8 ms·

What if Hollywood had to use tech like we have to watch movies?

663 points by aaronklein 15y ago

sounds 15y ago
Pure genius. You can, by the way, offer better licensing to specific companies and unaffiliated individuals -- leaving Hollywood with the unskippable ads, "premium tweets," and all the rest. Good luck, however, winning in court to enforce your license.
- aaronklein 15y ago
  But what if by losing, the court invalidates all of Hollywood's ridiculous licensing ploys as well? That would be winning by losing. :)
  - dredmorbius 15y ago
    That's the legal ju-jitsu performed by the GNU GPL and related copyleft licenses. The stronger the anti-misappropriation measures of copyright law, the stronger the sharing (and compulsory re-licensing) provisions of the GPL. Playing other legal regimens against themselves in a similar fashion is a creative and often effective strategy.
- jerf 15y ago
  As mentioned on the Wikipedia page for EULAs towards the end [1], the solution is to encase absolutely everything in DRM, making it a DMCA violation to remove the DRM without permission. Then, Google permits everybody except Hollywood to remove it freely. Oh, and while the DMCA requires DRM to be "effective", that has proved to be a low bar. More seriously, EULA case results are mixed, and Wikipedia's somewhat sarcastic first sentence of that section as I write this is broadly correct: "The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard." Maybe there's some other legal doctrine about contracts that would knock this out, but it's not immediately obvious to me that this couldn't be done. (Not that it will, of course.) [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#Enfo...
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    Oh, and while the DMCA requires DRM to be "effective", that has proved to be a low bar. I think the "effective" in "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."[0] probably means something more like "has the intended effect of" rather than "does a good job at." [0] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0...
- ajuc 15y ago
  Brilliant, but they will just use pirated versions. Or regular versions.
  - Silhouette 15y ago
    That's fine, as long as they don't mind having their entire studio's Internet access cut off if any three people who ever wrote a piece of software each allege that someone from the studio downloaded that software illegally, based on the fact that at least one IP address that was allocated to the studio's domain at the time was observed downloading a file that contained the unique identifying mark "int main() {". Also, each developer who agrees to do this automatically gets $150,000 in statutory damages for every file containing that mark that anyone from any studio IP address ever downloaded.
    - Vivtek 15y ago
      I'm liking this plan better and better.
blhack 15y ago
pre-edit: nevermind, Aaron removed it. Better now :) Whatever that black popdown thing is called is really, really obnoxious. Here is what it looks like in my browser: http://imgur.com/cKiYN http://imgur.com/cKiYN Chrome 16.0.9 on Snow Leopard. The problem is that it covers text as I'm scrolling through the page. To recreate it: start scrolling down the page.
- aaronklein 15y ago
  I agree. Readers were asking me for share and tweet buttons, even though they were in the post, but that pop down is annoying. I killed it.
- joejohnson 15y ago
  I can't recreate this in Chrome or Safari on OSX Lion. Are my corner actions preventing me from seeing it?
  - aaronklein 15y ago
    I killed it. Only added it because some readers were having a hard time finding the "share" buttons. I'll find a better solution.
    - nyellin 15y ago
      That looks exactly like the OKTrends sharing bar. Did you implement it, or is there js library for that?
mrleinad 15y ago
I think Hollywood is just a facàde for the US government. A while ago, Hillary Clinton admitted the US government is losing the "information war"[1]. What could possibly be better for winning an information war, than to pass legislation like this, under the guise of "fighting piracy"? The government could not be seen as promoting this kind of legislation.. otherwise, they´d be on the same league as Iran or China.. Hollywood´s not the problem. Your government is. [1] Hilary Clinton Admits US Is Losing The "Information War": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMoeDaLV2WA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMoeDaLV2WA
- tkahn6 15y ago
  It's wonderfully hypocritical that Russia Today is accusing the US of pushing propaganda and stifling disenting perspective.
- wisty 15y ago
  A long time ago, the US pushed Hollywood because they knew it would essentially be free advertising for everything else the US sold. That's probably unnecessary these days. It's pretty obvious from certain comments that Hollywood is helping members keep their seats (via campaign funding), and threatening to pull the funding of anyone who rocks the boat. It's like a Hollywood movie, about a beast (or robot) which ends up overpowering its master.
