ChanServ changed the topic of ##yamahasynths to: Channel dedicated to questions and discussion of Yamaha FM Synthesizer internals and corresponding REing. Discussion of synthesis methods similar to the Yamaha line of chips, Sound Blasters + clones, PCM chips like RF5C68, and CD theory of operation are also on-topic. Channel logs: https://freenode.irclog.whitequark.org/~h~yamahasynths
ej5 has joined ##yamahasynths
andlabs has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
superctr__ has joined ##yamahasynths
superctr_ has quit [*.net *.split]
andlabs has joined ##yamahasynths
andlabs has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
andlabs has joined ##yamahasynths
l_oliveira has quit [Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.92-rdmsoft [XULRunner 35.0.1/20150122214805]]
andlabs has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
andlabs has joined ##yamahasynths
andlabs has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
andlabs has joined ##yamahasynths
ej5 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Lord_Nightmare has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
Lord_Nightmare has joined ##yamahasynths
futarisIRCcloud has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
cr1901_modern has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
cr1901_modern has joined ##yamahasynths
l_oliveira has joined ##yamahasynths
<cr1901_modern>
Yea I knew exactly what that tweet was before I clicked it.
<cr1901_modern>
"why should anybody ever contribute to FOSS if their efforts may end up being used for free to help others profit?" <-- The FOSS story in a nutshell
<cr1901_modern>
hyperkin pulled this bullshit w/ retron5
<cr1901_modern>
not that I was too keen on Yet Another Underpowered Arm Core Running Speed-Focused Emulators in the first place
<Nerionaya>
I guess the big question is, is there anyone with both the copyrights and the money to fund a lawsuit here?
<cr1901_modern>
no idea I'm afraid :(
andlabs has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
andlabs has joined ##yamahasynths
andlabs has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
<Wohali>
cr1901_modern: i mean, i'm on the board of directors of the Apache Software Foundation. There's definitely a place where OSS and industry can meet and cooperate. FBalpha isn't it.
<l_oliveira>
I feel that emulators are put on such a awkward position by how these works have to interact with data in gray area/limbo. So common hear of such situations when it's about emulators
<l_oliveira>
Am I correct on the understanding that one of the people involved in the project is acting as if was the whole thing owner and sold it off to Capcom?
andlabs has joined ##yamahasynths
sixtysix has joined ##yamahasynths
<Wohali>
yeah, emulators are definitely in the greyest area here
* whitequark
whispers: this is why i want the OPL gate-level emulator to be under 0BSD
superctr__ is now known as superctr
<superctr>
I would like to see one good accurate FM emulator being released under a libre license other than the GPL
<superctr>
I feel the GPL is probably scaring some companies away
<superctr>
though not nearly as bad as "non-commercial" use license
<Wohali>
0bsd huh? odd
<superctr>
0bsd is essentially just public domain
<superctr>
I think MIT or 3-clause BSD license is fair enough
<Wohali>
TAPR have too many clauses in it for you?
<Wohali>
solderpad is nice too (apache derived)
<Wohali>
think my last thing was CC-BY-SA
<superctr>
creative commons is not a software license
<Wohali>
ah yeah, sorry. i have hardware on the brain today
<Wohali>
software i like bsd, mit, apache
<superctr>
i'm not sure if creative commons would be a viable hardware license either
<superctr>
say if you have a CC-NC license. Would you prohibit commercial actors from even using your hardware then? Like turning it on
<Wohali>
not all CC licenses work, no
<Wohali>
there's been explicit reviews of CC-BY and CC-BY-SA for hardware by lawyers tho
<Wohali>
they now say that cc-by-sa 4.0 is one-way compatible with GPL
<Wohali>
but yeah i don't think i'll do cc-* for hw/sw again
<whitequark>
Wohali: superctr: i am opposed to the idea of intellectual property in general
<whitequark>
and i do not want to rely on state violence to enforce its use in particular
<superctr>
well, it is a civil matter
<whitequark>
hence, 0bsd. for some projects, like glasgow, it's a dual 0bsd/apache2 because of the patent grant
<whitequark>
superctr: tell that to aaron swartz
<superctr>
i think copyright terms are way too long, but i also think that it's useful
<superctr>
He killed himself, so I can't tell him anything
<superctr>
I don't like the copyright mafia hoarding things that are of the public interest, but I also don't like having my hard work (or anyone else) stolen for money or fame
<superctr>
hence a 10 or 15 year copyright would be just enough IMO. Software licenses are useful for the same reason
<whitequark>
superctr: he did that because of a prospect of 30 years in jail
<whitequark>
that's state violence.
