• Forum
  • Lounge
  • Useful Combinations (article + discussio

 
Useful Combinations (article + discussion)

Something nagged at me again and caused me to feel extreme passion for an extended duration:

http://www.LB-Stuff.com/combination.html

The article, for those not yet ready to read it in full, goes over my stance on digital rights management, but in a much broader, more abstracted scope. It's very difficult and tricky to correctly write about abstract things in a way that will be properly understood - you will need to be able to think while you read.

What do you agree with or disagree with? How does your stance differ from mine? I would assume everyone is less extreme than me. Also, if you want to argue a point, it would help if you rephrased it into how you understood it, just in case there was a misunderstanding.
> Party A pays Party B for the time and effort it takes to discover a new useful combination.
> Then there is Party C, who also takes the time and effort it takes to discover a new useful combination,
> but because a second party is paying them to
¿diff(B,C)? ¿is just about how it would be shared later?
¿who has the right to decide/ who decides how it would be shared? ¿Party A or B?

¿why would `Party A' want to practice altruism?

¿what about Party G, that could not get an sponsor and is betting on the final consumers?


> open source software licensing is a form of digital rights management.
chocolate por la noticia
the idea was that others could not claim ownership and stop it from being available.

> Even worse, not just combinations of characters can have DRM,
> but also more abstract things like algorithms and class designs!
I understood: you can patent algorithms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentable_subject_matter#The_algorithm_exception_and_the_patent-eligibility_trilogy


> To plagiarize is to take a combination known to be useful
> and to falsely claim that you discovered the combination.
> (later) re-observe the useful combinations I have taken the time and effort to discover
ne555 wrote:
¿diff(B,C)? ¿is just about how it would be shared later?
No, B works for A, whereas C works for C.
ne555 wrote:
¿who has the right to decide/ who decides how it would be shared? ¿Party A or B?
Read A's contract that B signed?
ne555 wrote:
¿why would `Party A' want to practice altruism?
I'm not sure where this question is coming from.
ne555 wrote:
¿what about Party G, that could not get an sponsor and is betting on the final consumers?
I'm not sure were this question is coming from.
ne555 wrote:
chocolate por la noticia
the idea was that others could not claim ownership and stop it from being available.
Ownership?
ne555 wrote:
I understood: you can patent algorithms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentable_subject_matter#The_algorithm_exception_and_the_patent-eligibility_trilogy
The word "patent" does not appear in my article.
ne555 wrote:
> To plagiarize is to take a combination known to be useful
> and to falsely claim that you discovered the combination.
> (later) re-observe the useful combinations I have taken the time and effort to discover
I wrote the article, didn't I? I'm making a true claim, not a false claim.
Licensing is tricky. Among the trickiest to decipher is the GPL. Arguably, licensing doesn't even matter in the case of a big bad monster (GPL) versus a lamb (independent developer) in court anyhow.

If not for the GPL and it supporters, I'd release everything I write under public domain. Unfortunately I am forced to use a license of my own creation...

https://bitbucket.org/DarkHeart/opengl/src/7ab421b231138a1f5eda841bb9c614bd74294429/license.txt?at=master
@Luc Lieber: that's awesome!
@Luc Lieber
I never thought I'd read a license I would understand...

In any case, the legal language of almost all licenses out there pretty much eludes me. They twist words like "warranty" to mean special things in "legal context" (which really just means the change the meaning of words so no one else can read them... a-holes), but, in any case, they should really make them more read-able.
> No, B works for A, whereas C works for C.
you said that C is being paying by a second party. ¿how should I interpret C works for C?
¿is it C decides what combination to create, but A imposes that to B?

>> ¿who has the right to decide/ who decides how it would be shared? ¿Party A or B?
> Read A's contract that B signed?
wrong answer. They do not have any right "the combination should be freely shared".
If it were just a matter of read the contract, ¿why do you bother with the article?

>> ¿why would `Party A' want to practice altruism?
> I'm not sure where this question is coming from.
let's say that the contract let A to decide if the combination may be shared.
B efforts were paid by A effort. ¿what did A gain?

>> ¿what about Party G, that could not get an sponsor and is betting on the final consumers?
> I'm not sure were this question is coming from.
In your two groups the discovers are payed by their efforts.