hunterp 15y ago
This is petty and immature.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
quink 15y ago
You, Mr. living in San Diego, are trying to get KWIK24, PBS Wikipedia LA, instead of KOSA13, PBS Wikipedia San Diego, aren't you? Well, unfortunately we know that you can't get it over 3G or 4G because you're outside the reception area and we've encrypted KWIK24 to be received by people in LA only on Fibre or ADSL. KOSA13 might have 30 second ads before each article, doesn't carry half of the most popular articles and re-compresses every image with a watermark, but that's not our problem.
ericflo 15y ago
Hollywood business aside, I think you just came up with Twitter's business model. I'm joking, but only somewhat.
- marshray 15y ago
  Twitter? Oh I remember them. They were popular back in the MySpace days right? Silly of them to drive away their users with the lag punishment paywalls like that. As I recall it, folks seemed to be wandering over to Facebook and G+ by then anyway.
d5tryr 15y ago
Thankfully we can use a user's ip adress to ensure this only effects Hollywood executives.
rockarage 15y ago
This is just sad, I get the impression from the comments and up votes that tech does not get Hollywood. Hollywood business only work because only Hollywood is willing to give Christopher Nolan 200+ million dollars to make Dark Knight, ditto with James Cameron's Avatar. When Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook or Yahoo decides to give a Christopher Nolan or James Cameron $200million+ to make a movie, things will be different. Then these multinationals can distribute to everyone who wants to buy the movie without DRM, without regional restriction and at a competitive price. Until then everything is just posturing, indie budgets will not change Hollywood. Tech world has competition, but only Hollywood is making these big budget productions. edit: not sure why this is getting down voted, it would be interesting to see a counterpoint.
- mathattack 15y ago
  Interesting comment. I think the Avatars go away in a post-Hollywood world, but the smaller movies will thrive.
  - InclinedPlane 15y ago
    I don't think they would. Hollywood budgets are partly due to Hollywood accounting. If movies were set up along startup lines (where only some folks get a guaranteed salary and the vast majority of earnings by everyone comes in the form of profit sharing) then I think you'd still see very big, expensive to make movies.
    - rockarage 15y ago
      Hollywood losses are partly due to Hollywood accounting. The budgets for production are real cost. In these high budget movies, there are major expenses apart from just salary. In the Dark knight, the batmobile and other machines are real vehicles, the sets are made with real materials, live effects are not cheap, permits are not free, not everything is done on a computer. This only scratch the surface of the expense involved in making a big budget film.
      - 15y ago
gerggerg 15y ago
Most importantly, we should send them extortionate threats of law-suit based on easily fake-able evidence that claim they owe us thousands of dollars just to get us to not send them more letters. And then when they stop using our service we'll say it must be because they're doing something illegal.
dirtbox 15y ago
Hollywood are not in the business of offering a service, only a product. This is mostly why the two aren't compatible and why they aren't interested in developing it. The thinking is that a product is far more profitable and has higher gains than a service which bleeds money by comparison due to it's constant maintenance costs, upkeep and customer care and that drop in profit would make their pyramid business model unsustainable.
fleitz 15y ago
I think this is great, we should add a licensing clause for this, if you work for a subsidiary of an MPAA member you have to check a box to get the Hollywood edition else you are not entitled to use the software, perhaps even a Hollywood IP database for internet companies. If Hollywood execs had to sit through 5 minutes of ads to use Google they'd soon get the message. Anyone have any ideas on how to get the IP blocks of MPAA member companies? Is there anything better than just whois'ing every class A/B/C? I'm thinking of a javascript that creates a black modal dialog with a youtube video queue of startup video ads. Use the chromeless video player, I'll even max the volume for them. Simple one line addition to your site and voila your startup/site/blog is Hollywood Edition.
- mishmash 15y ago
  > Anyone have any ideas on how to get the IP blocks of MPAA member companies? It's been tried before. Maintaining the list is very difficult for the exact same reasons that would have made PIPA/SOPA technically inept. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerGuardian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerGuardian
  - cookiecaper 15y ago