<Wohali>
whitequark: i knew aaron personally. i tend to agree with you. but like a will dealing with my wishes after i'm gone, i'm not completely opposed to "here's what I'd like you to do with my implementation of X when I'm not around". but maybe you're right, maybe that doesn't have to be state imposed
<whitequark>
no matter how you dress it up, i am going to have none of it. all IP (except trademarks, maybe) needs to go.
<Wohali>
it's "like" vs "must"
<Wohali>
because, as you say, i'm not going to litigate
<whitequark>
Wohali: this is fair, but i also feel that IP wouldn't give you that, anyway. consider how the "estates" of various dead writers handle their unfinished or unpublished work, often against their direct wishes
<superctr>
the case of aaron swartz is also not really due to IP alone
<Wohali>
yeah. family in-fighting is brutal, and wills don't help there either
<superctr>
MIT or JSTOR didn't actually own the papers Aaron 'stole'
<superctr>
They ended up getting him in jail to cover their own asses (keeping Elesvier etc happy)
<superctr>
Regarding those companies, they are 100% part of the copyright mafia and should be abolished
<whitequark>
yeah, papers are a far more clear cut case. publicly funded research must be public, period
<Wohali>
^^^ ding ding ding
<whitequark>
did you know you can mirror sci-hub
<Wohali>
i have to go to lunch. back soon.
<whitequark>
also, it's not like i'm forcing other people to use 0BSD. that part is purely my personal statement, although it does affect contributors to my projects.
<superctr>
Some people make a living off creating IP. If IP laws were abolished they would have absolutely no means of protecting their income
<superctr>
As people could just steal their work and get away scot free
<whitequark>
this is something that's often mentioned but has little evidence to support it
<superctr>
And then you have companies that hoard IP for years and are the ones getting people killed for stupid reason
<superctr>
Little evidence you say. well i guess i'll have to point at my own paycheck then
<superctr>
it even says "Software" in the company name
<whitequark>
how many IP lawsuits have you won?
<superctr>
I've never been involved in one
<whitequark>
so you've never actually exercised those rights
<superctr>
As an employee, i've never been involved in the legal stuff of the company
<whitequark>
as one counterexample, consider this. large fashion companies constantly steal designs by independent artists and pass them as their own. it's endemic. none of these independent artists have the means to enforce their rights
<superctr>
evidence?
<superctr>
large fashion companies also have a lot of designers under their payroll
<superctr>
well, good thing for the artists is that IP law would be on their side
<cr1901_modern>
How orthogonal is this to "your board was cloned and now companies can now sell your board at lower prices to you thanks to economies of scale"?
<superctr>
They won't do it because lawyers are expensive though
<whitequark>
precisely
<cr1901_modern>
lower prices than you*
<whitequark>
so in practice the IP law doesn't help them not starve
<whitequark>
most IP lawsuits are just businesses negotiating using infrastructure of law
<superctr>
If they were making a living of the artwork, there's a much larger chance that they would actually pursue litigation though
<cr1901_modern>
In this economy?
<whitequark>
making a living off artwork today means that you're barely above poverty, at best
<superctr>
But sending a C&D is free so i would suggest to do that first
<whitequark>
unless you're one of the five really popular people
<superctr>
Most people living off artwork are probably making artwork for a company and getting paid a salary
<superctr>
Perhaps working for one of those clothing stores mentioned
<whitequark>
then they don't own the rights to that artwork
<superctr>
Nope. the company owns them and can definitely enforce them
<whitequark>
18:07 < whitequark> most IP lawsuits are just businesses negotiating using infrastructure of law
<superctr>
But if the company itself was unable to enforce them then that company probably wouldn't be able to stay in business
<whitequark>
so, given that amazon will happily sell you knockoffs of pretty much every premium brand, that means they wouldn't be able to stay in business?
<whitequark>
doesn't match reality
<superctr>
If the knockoffs became more popular than the original goods, then yes
<superctr>
That would inevitably happen
<superctr>
But now we're talking about trademarks
<superctr>
I guess you said IP after all
<whitequark>
I did exclude trademarks from that list btw
<whitequark>
I think trademarks are reasonable
<superctr>
i mostly mean copyrights. Trademarks are something that usually stays between companies
<superctr>
Individuals can get fucked by companies registering trademarks (or in some cases a trademark application on the other side of the planet or something) though
<whitequark>
yeah, that is true
<Sarayan>
We (mame) almost got fucked by that
<superctr>
well
<Sarayan>
Aaron had to lawyer up to get the mark
<superctr>
let's take this example
<whitequark>
the existing implementation of trademarks has serious flaws, but I don't see to oppose the concept of them on principle
<superctr>
you quit your job and spend two years of your life writing a book, or a computer program or something of that kind
<superctr>
You publish it for free and then two days later it appears on the google store for $4.99 with all mentions of your name and work wiped out
<superctr>
you would just shrug it off and leave it there?