> Ownership?
Ownership \Own"er*ship\, n.
The state of being an owner; the right to own; exclusive right of possession; legal or just claim or title; proprietorship. [1913 Webster]

> The word "patent" does not appear in my article.
¿what are the consequences of the having DRM on `the shortest path from two nodes in a directed graph with positive weights algorithm'?

> I wrote the article, didn't I? I'm making a true claim, not a false claim.
and Pierre Menard wrote the Quixote



> no part of it may be included in software projects that are distributed under "viral" licensing schemes
¿why do you not consider that as viral?
¿why do you not consider closed source as viral?
@ne555 -- my license is "poison". It doesn't promote relicensing under its own terms, but merely prevents the spread of viral licensing by explicitly forbidding it in plain English without hiding behind obscure, wordy terminology. The GPL permits redistribution if the combined work is relicensed -- where "combined work" is subjective to whichever side in a court case has a stronger financial muscle (which is usually the FSF).

Closed source is in no way viral. How would a closed source "virus" spread if there is no source code distributed?
I'm quite a fan of the MIT licence. It's pretty similar to Luc's (did you base yours off of it) http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

Edit: Topic related video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Uw_ENS6rAU
It's a talk on patents but covers similar points covered in LB's article.
Last edited on
ne555 wrote:
you said that C is being paying by a second party.
Where? In the temporary example that lased no more than a sentence?
ne555 wrote:
¿how should I interpret C works for C? ¿is it C decides what combination to create, but A imposes that to B?
Yes.
ne555 wrote:
>> ¿who has the right to decide/ who decides how it would be shared? ¿Party A or B?
> Read A's contract that B signed?
wrong answer. They do not have any right "the combination should be freely shared".
If it were just a matter of read the contract, ¿why do you bother with the article?
Why ask the original question if you had the whole article as an answer? I thought you asked the question in the context outside of the article.
ne555 wrote:
let's say that the contract let A to decide if the combination may be shared. B efforts were paid by A effort. ¿what did A gain?
This is exactly the question I want people to ask. What did A gain?
ne555 wrote:
In your two groups the discovers are payed by their efforts.
The wording here makes it difficult for me to understand what you're trying to say :\
ne555 wrote:
Ownership \Own"er*ship\, n.
The state of being an owner; the right to own; exclusive right of possession; legal or just claim or title; proprietorship. [1913 Webster]
Can you possess a combination? My point is that ownership is not an applicable concept.
ne555 wrote:
¿what are the consequences of the having DRM on `the shortest path from two nodes in a directed graph with positive weights algorithm'?
OK, you're right here - I wasn't aware until I did deeper research that algorithms are definitely excluded from many DRM-like things. I will adjust the article when I have the chance. I guess this was a misconception I had.
ne555 wrote:
and Pierre Menard wrote the Quixote
As far as I am concerned, plagiarism is lying. Are you trying to say I should change the definition I provide in the article?
ne555 wrote:
¿why do you not consider that as viral?
I'm still confused what Luc Lieber means in his response to you, but I personally do consider it viral, except that it's viral in an opposite way to other viral licenses.
ne555 wrote:
¿why do you not consider closed source as viral?
I agree with Luc Lieber here - perhaps you should rephrase the question?
>> you said that C is being paying by a second party.
> Where? In the temporary example that lased no more than a sentence?
¿example? I thought that was the definition of the classification.
¿how else could `because a second party is paying them to' be interpreted?

>> ¿is it C decides what combination to create, but A imposes that to B?
> Yes.
if you had that written down, it was not clear.

> This is exactly the question I want people to ask. What did A gain?
good, as long as you did made the exercise.
¿have you consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer%27s_dilemma ?

>> ¿why do you not consider closed source as viral?
> I agree with Luc Lieber here - perhaps you should rephrase the question?
yes, viral is not the right idea.
it just bothers me that the restrictions of closed source are view as legitimated.



> As far as I am concerned, plagiarism is lying.
> Are you trying to say I should change the definition I provide in the article?
I may have misread you. It seems that you are too eager to say `I discovered this' when the idea presented is not new.
ne555 wrote:
I may have misread you. It seems that you are too eager to say `I discovered this' when the idea presented is not new.
Oh, I'm referring to the combination of bits that make up the article - I discovered that combination, not the combination that makes up the idea I'm trying to describe. If my exact article has been written before I'd be pretty surprised.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.