I say "luck" because each and every time we would put an offer on a home and subsequently have it rejected I would tell Arin that considering the homes we have traditionally looked at, and the amount we could afford, we would need luck more than anything else in order to have our offers accepted.
Consider for example the last house we bid on. A house we instantly fell in love with. A house that possessed that elusive x-factor necessary for someone to make the single biggest purchase of their lives. We bid close to 10% over asking with an aggressive 21 day escrow and no contingencies. We were as confident as we had ever been, especially considering the state of the real estate market this day and age. But not only were we outbid, but we were outbid by a whopping $100,000 by a couple downsizing into a smaller home.
We. Were. Livid. Heart broken. Dismayed. We lost hope all over again.
Yet, not four weeks later, we were already well on our way relearning one of life's most valuable lessons: everything happens for a reason. Because in that time we found another home, our current one, which was asking a litte bit more, but was more than twice as big. And this time, luck and fate was finally on our side.
We have now been living in our new home for a little less than a week, and I still walk around in a complete state of shock, stealing moments with Arin as we look at each other from across the room mouthing, "oh my god, this is our house!"
Below are pictures I downloaded from the realtor's web site just prior to the listing being removed. I figure they are better than nothing, and certainly better than waiting until Arin and I take pictures of our own.
]]>
Bottle of wine in hand and a front row seat, a man watches lava finally consume and burn down his home in Hawaii.
]]>Copyrights and licenses are similar in that they both convey, or give specific rights to the people that hold them. Copyrights can only to be held by the people who create something, or to quote Wikipedia:
Copyright is the set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work.
A license on the other hand, encapsulates the rights and privileges that a copyright holder grants to someone else vis a vis something they have created. In the world of software the license defines the terms and conditions of someone else's usage of that software, and their rights with regards to their ability to copy and redistribute that software.
Let's look at some simple examples:
Let's say I create a piece of software. If I chose to make that software available to others, than I should construct a license that defines for the people I give the software to what it is they can and cannot do with that software. While silly, granted, I could for example tell all the people I give the software to that they cannot use the software on Tuesdays and Thursdays. This is completely arbitrary obviously, but as the copyright holder of the software, that is my right.
Let's say I create another piece of software, but instead of writing my own license, I turn to the Internet to help furnish a license for me. Why would I do this? Probably because I don't have the expertise to necessarily think of all the loop holes one of my customers might exploit to give away my software to others, or to potentially harm my business by suing me. So I find the template of a pretty standard software license, fill in the blanks, and use that. Done and done.
Alternatively, I could search the Internet and stumble across another license I am free to use with my software. This license is called the "GPL." It conveys a very different set of rights and privileges to the folks who download my software, but hey, the terms of the license suit me, so let's use that.
Copyrights in open source software can add a new dimension of confusion, because in open source software where lots of different, unrelated people are collaborating to build something, it is quite possible that a single piece of open source software will have multiple copyright holders. Why is this significant?
Well, let's suppose that piece of software I wrote up above, you know the one that I licensed under the GPL? Well let's suppose it over the years two folks contributed heavily to the software: Jane and Susan. For the pieces they have written and contributed back to the software, they own the copyright. So now, the software that I created originally, is now in effect, jointly owned by me, Jane and Susan.
Then one day, out of the blue, I get a call from someone and they say: "Listen, I love your software and want to use it for my business. I am willing to pay you $1,000,000 for you to support my usage of the software, but I my company does not like GPL. Can you grant me a different license than the GPL?"
Holy moly that is a lot of money. Of course I want to say, "yes, yes, yes!" But I cannot change the terms under which I distribute the software unless I get the permission of every copyright holder. Jane and Susan may not mind changing the terms under which their contributions are redistributed, but they might also want to share in that $1,000,000. Heck, I would too if I were them. And that is just something I would have to work out with my fellow copyright holders if I wanted to see any of that $1,000,000.
