free Software Foundation has an agenda!!!!

    Who would have known?

    I'm sure they keep it really super secret too, not like you kind find anything about it here.

    "Free software is a matter of freedom: people should be free to use software in all the ways that are socially useful. Software differs from material objects—such as chairs, sandwiches, and gasoline—in that it can be copied and changed much more easily. These possibilities make software as useful as it is; we believe software users should be able to make use of them."



    I'm just going to go out on a limb here...

    I'm a VB.NET developer, if I, infact, believed in free software and went in that direction, I would be unemployed, because who wants to pay a guy to write software that won't turn a buck? Well, I guess then I would lose my house, my car, and probably my wife, since she knows me, and realizes, for me to do something that astronomicaly stupid, I would have to be on crack, or in a cult....So then I would become a religous zealot for open source (THIS SHOULD NOT EXIST), because hell, I dedicated my life to it now, I once again live with my parents, and shake my fist at the capitolist pigs that put me here, because if everyone thought like I did, we would all live in a very magical place, where software evolution is driven by desire to improve rather that the almighty dollar.


    Oh wait....wouldn't that make me a communist? I want to live in a Utopia that can never exist. I have such high idealism I'm actually blinded to the downsides of what I'm fighting for. And I think that corporations are, in fact, evil. The worst kind of evil...

    The reason that you fight a losing battle, is simply this....there is always someone out there like me, who wants to be better than you, have more than you, and continue to improve MY quality of life. I don't donate to the Salvation Army, Red Cross, or the Make Sally Struthers Fatter in the Name of Starving Children Fund. I donate money to the Banco del Me. And ya know what, my family loves me for it, because the harder I work, and play ball with a society I can't, and don't want to change, the better their lives are because of it.

    The best part, it's not even a sacrifice, I love what I do, and I love working for a heartless corporation. Why? Because they don't let ridiculous idealism get in the way of progress, progress which gets me a raise, my wife the medical care she needs, and my twelve year old daughter the braces she needs so she won't be chastised later in life for a physical flaw, which is the way it is, period.

    So yes, you are absolutely right, there are heartless, greedy, zealot-loathing people out there, and I am proud to be one of them.

    </rant>

    Regards,
    Ix

    Side Note: I deeply appologize for jacking you're thread momentarily Blowdart, I mean no disrespect to you in any way.


    not necessarily, i will give you an example ..lets say i want to be a VB.net developer, i can go to a public librabry, borrow a book and study at home and/or hire someone to tutor me at home(and take some sort of an exam to get certification) ..or i can go to a local community college and pay a bit of money for that education, or i can go to those expensive colleges and study the same material, can professors and teachers lobby for public libraries and books out of classrooms  to be banned becase they will loose their jobs? because people can get educated without going to their classrooms?

    there is altleast more than one person who looses out when changes happen ..if free and open source software becames so popular that it cuts microsoft strength by 50%(unlikely), most people who will loose the most are microsoft employees and those that depend on them exclusively ..but as a developer, i am sure you can get a job someplace else ..you might even be writing vb code on solaris one day and get paid 3x more,  who knows ..

    people are always afraid of change and your concerns are understandable ..free and open source software will not mean the end to paid developers, linux is getting paid, isnt he?

    i believe the two software delevopment model can exist peacefully with one another

    dont think too much about it, dont try to fight it, its comming, get prepared just in case

  • User profile image
    mtz

    anand.t wrote:
    
    emet wrote:
    
    FSF's philosophy is free software is always the better choice. RMS said himself that it is better to use an inferior software if it is free software. The FSF's goals is not really to promote use of free software, but to promote the philosophy behind it. So yes, they use free software to push an agenda, not an agenda to push free software. They've always been that way.