    Such lists continue in wide use. Of course they are not foolproof, but it does help.
    - notatoad 15y ago
      peerguardian and it's ilk don't help at all. they make uninformed people feel safer.
      - alexgemmell 15y ago
        Is that true? Could you let me know where you got that info from so I can check for myself? Thanks!
  - lordlicorice 15y ago
paul9290 15y ago
The Twitter one sounds good then you realize an entrepreneur will come in and create a Twitter for Hollywood types. Twitter would lose millions of users to this competitor, as following celebrities draws millions.
DanBC 15y ago
> Since they’re so persnickety about licensing agreements, I'm not convinced that they are. I'm sure that an audit of Hollywood software licensing would find many unlicensed copied (their word "stolen") bits of software.
MarkTraceur 15y ago
I love this article for its irony, intentional or no. The author cites perfect examples of why the software industry is exactly like Hollywood with its products. Word? Need a license key. Can't open or save ODT files without annoying popups. Apple? Don't even try to partition the system or it will break, and don't use the software on non-Apple hardware. Certainly don't try jailbreaking it. Google? Can we talk about privacy policies? Of course, the biggest problem is that none of those instances of software are even accessible (fully) by their users. The user can't change the software, they can't even use the software in every capacity. So I guess the real question is, why are we still acting like Hollywood?
- SquareWheel 15y ago
  "Certainly don't try jailbreaking it. Google? Can we talk about privacy policies?" Could you explain that? I've been jailbreaking for, maybe five years now, and it's very easy. And I think Google's new privacy policies are an improvement over the old. Maybe that's your point, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.
  - MarkTraceur 15y ago
    Well, the Google privacy policies have been consolidated, which means less piecewise freedom for people who use one or two Google products. I, for example, use Mail and (barely) use Search. I don't need to agree to things about Google+! And jailbreaking Apple devices, while possible and, in some cases, easy, has never been encouraged by or even considered by Apple. In order to jailbreak, you have to find exploits in the software. This is opposed to free software, where you are able to do anything you want with the phone's software from the start--no exploits, no jailbreaking, just freedom.
    - aaronklein 15y ago
      There are certainly ways that tech companies operate in a Hollywoodesque manner. Apple trying to assert DMCA against jailbreaking phones is a great example. It's YOUR phone. You paid $600 for it (either over time, or up front). You should be able to do whatever you want with it. You've made a very poor case with Google privacy policies, though. If you don't use Google+, there's no way for any of its privacy policies to affect you. If you don't like their policies, don't use their free product. Period.
zimbatm 15y ago
We're sorry, this tweet is not yet available in your country but we are working hard to make it possible !
- aaronklein 15y ago
  Ha! Awesome. Should have thought of that one.
mrebus 15y ago
They probably do. I download movies and they probably download tech.
sofuture 15y ago
It's mind boggling that people treat being able to consume (fettered or not) media as a god-given right. The suggestion here is that our best option is to 'be terrible' to old media until they understand what it's like to be treated poorly? You want to know how to fix things? Stop buying what they sell.
- aaronklein 15y ago
  That's not my take at all. The content companies do believe they are God's gift to mankind and they have some very anti-customer policies. They think they are optimizing their revenue from such policies. I think they underestimate the kind of growth they could see if they started treating their customers the way that most of the tech industry does. Tech is far from perfect, but it does a better job of being customer centric.
nyar 15y ago
That article is dumb in its examples, lets consider something more realistic. Every developer from this point onward adds a licensing clause for holywood execs - if that product is showcased during the movie a certain amount is owed to the developer at this point. Start putting it in every single app they will start making mistakes. The other day I saw Open Office 2.0 in Girl with Dragon Tattoo - Libre office could easily add this clause.
- eurleif 15y ago
  >Libre office could easily add this clause. That clause is incompatible with the LGPL, and Libre Office doesn't do copyright assignment, so there are many copyright holders, all of whom would have to agree to the licensing change. Not so easy.
yycom 15y ago
Humour. To everyone taking this seriously, please remember, variously, "two wrongs don't make a right", the "golden rule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule), "don't stoop to their level", etc.