Now in this example, relicensing the software is a very tractable possibility because the number of copyright holders is so finite. But for a piece of software like WordPress, this would be a virtually impossible proposition, because in order to change the license of WordPress, one would have to obtain the consent of virtually every single contributor WordPress has known. And if one person says, "no," then you are S.O.L.
This is why software organizations (like the Free Software Foundation) and companies (like Six Apart) who manage open source software require every contributor to assign the copyright of their creation back to them. That way there remains a single copyright holder thereby making future licensing decisions very easy to make and execute.
One final note. While writing this I found myself using the term "ownership" as a direct synonym to copyright. But I stopped myself because I realized that doing so might further confuse people as the term "ownership" will often imply a different set of rights. Consider this:
When I go to Best Buy and purchase a copy of Avatar on DVD, what do I actually own as a result? What I own is a physical disc and the right (or license) to watch its contents for my personal entertainment. All other uses are strictly prohibited.
In a certain number of years however, the copyright for Avatar will expire, and my rights vis-a-vis the DVD's contents will greatly expand. Once copyrighted material passes into the public domain, one is immediately free to copy, mix, re-mix, perform, and do what ever they want with it.
The DVD itself, the physical medium on which the movie is transmitted, would still be mine, exclusively; and the movie itself would still be owned by Twentieth Century Fox, but they would no longer exclusively possess the right to dictate to me (and others) how, when and under what circumstances that movie could be copied, performed and distributed. In this way ownership is perpetual, and copyright is not.
Hopefully, for the people who have stumbled across this blog post, this has helped you better understand some of the nuances between copyright and and software licenses. Please keep in mind though, that while I consider myself to be reasonably informed on these subjects, I am not a lawyer.
This blog post is owned by Byrne Reese and licensed under the Create Commons.
]]>In an effort to further everyone's understanding of the GPL, let me see if I can shed some light on what the GPL is and how it works.
The GPL governs ones rights to redistribute software using the GPL as a license.
The GPL gives me the right to take GPL code and redistribute it as is (provided that I also respect any related trademarks). For example, I can't take Firefox and redistribute it under the name "Firefox" since the name is a trademark owned by Mozilla and only they have the right to convey its name on software.
Believe it or not, the GPL also allows people to sell copies of GPL software. Most people don't understand this for one simple reason, "why buy the cow when I can get the milk for free." Selling GPL software just doesn't make sense in that regard. But it has been done very successfully. People used to sell Linux on CD - but the value of doing so was clear: at the time to download Linux could take days, so for many shelling out $29.95 for the 5 of so CDs was a huge convenience.
The GPL also says that you can take GPL software, and modify it and redistribute it as well. For example, Microsoft could take the OpenOffice suite, make tons of changes (under auspices of making it better) and then turn right around and sell it. --- There is a catch though, any change you make to GPL software AND also redistribute you must also make available under the same license. In other words, Microsoft would need to make any changes they made to Open Office freely available to others.
Note: the key here is "redistribution." Because the GPL governs distribution only, it means that I could, as an individual, take OpenOffice, make changes of my own that are TOTALLY AWESOME (naturally) and, provided that I never give a copy of that software to a friend or anyone else, I would never have to share my modifications.
Another Note: the above note is important because this is why it is reasonable and acceptable for someone to download a copy of WordPress, modify it, pay a consultant to modify it, add features to it, redesign it, etc, etc, etc. and never be compelled to share the mods they have made, or be compelled to open source anything else in their organization.
The GPL also says I can take a portion of code from a GPL program and include it in my own. For example, say I want to write a blogging platform in Perl. I have written most of the code myself, but I deem Movable Type's commenting system to be perfect. So I cut and paste large portions of it into my software. Under the GPL, this is equivalent to forming a derived work, and my new blogging platform is compelled to be GPL as well.
Now let's look at what makes the WordPress theme debate special:
The GPL defines something called a "derivative work." When I take Firefox, edit the source, recompile and redistribute it, that forms an obvious derivative work. All derivative works are bound by the terms of the GPL.
