"Data Rights Management" existed on mainframes in the 1980's (and probably before). On Michigan Terminal System, I could deny you access to any file that was not coming through a particular program. There was BOUL:MEETING, for instance, that had read/write/expand access to spew-files (as some people called them)--everything but rename|destroy access. People could use BOUL:MEETING to add to such files, and they could not write to the files directly (delete comments, for instance), nor could they modify what little personal information was stored in the file (the last message a particular user has read). People could not directly read the files, either. Lots of files on MTS could only be read by people while they were being $RUN: you could not see them through $DEBUG, for instance. The idea that "frm:" is a DRM *stub* came from Maryetta's answer: a doctor's intention in using it was to deny casual users of FRACTINT access to a formula. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paddy Duncan" <padski@padski.co.uk> To: "'Fractint and General Fractals Discussion'" <fractint@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 2:22 AM Subject: Re: [Fractint] What is the point of hiding a formula from FRACTINT?
Of course, and it was there before DRM existed......
-----Original Message----- From: fractint-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:fractint-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of david Sent: 11 May 2010 07:48 To: Fractint and General Fractals Discussion Subject: Re: [Fractint] What is the point of hiding a formula from FRACTINT?
Hmmm, as far as I know, Fractint uses frm: to indicate a formula contained as part of a parameter file? Not DRM or anything like that.
If I put a formula into a parameter file, then I am better off, that is I will experience more convenient access to that formula if I do not lead it with "frm:". If I lead it with "frm:", then I will not be able to see it from the t/formula/F6... selection menu.
Roger Alexander wrote:
On 2010-05-10 08:45, Jay Litwyn wrote:
All that I *was* talking about, Roger, is the "frm:" prefix. Apparently, it is a stub for "Data Rights Management", which is a theoretical, logistical, and practical pain. I would recommend that if a "frm:" prefix is there, then do not take it out. If it is not there, then write a creative commons license, instead. Without an explicit license, I think text in a list like this is CC-BY, for instance. In your case in particular, I think you are getting good enough that you might want to put -NC- (non-commercial) on your blog to ensure that people are not permitted to make money from your stuff -- uh...without your permission, which you could charge royalties for (if you did not lose them to your lawyer :-), and ignoring internet service fees. I would like to believe that things are "all rights reserved" on web pages by default, and I read something to the effect of "take it" on one of your blog pages
that
might over-ride that. I am no lawyer (IANL). That makes me happy.
A number ot thoughts. First that pesky frm: convention which has been around about as long as the mailing list. I don't know where it started but I do know where it is useful-very long posts. Suppose you had a long post analyzing a formula. To distinguish the formula being dissected versus the functional formula use the frm: designation. Voila no confusion. For a DRM method it is ridiculously feeble-place the cursor in the right place delete four characters and you've defeated the protection. As for repeating it with every mailing list post Jim Muth and I repeat the URL of websites where we upload the completed images with every post. A little bit about creative rights. I license my stuff under the Creative Commons attribution license-use the images for whatever you want, including derivative works, give me credit as the creator. Go to Flickr and search under people for Max Iter to see my stuff. I do this for two reasons. First I want my visitors to feel welcome. The images? Like 'em keep 'em. Secondly I am a law abiding citizen and the law of the land is Murphy's Law. The following reasoning applies to the world wide web not email or USENET. One core principle of the web is the concept of the link. You put up a page people can link
to it or its elements.
Theoretically, yes. Technically, you are not supposed to put images into your HTML (use someone's background, for example) without permission. Practically, foreign links to my images can also be disabled. In other words, if the HTTP-Referer is not a web page on my site, then my server could say 403 (forbidden). If someone did not ask (and I was looking around for infringement), I could also stop using an image file, myself, and replace it with "so and so is a thief". The message might display as said thief's own background for a few days. If someone was selling penis enlargment with one of my backgrounds, then I might actually do that!
You put something up, by the very nature of html structure you consent to having your information shared with everybody. Maybe. Or maybe I can reserve some rights. Anyway I take the pessimistic approach and accept the possibility everything I post on the web can be shared on the web.
David gnome@hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community