663 points by aaronklein 15y ago

Pure genius. You can, by the way, offer better licensing to specific companies and unaffiliated individuals -- leaving Hollywood with the unskippable ads, "premium tweets," and all the rest. Good luck, however, winning in court to enforce your license.

aaronklein 15y ago
But what if by losing, the court invalidates all of Hollywood's ridiculous licensing ploys as well? That would be winning by losing. :)
- dredmorbius 15y ago
  That's the legal ju-jitsu performed by the GNU GPL and related copyleft licenses. The stronger the anti-misappropriation measures of copyright law, the stronger the sharing (and compulsory re-licensing) provisions of the GPL. Playing other legal regimens against themselves in a similar fashion is a creative and often effective strategy.
jerf 15y ago
As mentioned on the Wikipedia page for EULAs towards the end [1], the solution is to encase absolutely everything in DRM, making it a DMCA violation to remove the DRM without permission. Then, Google permits everybody except Hollywood to remove it freely. Oh, and while the DMCA requires DRM to be "effective", that has proved to be a low bar. More seriously, EULA case results are mixed, and Wikipedia's somewhat sarcastic first sentence of that section as I write this is broadly correct: "The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard." Maybe there's some other legal doctrine about contracts that would knock this out, but it's not immediately obvious to me that this couldn't be done. (Not that it will, of course.) [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement#Enfo...
- nitrogen 15y ago
  Oh, and while the DMCA requires DRM to be "effective", that has proved to be a low bar. I think the "effective" in "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."[0] probably means something more like "has the intended effect of" rather than "does a good job at." [0] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0...
ajuc 15y ago
Brilliant, but they will just use pirated versions. Or regular versions.
- Silhouette 15y ago
  That's fine, as long as they don't mind having their entire studio's Internet access cut off if any three people who ever wrote a piece of software each allege that someone from the studio downloaded that software illegally, based on the fact that at least one IP address that was allocated to the studio's domain at the time was observed downloading a file that contained the unique identifying mark "int main() {". Also, each developer who agrees to do this automatically gets $150,000 in statutory damages for every file containing that mark that anyone from any studio IP address ever downloaded.
  - Vivtek 15y ago
    I'm liking this plan better and better.

blhack 15y ago

pre-edit: nevermind, Aaron removed it. Better now :) Whatever that black popdown thing is called is really, really obnoxious. Here is what it looks like in my browser: http://imgur.com/cKiYN http://imgur.com/cKiYN Chrome 16.0.9 on Snow Leopard. The problem is that it covers text as I'm scrolling through the page. To recreate it: start scrolling down the page.

aaronklein 15y ago
I agree. Readers were asking me for share and tweet buttons, even though they were in the post, but that pop down is annoying. I killed it.
joejohnson 15y ago
I can't recreate this in Chrome or Safari on OSX Lion. Are my corner actions preventing me from seeing it?
- aaronklein 15y ago
  I killed it. Only added it because some readers were having a hard time finding the "share" buttons. I'll find a better solution.
  - nyellin 15y ago
    That looks exactly like the OKTrends sharing bar. Did you implement it, or is there js library for that?

mrleinad 15y ago

I think Hollywood is just a facàde for the US government. A while ago, Hillary Clinton admitted the US government is losing the "information war"[1]. What could possibly be better for winning an information war, than to pass legislation like this, under the guise of "fighting piracy"? The government could not be seen as promoting this kind of legislation.. otherwise, they´d be on the same league as Iran or China.. Hollywood´s not the problem. Your government is. [1] Hilary Clinton Admits US Is Losing The "Information War": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMoeDaLV2WA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMoeDaLV2WA

tkahn6 15y ago
It's wonderfully hypocritical that Russia Today is accusing the US of pushing propaganda and stifling disenting perspective.
wisty 15y ago
A long time ago, the US pushed Hollywood because they knew it would essentially be free advertising for everything else the US sold. That's probably unnecessary these days. It's pretty obvious from certain comments that Hollywood is helping members keep their seats (via campaign funding), and threatening to pull the funding of anyone who rocks the boat. It's like a Hollywood movie, about a beast (or robot) which ends up overpowering its master.