    The last time I checked both WMP and Itunes was free. I am sure the philosophy needs to be changed to say "Free Non-MSFT software is always the better choice"

    Seriouslyy what has RMS achieved using this agenda. He has created a bunch of die hard fans. While gates has gone and made billions, donated billions towards curing malaria, TB, cancer, aids and dont forget they donated millions worth software and hardware. Donating software was definitely selfish as they wanted everyone to use MSFT products, but who really cares as long as kids get a decent OS and computer.     


    i think you dont get the meaning of "free". There is "free" as in "free beer" and "free" as in "freedom of speed"

    "free" as in "free beer" has to do with how much you have to pay(in monetary term) and "free" as in "freedom speed" has to do with what can do you with the code after you get it(it doesnt matter if you paid for it or not)

    WMP and Itunes are "free" as in "free beer" because you dont have to pay to get them but they are not "free as in freedom of speech" because, you cant for example, take WMP, change the code to something you want, publish your modifications for the world to see and apply and redistribute your modified version without asking/begging or paying microsoft to that ability. linux is "free" as in "freedom of speed" because you can do that.

    so when you see FSF(free software foundation) ..think .."FREE AS IN FREEDOM OF SPEECH" ..thats what they care about ..ofcource, this philosofy tend to drive the price of software to 0$ but thats the side effect, not the intendend target

    Free software doesnt exist to destroy microsoft, thats the side effect since what microsoft stands for is at a direct confict with what free software hope to achieve, microsoft isnt alone.

    Do you agree with DRM technology? do you like to share your stuff? with your friends and family? would you like to buy the same song 5 times? for yourself, your wife and your 3 kinds and the last copy for your best friend?

    free software stands for what you want to do with the code you have, propietary company like to restrics some of these rights to for their own benefits ..

    RMS likes to see or he presents the world in black and white and i have issues with that but, fundamentally, what he is fighting for is something is good for the end user at the expense of big/greedy corporations

  • User profile image
    blowdart

    k2t0f12d wrote:
    
    blowdart wrote:
    And I disagree. If only because you can look at your employment contract in the UK and in the US and generally you will find that works you create are owned by the company paying you (or paying that company for the work); you are assigning the ownership and copyright of  that work to your employer.


    No you are giving them ownership of the work and they are defining their copyright of the work.


    Arguably, in this work for hire environment, you don't have ownership to give; your defacto agreement is not transferal of ownership, but an agreement that you are never the owner; the company is.

    (I just find copyright interesting having spent years dealing with the music industry)

  • User profile image
    mig

    blowdart wrote:
    
    mig wrote:
    
    I will note however that they didn't say anywhere on their site "the only player that will play ogg files is VLC" but rather "there are many players that will play ogg files, the one we like is VLC".


    Ah no; they say

    To access streaming Ogg files you need a media player that understands the Ogg Vorbis format. Many different free software players work with Ogg.


    Note the clause "many different free software players". Now consider how gnu redefined "free" to mean what that wanted it to me; gpl code.

    Again it's simply unrealistic to push VLC onto iTunes users. If they wanted to truely push Vorbis they'd have offered more instructions for other players, or at least pointed out that it will work in iTunes and WMP and here's the links.


    Yes I noted how he said "many different free software players", note that WMP and iTunes are free (at least on Windows).  Also note that there are links to xiph's website, which provides (as you said iTunes) AND DirectShow codecs for use with WMP.

    I repeat, the can give their endorsement to whoever they want, I don't think they have an agenda because they failed to mention this (granted they COULD have mentioned it), but VLC is a good free player and they chose to endorse it instead.  I'm sorry I fail to see their agenda on this issue, while I am sure they do have an agenda.

  • User profile image
    odujosh

    I could care less who they support. GNU is as in touch with reality as most of academia. They still teach two semester of C++ to IT majors. When you can't hope to learn anything close to what is expected of you as a C++ programmer in 2 semesters.

    Really the whole mentality they infuse into the word free is a junkyard mentality. When was the last time you thought I need a good car. Well lets see what I can get from the junk yard.

    Software projects require a certain level of investment. Thus making a stand on it should be free damnit is well disillusioned with reality.

    No such thing as a free lunch.

    Sure there are a few die hards out there. But you will never convince the rest of the world no matter how hard you try.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.