Comments for Digital Citizen

Comment on Richard Stallman: Free Software in Ethics and Practice by Ali Davoodifar

Ali Davoodifar — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:36:59 +0000

The download links don’t seem to work.

Comment on Richard Stallman: Free Software in Ethics and Practice by fsdaily.com

fsdaily.com — Fri, 09 May 2008 04:27:14 +0000

Story added…

This story has been submitted to fsdaily.com! If you think this story should be read by the free software community, come vote it up and discuss it here:

http://www.fsdaily.com/Philosophy/Richard_Stallman_Free_Software_in_Ethics_and_Practice...

Comment on “Making available” is not copyright infringement by Ray Beckerman

Ray Beckerman — Tue, 06 May 2008 03:23:17 +0000

I participated in 3 panel discussions that day. Mr. Doroshow participated only in the “statutory damages” session. Mr. Schlesinger spoke in the “making available” session, but his remarks do not appear in the transcript for some reason. An index to the 3 discussions is here

Comment on gNewSense GNU/Linux 2.0 is out! by fsdaily.com

fsdaily.com — Fri, 02 May 2008 04:25:44 +0000

Story added…

This story has been submitted to fsdaily.com! If you think this story should be read by the free software community, come vote it up and discuss it here:

http://www.fsdaily.com/EndUser/gNewSense_GNU_Linux_2_0_is_out...

Comment on So many voices, so many choices. by So many voices, so many choices.

So many voices, so many choices. — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 02:22:45 +0000

[...] 1st, 2008 · No Comments ljgabsalomtyne wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptJust listen to the strong endorsement [...]

[Editor's note: It was tricky whether to consider the above as linkspam or a real post pointing to something a human wants to direct other people's attention toward. But in the spirit of not censoring posts, except for the drive-by spam (like "Ciali$" stuff), I'll err on the side of letting too much through so here it is. It's worth noting how few people read well, though.]

Comment on The Story of Stuff by Dawn

Dawn — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:26:47 +0000

One Word: CrackAttack (1, 2)!

Comment on I now know where my vote is going: Ralph Nader enters the 2008 US Presidential race by Dawn

Dawn — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 05:05:08 +0000

Right on! The single most important issue in the world right now is making sure that the United States does not attack Iran. I am voting on that issue alone this election. The consequences of bombing Iran will be devastating in ways we haven’t even thought of yet.

DO NOT BOMB IRAN!

Comment on Clinton and Edwards get their wish: “a more serious … smaller group” of candidates by J.B. Nicholson-Owens

J.B. Nicholson-Owens — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:10:59 +0000

Yes, I’ve heard of him and support some of what he stands for. I’m remiss in not mentioning his name, so I’ll point out that he recently wrote a very nice article in which he says (among other things) that he’ll remain in the race. It’s a shame you don’t post with your real name and email address so people can contact you and discuss Gravel’s stance on the issues of the day. Gravel spoke out (in the few opportunities afforded him by the corporate media “debates”) against the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Paying for universal health care with a sales tax, as Gravel proposes, strikes me initially as not a good idea because I don’t think poor people should pay the same rate as the rich. I’d prefer a means of taxation that charges those who have more to pay more. I’m also not convinced that allowing private health care to compete with the public health care will end up with a public health care that isn’t quickly whittled away after being underfunded and then pointed to as ‘inadequate’. However clearly any health care plan that covers everyone in the country without tying health care to work is a huge step in the right direction, a step the more popular candidates aren’t willing to take.

Comment on Clinton and Edwards get their wish: “a more serious … smaller group” of candidates by Wack

Wack — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 15:25:27 +0000

Ever heard of Mike Gravel? He’s still running… He’s brilliant… He’s completely censored from the Mass media… You can find him on youtube and… that’s about it.

If articles like this one don’t even mention his name, it’s pretty sad…

Comment on Ogg Theora+Vorbis as default for <video> scuttled in HTML5 spec. Who benefits? by J.B. Nicholson-Owens

J.B. Nicholson-Owens — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 06:41:44 +0000

And so by adopting a line of letting a “no” trump what’s beneficial to the public, you’ll never get in the way of any proprietor. That policy is how you prioritize the patent holder’s desires above user’s needs.

I never said anything about bullying any implementer into anything; I think you misunderstand the phrase “bully pulpit”. A bully pulpit means “a terrific platform from which persuasively to advocate an agenda [...] The term has no relationship to the word bully in the sense of a “harasser”.”.

The rest I have already pointed out before but you seem to repeat without acknowledgment: the language you removed from the HTML5 spec was a recommendation not a requirement. A lot follows from this point despite you claiming the opposite.

Apparently you believe Ogg Theora+Vorbis was required in the language you removed. When something is suggested and not required in the spec it’s fine to let any implementers decide they don’t want to implement the recommendation (no matter what the reason) and leave the recommendation in the spec. Hence all of the patent debates fall away. Let anyone say whatever they will about why they can’t implement Ogg Theora+Vorbis, and then let them comply with the rest of the spec’s required portions and claim full compliance with the required portions of the spec. That would be fair.

Entertaining a distraction, one might look at the patent arguments to see if they hold water. One quickly sees another problem: If you genuinely believe the rationale you’ve explained here about why any implementer wouldn’t choose to implement Ogg Theora+Vorbis, it’s not clear why there would ever be a common video codec you’d find comfortable suggesting in a future spec. Apple has no incentive to find such a codec, they can afford to license anything they want to include in their software. Theora and Dirac are the only viable free video codecs right now and Dirac isn’t ready for widespread use right now. I have no evidence to show that Apple had anything to do with developing either Theora or Dirac. Any implementer who wants their codec(s) to become popular (and thus get lots of licensing fees) can simply take out lame patent-based excuses to help explain why they’re going to work to preserve a chance at a monopoly windfall.

Finally, it does matter why they won’t implement something in the public interest (as FLOSS is)—it points to how some implementers are not behaving in the best interests of users. To remove a recommendation and then continue to talk about it (and make points from the perspective) as if it were a requirement (”and so we couldn’t require Ogg”), your priorities are clear and they don’t favor users seeking freedom. Whether implementers are free to use Ogg Theora+Vorbis was never an issue; they all knew they were long before you said so. The question is whether those writing specs have the guts to do what’s in the best interest of the public.