hunterp 15y ago

This is petty and immature.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

quink 15y ago

You, Mr. living in San Diego, are trying to get KWIK24, PBS Wikipedia LA, instead of KOSA13, PBS Wikipedia San Diego, aren't you? Well, unfortunately we know that you can't get it over 3G or 4G because you're outside the reception area and we've encrypted KWIK24 to be received by people in LA only on Fibre or ADSL. KOSA13 might have 30 second ads before each article, doesn't carry half of the most popular articles and re-compresses every image with a watermark, but that's not our problem.

ericflo 15y ago

Hollywood business aside, I think you just came up with Twitter's business model. I'm joking, but only somewhat.

marshray 15y ago
Twitter? Oh I remember them. They were popular back in the MySpace days right? Silly of them to drive away their users with the lag punishment paywalls like that. As I recall it, folks seemed to be wandering over to Facebook and G+ by then anyway.

d5tryr 15y ago

Thankfully we can use a user's ip adress to ensure this only effects Hollywood executives.

rockarage 15y ago

This is just sad, I get the impression from the comments and up votes that tech does not get Hollywood. Hollywood business only work because only Hollywood is willing to give Christopher Nolan 200+ million dollars to make Dark Knight, ditto with James Cameron's Avatar. When Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook or Yahoo decides to give a Christopher Nolan or James Cameron $200million+ to make a movie, things will be different. Then these multinationals can distribute to everyone who wants to buy the movie without DRM, without regional restriction and at a competitive price. Until then everything is just posturing, indie budgets will not change Hollywood. Tech world has competition, but only Hollywood is making these big budget productions. edit: not sure why this is getting down voted, it would be interesting to see a counterpoint.

mathattack 15y ago
Interesting comment. I think the Avatars go away in a post-Hollywood world, but the smaller movies will thrive.
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  I don't think they would. Hollywood budgets are partly due to Hollywood accounting. If movies were set up along startup lines (where only some folks get a guaranteed salary and the vast majority of earnings by everyone comes in the form of profit sharing) then I think you'd still see very big, expensive to make movies.
  - rockarage 15y ago
    Hollywood losses are partly due to Hollywood accounting. The budgets for production are real cost. In these high budget movies, there are major expenses apart from just salary. In the Dark knight, the batmobile and other machines are real vehicles, the sets are made with real materials, live effects are not cheap, permits are not free, not everything is done on a computer. This only scratch the surface of the expense involved in making a big budget film.
    - 15y ago

gerggerg 15y ago

Most importantly, we should send them extortionate threats of law-suit based on easily fake-able evidence that claim they owe us thousands of dollars just to get us to not send them more letters. And then when they stop using our service we'll say it must be because they're doing something illegal.

dirtbox 15y ago

Hollywood are not in the business of offering a service, only a product. This is mostly why the two aren't compatible and why they aren't interested in developing it. The thinking is that a product is far more profitable and has higher gains than a service which bleeds money by comparison due to it's constant maintenance costs, upkeep and customer care and that drop in profit would make their pyramid business model unsustainable.

fleitz 15y ago

I think this is great, we should add a licensing clause for this, if you work for a subsidiary of an MPAA member you have to check a box to get the Hollywood edition else you are not entitled to use the software, perhaps even a Hollywood IP database for internet companies. If Hollywood execs had to sit through 5 minutes of ads to use Google they'd soon get the message. Anyone have any ideas on how to get the IP blocks of MPAA member companies? Is there anything better than just whois'ing every class A/B/C? I'm thinking of a javascript that creates a black modal dialog with a youtube video queue of startup video ads. Use the chromeless video player, I'll even max the volume for them. Simple one line addition to your site and voila your startup/site/blog is Hollywood Edition.

mishmash 15y ago
> Anyone have any ideas on how to get the IP blocks of MPAA member companies? It's been tried before. Maintaining the list is very difficult for the exact same reasons that would have made PIPA/SOPA technically inept. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerGuardian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PeerGuardian
- cookiecaper 15y ago
  Such lists continue in wide use. Of course they are not foolproof, but it does help.
  - notatoad 15y ago
    peerguardian and it's ilk don't help at all. they make uninformed people feel safer.
    - alexgemmell 15y ago
      Is that true? Could you let me know where you got that info from so I can check for myself? Thanks!
- lordlicorice 15y ago

paul9290 15y ago

The Twitter one sounds good then you realize an entrepreneur will come in and create a Twitter for Hollywood types. Twitter would lose millions of users to this competitor, as following celebrities draws millions.

