🚀 go-pugleaf

In aus.computers.linux Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:


> telford@xenon.triode.net.au wrote:

>> The other problem is that from a technical point of view, a chip that
>> can reliably tell the difference between a pirated game and a non-approved
>> game from an independent publisher is nearly impossible to design.
>> At least, I know a fair bit about how such chips work and I don't believe
>> there is a way to get something like that working -- someone smarter
>> than me might know a way.

> I'm not that familiar with the X-Box architecture, but I was under the 
> impression that it does not have an anti-copying system, and that 
> bit-for-bit copying of the DVDs will work.

I wasn't talking about copy protection, what the x-box has is a mechanism
that prevents independent software developers from publishing their own
work for the X-box platform without getting a "signature" that allows
their software to operate.

> The very important difference is that the PS2 is tethered to PS2 games. 
> You buy one with the expectation of buying the other.

Nothing on the PS2 box says that the machine is locked to prevent
independent software developers entering the market.

> Any attempt by a 
> manufacturer to cripple standard PCs this way would simply lose money 
> for the manufacturer.

Well I believe that Microsoft lost money on the X-box, as to whether
any such attempt would always lose -- that's a brave assertion.
It may well be true, but only if the public sit up and pay attention
which is something that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.
You can guarantee that such PCs will not be sold with any information
about how and why they are crippled.

> There is nothing anywhere to suggest that such a 
> mechanism could be imposed world wide.

Nor much to suggest that it couldn't.

> Certainly the current legislation 
> has not such clauses, but to the contrary has an express clause (as dos 
> the DMCA) making it clear that no such obligation could be imposed.

Any yet it happened with the PS2.

>> I release my own work under GPL, except what I do under contract to
>> someone else which I don't have too much choice about. I have tried to
>> work my employment situation toward maximising the use and distribution
>> of GPL software but the current market demands some compromises.

> How would you eat if everything you did was released under GPL?

I think it should be my decision how I want to go about making an income
and how much I feel I need to make, I'm not asking for financial support.
I'm only asking for the opportunity to have a go. Food in Sydney is very
cheap (raw food at any rate).

I'm not a subscriber to the belief that any particular business approach
has the right to demand success in the marketplace. At the moment, the
computer market is characterised by very ignorant consumers and technology
that is changing too fast for the marketplace to wise up. The result is that
the current sales-oriented business model can get away with leaving the
end-user with unmaintainable, bug ridden software and nowhere to go for
service. That situation can't last forever.

The GPL paradigm requires that money be made from continuous product
improvement and high quality service to the end user. There is plenty of
market demand for this but proprietary software still presents formidable
barriers. I'm expecting to be nearly 100% GPL within 5 to 10 years but any
one person can't make an economy, the outcome depends mostly on the
users and on consumer confidence with service-oriented business models.

One of the reasons why strong advocacy is important is that IT is a highly
non-linear marketplace. The more people are happy to use GPL software,
the more money there is to be made in the GPL industry. It doesn't help
to be too far ahead of the times, you ideally just want to be slightly 
ahead.

	- Tel