diqu
I think that's implied when a mainstream news outlet writes about it, and not some tech magazine.
> In general I think that the press and the general public only becomes aware of these things long after they have reached a dominant market position and are employed almost universally.
which seems evident, here. ARM becomes dominant -> Guardian writes about it -> the general public learns about it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_sleep_phase_disorder
You don't have to. When I first found out about the suckless project, it seemed completely inaccessible, due to the lack of in-depth documentation. After reading around a bit, it seems intentional. My impression was that suckless doesn't aim for quantity, but for quality, even among its userbase, hence the lack of documentation is an entry barrier, a minimum of technical literacy required to get in. Look at the source and you don't need a wiki. My gut reaction says, that's quite elitist - which itself is negatively connoted when everyone aims for widespread adoption and usability. In the end, I agree with this idea. Software is supposed to serve a purpose. It doesn't have to suit everyone. It can be for a selected few, and still be a great project. What changed my mind was that dwm doesn't use configuration files. I came from openbox and more than once broke the menu because of a syntax error in the xml-based config. In dwm, you change the source config and recompile. This way, any and all errors are returned to you, you can fix it and try again, without ever risking any configuration issues or breakages. They do the same with st, their terminal. I'm absolutely convinced by this approach.
If we leave the publishing-as-a-business area, I wonder how much university libraries currently pay annually for their subscriptions. And I do wonder, if it would make sense for universities to let their libraries take care of archiving and publishing the respective uni's publications. Open-access everything, host it at home.
Just to specify this, reddit for example started out in Lisp and moved to Python, eventually: http://www.redditblog.com/2005/12/on-lisp.html
To be honest, I don't think the copyright is the most important part here, but rather trademark laws, as another user noted here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10442882 since it'd be causing a disrupting confusion, IE making consumers believe they buy a product which they actually don't buy.
The problem with fair use is that it's ambigous. Only courts can declare fair use with authority; an artist claiming fair use for their work has no authority, in the sense that they can still get sued, and neither do their lawers hold defining authority about this aspect. This, effectively, creates a large legal gray zone. eevee is arguing from the perspective of a creator, and people seem to get a little worked up with elaborate, imaginary examples. The important part, though, is the idea behind the post, that being: Artists are subject to a lot of legal insecurity. Copyright is one of the most empowering and simulatanously most crippling insecurities. Remixes and DJ-sets on youtube and soundcloud, publishing street photography, creating fan art, as some examples. All of these are to a varying degree both legal and illegal, most importantly depending on your specific location. In my case, my country knows a case similar to fair use: if said bottle label was reproduced in a recognizable manner, and it was a major part of the work, it would be an infrigement. If it was a minor part (dubbed 'padding') of the art work, it's considered a sibling of US fair use. But only courts can decide either. And artists often aren't well-funded, hence avoid anything which might smell like a lawsuit, hence freedom of expression is hindered in a significant way, for no particular reason but lack of legal clarity. I'm just writing all this, because you seemed very emphatic in your view. But this is a really ambigious topic, which requires a lot of consideration and empathy on all sides. So I wanted to add a little perspective. /edit: not you, swhipple, but hn seemed very emphatic, while you, swhipple, seemed to recognize a need for clarity, so I wanted to add some perspective under your considerate opionion. Pardon my misaccredition. I didn't mean to sound rude or devalue your view as inconsiderate. Your "It isn't entirely binary. I support expanding fair use in ways that benefit the public while not hindering artists." made me chime in.
In case of actual still-lifes, the labels might bear illustrations or otherwise protected content, like fonts, distinct bootle designes, or trademarks. While the latter might be allowed under fair use, what about reproduced, if even only stylized, illustrations? Do you expect an artist to find the illustrator and pay a license fee, in order to sell their own work?
Also, fair use is a us-american practice and isn't applicable to copyright and similar concepts in general, as far as I'm aware.