DanBC 15y ago

> Since they’re so persnickety about licensing agreements, I'm not convinced that they are. I'm sure that an audit of Hollywood software licensing would find many unlicensed copied (their word "stolen") bits of software.

MarkTraceur 15y ago

I love this article for its irony, intentional or no. The author cites perfect examples of why the software industry is exactly like Hollywood with its products. Word? Need a license key. Can't open or save ODT files without annoying popups. Apple? Don't even try to partition the system or it will break, and don't use the software on non-Apple hardware. Certainly don't try jailbreaking it. Google? Can we talk about privacy policies? Of course, the biggest problem is that none of those instances of software are even accessible (fully) by their users. The user can't change the software, they can't even use the software in every capacity. So I guess the real question is, why are we still acting like Hollywood?

SquareWheel 15y ago
"Certainly don't try jailbreaking it. Google? Can we talk about privacy policies?" Could you explain that? I've been jailbreaking for, maybe five years now, and it's very easy. And I think Google's new privacy policies are an improvement over the old. Maybe that's your point, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.
- MarkTraceur 15y ago
  Well, the Google privacy policies have been consolidated, which means less piecewise freedom for people who use one or two Google products. I, for example, use Mail and (barely) use Search. I don't need to agree to things about Google+! And jailbreaking Apple devices, while possible and, in some cases, easy, has never been encouraged by or even considered by Apple. In order to jailbreak, you have to find exploits in the software. This is opposed to free software, where you are able to do anything you want with the phone's software from the start--no exploits, no jailbreaking, just freedom.
  - aaronklein 15y ago
    There are certainly ways that tech companies operate in a Hollywoodesque manner. Apple trying to assert DMCA against jailbreaking phones is a great example. It's YOUR phone. You paid $600 for it (either over time, or up front). You should be able to do whatever you want with it. You've made a very poor case with Google privacy policies, though. If you don't use Google+, there's no way for any of its privacy policies to affect you. If you don't like their policies, don't use their free product. Period.

zimbatm 15y ago

We're sorry, this tweet is not yet available in your country but we are working hard to make it possible !

aaronklein 15y ago
Ha! Awesome. Should have thought of that one.

mrebus 15y ago

They probably do. I download movies and they probably download tech.

sofuture 15y ago

It's mind boggling that people treat being able to consume (fettered or not) media as a god-given right. The suggestion here is that our best option is to 'be terrible' to old media until they understand what it's like to be treated poorly? You want to know how to fix things? Stop buying what they sell.

aaronklein 15y ago
That's not my take at all. The content companies do believe they are God's gift to mankind and they have some very anti-customer policies. They think they are optimizing their revenue from such policies. I think they underestimate the kind of growth they could see if they started treating their customers the way that most of the tech industry does. Tech is far from perfect, but it does a better job of being customer centric.

nyar 15y ago

That article is dumb in its examples, lets consider something more realistic. Every developer from this point onward adds a licensing clause for holywood execs - if that product is showcased during the movie a certain amount is owed to the developer at this point. Start putting it in every single app they will start making mistakes. The other day I saw Open Office 2.0 in Girl with Dragon Tattoo - Libre office could easily add this clause.

eurleif 15y ago
>Libre office could easily add this clause. That clause is incompatible with the LGPL, and Libre Office doesn't do copyright assignment, so there are many copyright holders, all of whom would have to agree to the licensing change. Not so easy.

yycom 15y ago

Humour. To everyone taking this seriously, please remember, variously, "two wrongs don't make a right", the "golden rule" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule), "don't stoop to their level", etc.