Archive for June, 2001
Dad, have you seen my shoes?
Sunday, June 10th, 2001
what a mickey mouse establishment!
Wednesday, June 6th, 2001
Batten down the hatches, Mickey, the Ashley family’s coming to Disneyland.
On Friday morning we arrive in L.A. for a 10-day stay in Santa Monica. Disneyland, Disney’s California Adventure, San Diego’s Sea World, and visiting with our friends Chico and Victor and their families.
Got tickets for the Leno show and space in a box at the Hollywood Bowl for the Playboy Jazz Festival.
Jasmine (8) and Rachel (3) are almost as excited as my wife Clare and her mother Hazel (ages withheld).
Batten down the hatches, Mickey, the Ashley family’s coming to Disneyland.
On Friday morning we arrive in L.A. for a 10-day stay in Santa Monica. Disneyland, Disney’s California Adventure, San Diego’s Sea World, and visiting with our friends Chico and Victor and their families.
Got tickets for the Leno show and space in a box at the Hollywood Bowl for the Playboy Jazz Festival.
Jasmine (8) and Rachel (3) are almost as excited as my wife Clare and her mother Hazel (ages withheld).
Bring out yer dead! Bring out yer dead!
Tuesday, June 5th, 2001
Sorry for the title, scottandrew, I couldn’t help myself.
Pope John XXIII died in 1963, the same year as the JFK assassination. Now, 38 years later, they plop his body into a new see-through casket and parade him around the Basilica. His body. Long since bereft of his soul. I don’t get it. Maybe I’d hafta be catholic to get it.
Sorry for the title, scottandrew, I couldn’t help myself.
Pope John XXIII died in 1963, the same year as the JFK assassination. Now, 38 years later, they plop his body into a new see-through casket and parade him around the Basilica. His body. Long since bereft of his soul. I don’t get it. Maybe I’d hafta be catholic to get it.
left, middle and right on the intellectual property spectrum
Tuesday, June 5th, 2001
Bring out yer dead! Bring out yer dead!
I’ve done my research in the last week on licensing – open source, commercial, private, you name it. Contrary to my initial hyperbolic stance, reason generally prevails and choice is abundant.
The one major open-source license that significantly restricts one’s ability to integrate the licensed software into a commercial product is the GPL. There is a Lesser GPL, the LGPL, which is meant for the likes of code libraries, which doesn’t have the same restrictions. The Apache and Mozilla Public licenses allow even more flexibility and impose even less requirements on the user.
As I pointed out with The PSL, developers should choose the license that suits their software’s intended use.
Throughout the various discussions I’ve had about the licensing issue, and in the reports I’ve read via other bloggers, a theme is emerging that says there need not be two polarized sides to this issue. When the dust settles, it will be apparent that the two models can coexist, based on different community needs.
Kevin Dangoor writes about The Software Commons in his new blogspace, and articulates my thoughts on this quite well.
From the far left of the GPL to the far right of patent frenzy:
NetObjects has been awarded patents on WYSIWYG HTML editing and they plan to start extracting pounds of flesh from all and sundry – Microsoft and Macromedia will be asked first to turn their heads and cough up a bundle.
This brings us back to The Software Commons. WYSIWYG HTML editing is as fundamental to modern software as a basic roux sauce is to cooking. The idea itself follows so naturally from preexisting word processors as to render it painstakingly obvious.
Will companies be able to get around this like they did with the Unisys LZW patent (ie, just use another compression technique – Had they patented compression itself, where would we be?)? At least that was an implementation of an idea and not the entire concept itself.
Perhaps offending software could be rejigged as WYSIWYG rich text editors, and their HTML component could just be considered a “save-as” conversion feature. That is, until someone appears out of the woodwork to hijack that by-then-entrenched industry with a well-placed patent they bought at a dotcom garage sale…
Bring out yer dead! Bring out yer dead!
I’ve done my research in the last week on licensing – open source, commercial, private, you name it. Contrary to my initial hyperbolic stance, reason generally prevails and choice is abundant.
The one major open-source license that significantly restricts one’s ability to integrate the licensed software into a commercial product is the GPL. There is a Lesser GPL, the LGPL, which is meant for the likes of code libraries, which doesn’t have the same restrictions. The Apache and Mozilla Public licenses allow even more flexibility and impose even less requirements on the user.
As I pointed out with The PSL, developers should choose the license that suits their software’s intended use.
Throughout the various discussions I’ve had about the licensing issue, and in the reports I’ve read via other bloggers, a theme is emerging that says there need not be two polarized sides to this issue. When the dust settles, it will be apparent that the two models can coexist, based on different community needs.
Kevin Dangoor writes about The Software Commons in his new blogspace, and articulates my thoughts on this quite well.
From the far left of the GPL to the far right of patent frenzy:
NetObjects has been awarded patents on WYSIWYG HTML editing and they plan to start extracting pounds of flesh from all and sundry – Microsoft and Macromedia will be asked first to turn their heads and cough up a bundle.