<superctr>
I would probably get offended
<whitequark>
me personally? the 0BSD license specifically permits that
<Sarayan>
If it's something for android, I'd have put it for free on the google store in the first place
<Sarayan>
otherwise, they're welcome to try to get paid forthe port
<whitequark>
that too
<whitequark>
see, the only reason I see to have a conflict if that actually happens, is if they publish an inferior version that confuses people
<Sarayan>
also, if I can stop working for two years to wrie a program and put it up for free, that means I've put so much money on the side there's no issue there
<whitequark>
but... if mine is free and theirs is $4.99 it's not that much of a problem because no one will pay $5 for a book today.
<whitequark>
$1, maybe
<whitequark>
already a stretch
<Sarayan>
I pay 10-15$ for books, sometimes more, and I don't mind
<superctr>
people don't really like to pay for computer programs either
<superctr>
Me included
<whitequark>
I pay more for some software than the authors ask just because I think they deserve it
<whitequark>
that's not the usual behavior today
<superctr>
do you think they deserve to charge for their software though?
<Sarayan>
I have a real issue with the "copyright + RE prohibited" combo
<superctr>
ohh
<whitequark>
that's a good question and i'm going to have to expand on that
<superctr>
now we're entering EULA territory
<Sarayan>
EULA can go fuck themselves
<superctr>
That's another piece of IP law that somehow popped up completely against the original intent and purpose of the IP lawys
<whitequark>
i think everyone deserves to have a roof over their head and food on their table -regardless of whether they make popular art or software-. they just do, period.
<superctr>
It'
<Sarayan>
wq: agreed
<cr1901_modern>
agreed
* Sarayan
<- filthy european socialist
<superctr>
It's really stupid actually. Somehow the rights to "copy and distribute" something turned into rights to allow and prohibit others from USING said copies and distributions that you made yourself
<whitequark>
now, until we get something like a realistic basic income proposal, some people will achieve that by charging for their software or art. and that's valid. which is why, even though i don't think they -should- be able to use IP rights in connection to that, i do not actively oppose it either, because that's just what you have to do today.
<whitequark>
so, would i host "stolen" papers? absolutely. would i host or promote "stolen" indie software? nope, it'd be a real dick move.
<superctr>
also I agree there
<whitequark>
note that in either case there is really nothing they can do to me
<superctr>
the funny thing about "stolen" papers, the authors don't own the rights to them. They have to sign off their rights in order to get the honor of having your paper published in a "respectable" journal
<superctr>
And they have to pay for it too
<superctr>
So the publishers profit from all sides
<superctr>
Even peer-reviewers don't get paid
<whitequark>
but once we -do- have a society where you will have a home and food regardless of whether you wrote a popular piece of software, i don't think anyone deserves to use state violence to enforce the ability to profit from software, no.
<whitequark>
so that's the answerto that question.
<Sarayan>
publishers are feeling the pressure, because scientists are a tad annoyed with that
<Sarayan>
(somewhat understated)
<superctr>
They have the right to be
<cr1901_modern>
Somebody think of the poor publishers :')
<whitequark>
yeah, publishers profit *thrice* from the papers
<whitequark>
incredible scam
<cr1901_modern>
(No seriously, let everything they fear come to pass I say)
<whitequark>
possibly the best scam in the history of humanity
<superctr>
The publishers have outlived their purpose now that the Internet exists
<Sarayan>
ctr: complicated, peer review is useful, even if known imperfect
<whitequark>
you don't need publishers for peer review?
<whitequark>
high energy physics is the proof of that
<Sarayan>
you need someone to organizer it
<Sarayan>
-r
<whitequark>
it's all on arxiv
<Sarayan>
arxiv has most of it, but is missing the final "decision to publish or not" part
<superctr>
i think the universities and science institutes can be publishers too
<superctr>
And still keep the same process, but with no commercial interests involved
<whitequark>
Sarayan: you don't need peer review to be a gateway to publishing. i mean, people use preprints all the time
<Sarayan>
ctr: the time you spend managing that is time you don't spend doing your research and publishing, so it's a net negative
<Nerionaya>
I seem to recall that in many cases publications that were previously published by institutes and the like were bought up by the publishers
<Sarayan>
wq: there's way too much stuff published, if you don't have some editorializing, you drown
<Nerionaya>
let's not pretend that this is the System since Time Immemorial
<whitequark>
Sarayan: most published research, peer-reviewed or not, by elsevier or not, is garbage
<Sarayan>
Nerionaya: the system is driven by the project/grant evaluation process
<whitequark>
gatekeeping doesn't solve this problem
<Sarayan>
wq: arxiv is, annoyingly, garbage-er
<Wohali>
back. on the software thing, this is why i give away my software (friendly-licensed) and sell my time
cr1901_modern1 has joined ##yamahasynths
cr1901_modern has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]