The GPL also defines a derivative work as a piece of software that runs in the same shared memory space as a GPL program. In layman's terms this means that if a piece of software, say a theme or plugin (even it is distributed separately from the another piece of GPL software), is designed to run in conjunction with GPL software, then the two of them, by virtue of sharing the same memory/process when they run form a derivative work, and thus, the theme/plugin is bound by the GPL.
Ok, why the debate?
Well, their is some ambiguity over what forms a derivative work. I believe this stems from the fact that most people don't understand technically the concept of "shared memory space." But I believe this FAQ answer from the FSF makes clear the intent of the licensor:
If a program released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the requirements for the licenses of a plug-in?
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed. (emphasis mine)
So, although the Free Software foundation states their belief that this forms a derivative work, their own language admits that it does not conclusively do so.
But Byrne, I still don't understand all this techno-mumbo-jumbo. Just tell me, why is there a debate?
Let's clarify one more thing that I have seen many people get confused about. The GPL is NOT law. It is just a contract between two parties. If those two parties have a dispute over the terms, or their interpretation of the contract, then it is up to a judge to resolve the dispute and assess damages.
What makes the GPL special with regards to contracts is that is a standardized one. Meaning tons of people have accepted and/or conveyed the license to others. So if a judge rendered a judgement that helped to resolve the ambiguity of what constitutes a derivative work, then just like that, we would have legal precedence to reinforce anyone else's claims contingent upon this definition.
Finally, let's suppose Matt does sue Chris Pearson, what could he actually get from Chris?
I do not personally think Matt can claim that he has suffered any damages (e.g. lost revenue) from Chris' distribution of a proprietary theme, so I don't think a law suit would result in any money changing hands. But Matt can ask a judge to compel him to comply with the license and force him, by way of a court order, to distribute his themes according to the terms of the GPL. That's it.
And that is my take on the GPL, especially with regards to themes. I have my opinion as to whether Chris should open source his themes, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter what I think because in my mind this amounts to nothing more than a contract dispute between Chris and Matt. So, have at it guys. Wait, let me get some popcorn.
Ok, now have at it.
]]>If this happened while I was riding the train, I think my head would explode in pure joy.
I completely agree.
(via Gothamist => /\/\/\/ => me - a friend who doesn't nearly blog this kind of stuff often enough, leaving me to do it for him)
]]>(via @orenjacob)
]]>(via Janice - thank you!)
]]>(via kottke of course)
]]>Watch an 8th month old hear his mother's voice for the first time thanks to cochlear implants.
(via plasticmind)
]]>There is no one quote I can think of off the top of my head that illustrates the power of the First Amendment, but there are many to chose from made by those who desperately fought Health Care Reform in this country. Each of these lies propagated by those of influence on the political right illustrate the power and importance of the First Amendment. A power best articulated in a quote from American President, a movie written by Aaron Sorkin:
Everybody knows American isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating, at the top of his lungs, that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free, then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest." Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free.
Update: I know this entry in the #1amend contest isn't eligible for a number of reasons, but I couldn't resist.
]]>Owned and operated by the "old media" outlet The Chicago Tribune, ChicagoNow drops traditional journalists and news reporting in favor of a large network of volunteer bloggers, all writing about the community, culture, politics, and everything else in the city of Chicago.
There is so much about this project I am proud of, but most of all it was the opportunity to work with such awesome people, from Tracy, Brent, Ryan, Muhammed, Alicia and so many more. Such awesome people are there for one simple reason: Bill Adee, a rare breed of manager who hires and recruits the best and the brightest and then does what so few other managers I have worked are willing or able to do: get out of their way.
When I think back upon what I built, some of the people I got to work with, like Jason Santa Maria, and what was accomplished in such a short period of time, I can honestly say it is one of my prouder moments.
Congrats and kudos to the entire ChicagoNow team!
]]>Brilliant advertising campaign for the Toyota Sienna Minivan. The humor and character of this campaign is almost enough to take away the stigma I would feel if we caved and got a minivan. Which I suppose is precisely the point.
(via @scryber)
]]>