Until it fails to be maintained. I use a lot of open source software (and have contributed to a few open source projects myself). As time goes by more and more open source code falls into disrepair, and the code that depends on it becomes harder to maintain.

Also, a lot of open source software was written by for-profit companies trying to suck the value out of something a competitor did that they didn't do. Many (most?) of the big open source projects have contributors being paid by big corporations to work on them.

This also happens with non-open source software (though, maybe, it's more frequently than open source software).

The point I was making is that one doesn't "extract value" from IP by giving it away.

But one does. The best example is probably Sun, which gave away Java to devalue Microsoft's IP. The execs at Sun were open about their intention. IBM spends a lot of money paying its programmers to contribute to open source projects that devaule competition like SAP. Google gives away Android to devalue iOS. There used to be a thriving market for Java integrated development environments, but Eclipse pretty much destroyed that.

Still no. Java is a cost (directly). If Sun made money, they made it elsewhere (indirectly). Some companies (like Red Hat) make money servicing open source software but most of that money from taking away market share from other companies (like HP).

Devaluing Microsoft's IP doesn't make them money. (Unless, it caused sales to migrate to Sun, which I don't think happened.)

I'm not talking about some people making money (and some people losing money) either. Overall (repeating that), open source software reduces cost.

No, Google gives Android away to sell ads.

And Google (in 2012) made more money from stuff on iOS than on Android.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/androi...-than-android/

Like I said, less money overall.

You don't make money by giving anything away. You make money because people are paying for something else. Giving stuff away is a "loss leader".

I must have misunderstood what you meant by "extract value". I thought you meant remove value, devalue. Do you mean increase value?

It's not my phrase.

Here's a real example of what I'm talking about:

HP and others used to be able to sell versions (and support) for their own versions UNIX OS.

Linux is destroying that value. The OS is free (or much cheaper) and the support costs are lower. That's why customers are moving to Linux (because it's cheaper than what it replaces). It would have thought that was obvious.

Some companies make more money with the change but that's mostly because they are taking it away from other companies.

Money moves from one company to another but, also, the total (overall) amount of money is less.

The base IP is being given away free (basically). There is no income directly related to that (that's what "free" means). It's not "revenue producing".

The money comes from "value added" (other stuff added to the free stuff).

People move to LibraOffice from MS Office because it's cheaper.
People move to MySQL from other commercial databases, because it's cheaper.
People move to Linux from other commercial operating systems, because it's cheaper.

It's cheaper because people make less money giving away IP.

===============

Keep in mind that the nonsensical argument is basically people stealing IP makes the owners of that IP money or is doing them "a favor" (somehow!). And free open software is being used as an example why that "magic" happens.

Yes, and my point is that kind of reply avoids the question of "should software be protected in the same way that a profound work of literature should be protected?"

Relevant in the sense of "should a replica jersey (bearing the possibly defunct/abandoned/expired trademark of a possibly defunct team/sponsor) be protected in the same way as a replica jersey of a current team/sponsor/licensee?"

And the answer is "yes", because software can be copied like text. We assign the right to copy that kind of thing and call it "copyright".

If the trademark is really dead, then no, it isn't protected the same way as an active trademark.

It's not a question that is deserving of an answer (it's silly).

Where is the tribunal that determines whether or not something is "profound"?

Right up there with "it's that way because of how it is."

Don't be such a pleb.

We choose democracy because we don't trust others to make the rules for us.

I'd feel like I was being punished if I read all the latest posts here....

No, it's an explanation of copyright. Copyright isn't for profound works that can be copied. It's for any works that can be copied. It's just the right to copy them. Nothing special, no value judgement. The Star Trek Voyager episode "Threshold" was issued a copyright.

Nobody is really arguing about the application of the law as it is. That's a brainless task.

The fun question is whether the law is what it should be.

OK.

Why would being digital matter? If analog content is worth protecting, why would digitizing it make it not worth protecting?

You can't leave the table until you eat all the liver on your plate, or read all the posts. Which do you choose?

:bday:

:rolleyes:

This question is just dumb.

Pretty much the same as the early posts ...

Difference is, it was my discussion before. :D :lol:
Seriously, I don't know about that. Did I ever neglect the subject of cycling kit design? It's been a while since anyone mentioned anything about cycling kit (though I did notice someone saying something about not wearing team kit because he was embarrassed about not being on a team, or something like that, which I thought was kind of sad, but probably completely misread).
Oh well....

So what's up? Did you ever end up buying a one-piece deal? I've always liked the idea, but have told myself I have to weigh less than 200 pounds before I can justify such a purchase.

Not yet. I have a fairly generic one in a shopping cart sone where. Meanwhile, I realized that since my license does say CRCA, and I paid my dues (though I'm on hiatus from massed start races and don't do the club races where they are required), I should just get the team kit (regular 2 piece). I have an old kit from before I was on a sub-team, but I crashed in it and it's lost a bit of it's elasticity, so it's not really suitable for race day, I don't think.
I also think I need to get a little more practiced at riding with aero bars before I worry about getting a speedsuit for TTs, and I really don't need any more JRA/weekday morning training togs, as nice as it may be to have a onesie for that.

Ralpha Man
 

[MENTION=383563]kbarch[/MENTION]

I saw an ad for this site on Instagram, and it made me think of this thread:

www.rebelcycle.cc

No idea about the licensing.

Interesting - wonder what they mean by matching the designs "as close as possible." Meanwhile, a real mixed bag there. A handful of great looking classics and some imaginative new stuff, but much of it purposefully ugly, it seems, in both the retro and rebel lines.

Information is invariant with respect to the media, so that component of content should be treated exactly the same. But what about differences in presentation which is also a component of content?

In other words, protected logos presented in an unusual manner for the brand, unrelated such as on jerseys perhaps, might reasonably have different protections than the designed use of the brand.

Do you mean something like the use of an enlarged food product label as the graphic design of a cycling jersey? While it seems as likely as not that such designs are unauthorized, I'm not sure why the originators would not tacitly authorize such use - unless they saw its use on athletic apparel as damaging to their prestige or reputation, which seems unlikely for anything except luxury goods.

Yeah that would be an example. Even though both uses convey the same information, I'd say that the differences in presentation would or should impact the IP protections of the food product label. Basically I'm saying that pure information (that is published by someone) should not have the same protections as the creative elements, which I'm lumping into presentation. One part of the differences in presentation is the context. Just sort of an analytical libertarian perspective - I'm not fully up on how all this is encoded in law.

Hmm.... Now that you mention it, the first thing that comes to mind is an adaptation of a novel or short story as a screenplay. In that case, I think the IP is very well protected But when it comes to the design of labels and packaging, the creative content is in all likelihood work for hire, so the creators wouldn't have the kind of claim novelists have over re-use or re-presentation of their creative output. To the extent that the employer (in a work for hire agreement for graphic design) is not in the business of selling creative content per se, it does seem their claim on it would be limited to the specific context and use they make of it.