This brings us back to The Software Commons. WYSIWYG HTML editing is as fundamental to modern software as a basic roux sauce is to cooking. The idea itself follows so naturally from preexisting word processors as to render it painstakingly obvious.
Will companies be able to get around this like they did with the Unisys LZW patent (ie, just use another compression technique – Had they patented compression itself, where would we be?)? At least that was an implementation of an idea and not the entire concept itself.
Perhaps offending software could be rejigged as WYSIWYG rich text editors, and their HTML component could just be considered a “save-as” conversion feature. That is, until someone appears out of the woodwork to hijack that by-then-entrenched industry with a well-placed patent they bought at a dotcom garage sale…
unpingable yet again
Sunday, June 3rd, 2001
Aaaauughh! My frickin cable provider has me down again. I’m dialed up at 48k for now – lunchbag letdown. Of course, my server and domains are unavailable. I’ve gotta wait till tomorrow afternoon for a warm body to come out and have a look. Colocation is getting closer and closer. Conversely, I may just rant about it a bit and then return to SNAFU.
More input:
Request ID
Summary
Submitted By
Assigned To
0003
“Of course, commercial software is also covered by licenses (almost no two alike, either) which could contain their share of traps as well. But that doesn’t even matter IMO; people keep telling me that business is about managing risk. If you are not willing to undertake any amount of a certain kind of risk, then a shrewd competitor may expoit this to beat you. Simple answers are always illusory”
Wesley Felter
Brent Ashley
I’ve been taking a bunch of well-deserved flak for spouting my unripened opinion here. It’s opened a lot of discussion, though, so I think it’s overall been a good thing. My opinion is subjected to iterative refinement and you are exposed to the process through blogging. Dave has a phrase for it: the two-way web.
Bocconcini is unripened cheese, but it’s still to die for on sliced tomato with basil and olive oil.
Aaaauughh! My frickin cable provider has me down again. I’m dialed up at 48k for now – lunchbag letdown. Of course, my server and domains are unavailable. I’ve gotta wait till tomorrow afternoon for a warm body to come out and have a look. Colocation is getting closer and closer. Conversely, I may just rant about it a bit and then return to SNAFU.
More input:
| Request ID | Summary | Submitted By | Assigned To |
| 0003 |
“Of course, commercial software is also covered by licenses (almost no two alike, either) which could contain their share of traps as well. But that doesn’t even matter IMO; people keep telling me that business is about managing risk. If you are not willing to undertake any amount of a certain kind of risk, then a shrewd competitor may expoit this to beat you. Simple answers are always illusory” |
Wesley Felter | Brent Ashley |
I’ve been taking a bunch of well-deserved flak for spouting my unripened opinion here. It’s opened a lot of discussion, though, so I think it’s overall been a good thing. My opinion is subjected to iterative refinement and you are exposed to the process through blogging. Dave has a phrase for it: the two-way web.
Bocconcini is unripened cheese, but it’s still to die for on sliced tomato with basil and olive oil.
blogging as open-source opinion
Saturday, June 2nd, 2001
When I started blogging a while ago, I open-sourced my opinions. Recently I checked in my new License module. Feedback from the opinion community has revealed some design process problems and adjustments are underway.
Request ID
Summary
Submitted By
Assigned To
0001
“The essence of your argument is: ‘there are open-source licences out
there that can cause legal troubles if you want to incorporate
open-source products into your commercial products and it’s bad because
I don’t have the time to sort through this mess ‘. Which reminds me of
the quote ‘if you think education is costly, try ignorance’.”
Krzysztof Kowalczyk
Brent Ashley
0002
“The GPL *can* be onerous for someone looking to build a commercial
product built on top of open source parts. This is why software that is
meant to be linked with other software is often released under the LGPL or
another similar, less restrictive license. When looking to use a programming
tool, even a commercial one, you need to be aware of the licensing terms.”
Kevin Dangoor
Brent Ashley
Development effort is being undertaken to understand the available licenses before incorporating them into my opinion-space. Release notes will be forthcoming when the new nightly opinion build is available.
When I started blogging a while ago, I open-sourced my opinions. Recently I checked in my new License module. Feedback from the opinion community has revealed some design process problems and adjustments are underway.
| Request ID | Summary | Submitted By | Assigned To |
| 0001 |
“The essence of your argument is: ‘there are open-source licences out there that can cause legal troubles if you want to incorporate open-source products into your commercial products and it’s bad because I don’t have the time to sort through this mess ‘. Which reminds me of the quote ‘if you think education is costly, try ignorance’.” |
Krzysztof Kowalczyk | Brent Ashley |
| 0002 |
“The GPL *can* be onerous for someone looking to build a commercial product built on top of open source parts. This is why software that is meant to be linked with other software is often released under the LGPL or another similar, less restrictive license. When looking to use a programming tool, even a commercial one, you need to be aware of the licensing terms.” |
Kevin Dangoor | Brent Ashley |
Development effort is being undertaken to understand the available licenses before incorporating them into my opinion-space. Release notes will be forthcoming when the new nightly opinion build is available.
