Where are we heading to?

Some interesting stuff lately:

The "Portuguese version of Google Summer of Code" is "Sapo Summerbits", with its 2009 version already going on with 10 approved projects. From those, two are quite interesting to me:

• "Erro de Sistema" (translated to "System Error") is going to be an Open Source 3D Animation Short Movie ("open content film"), made entirely with Open Source and about Open Source. The script is already published, and the team is getting more contributors. Work on the storyboard and concept art has already started. The project will use Open Source tools like Celtx, Blender, Pencil, Debian, Ubuntu, Ardour, Audacity, LMMS, Transverso DAW, Gimp, Inkscape, Cinelerra, Kdenlive and Farmerjoe. The student behind this project is João Alberto, which you might recall as being one of the two guys who made the 3D Animation Short Movie "Playground", which I've talked about here in the past since its soundtrack was made using Merankorii tracks.
• "Portucale" is going to be a Real Time Strategy Game about the History of Portuguese Conquests. It will be written in "C/C++" (maybe a mixture of the two?) and Javascript for user interaction with the game's interface. It will use NASM, SDL, Boost, zlib, libpng, libxml2, OpenGL, OpenAL, libogg, libvorbis, cryptopp, wxWidgets, gamin, BFD, enet and DevIL. I think it will be a fork of 0 A.D..

Facebook bought Friendfeed, supposedly to get its staff into their R&D. This is a huge blow to Friendfeed users, which - it's easy to see - aren't happy with the decision. The biggest question is wether (or, in fact, when) Friendfeed will just be shutted down. Facebook isn't a replacement for almost every Friendfeed user: there are the few of us that simply refuse to have a Facebook account (I'm in this group, as you already know if you're a regular reader of this blog), but for the others there's still the simple fact that they are two really distinct web apps with really distinct communities. Not only Friendfeed isn't replaceable by Facebook in terms of features - something that Facebook people might want to change - but specially the two services have different purposes. So, people are already planning "the future", their jump. From people asking for good methods to backup all their Friendfeed data (including their social graph), to people asking Facebook to just make Friendfeed's code Open Source, or people actually looking into alternatives. I've been looking into those alternatives myself, and the most convincing one for me was Identoo.com, because it lets you do almost everything that Friendfeed does (until now I only missed the "Hide" functionality), adaptation and migration is more or less quick, and it is mobile-friendly (heck, here it is better than Friendfeed: instead of using a fftogo-like mobile portal, I can use Identoo's website in the mobile without problems). I didn't considered in my tests one fact that makes Identoo even better: Identoo is nothing more than an installation of the Open Source platform NoseRub (similar to what Identi.ca is to Laconi.ca), which means that the development of NoseRub (thus Identoo) is transparent, and we can actually affect where is it heading to (even if not with code, just by making bug reports, suggestions, feature requests and such). Is it as good as Friendfeed? No, but it can turn out to be as good or even better, and it is good enough for when Friendfeed dies (if you, like me, won't believe that Facebook would open source Friendfeed's code). When I heard about FB buying FF I was worried, now I'm relaxed about it.

The WTF moment: Microsoft was told it can't sell "Microsoft Word" on the United Stated while it still has the ability to open XML, DOCX or DOCM files that have "custom XML" (and also pay a fine), thanks to a patent infringement. Ridiculous, like every other patent case... Of course, this being Microsoft, and them having the money they have, they'll appeal and try to rule the patent as invalid. And they'll do it again and again until they manage to win. The bad news is that they still don't see patents as bad (how could they, when they use their own patents to try to scare their competition?), just invalid (like every other patent against them would be, and neither of those patents owned by Microsoft are, for sure).

The RealDVD case is finally over, the making DVD copies program is now illegal in the United States. Yes, people can make copies of their DVDs, but they can't invent a way of doing that copy, nor use a tool to make that exact copy. Am I the only one seeing this as obviously stupid?

And the final rant of the day: two guys were convicted in UK of refusing to decrypt data. These are, as far as I know, the first two victims of 2007's law that gives authorities the power to force people to unscramble their data. "Privacy? Rights? Pfft, we can't have those if we want to take down the terrorists!"

The new Facebook Terms of Service

Sorry about the lack of links in this blog post, its was written offline

So, Facebook fsck'd up, and then reverted to the old Terms of Service. I'm glad to see that wasn't enough, since lots of people actually ended up reading the previous Terms of Service, that were already bad enough.

The most offending - for me at least - on any version of Facebook's TOS was the "blank contract" clause, a clause unfortunately seen in lot's of Terms of Services, and that basicly say "you're agreeing with this but you shouldn't even bother reading this stuff, because we can change it whenever we like and you automaticly signed the new terms".

Fortunately, it seems, a new set of terms is being drafted and scheduled to replace the old ones by the 29th of March. Now in a phase of discussion (with their users only, so those who don't have a Facebook account because they don't agree with the actual terms - probably the most critics about them - don't have much chance of voice their worries about the new Terms), this terms (until further re-draft, which might happen thanks to the comments being submited by Facebook users) replace the previous "blank contract" clause with this:

12.1 We can change this Statement so long as we provide you notice through Facebook (unless you opt-out of such notice) and an opportunity to comment

12.2 [...] we'll give you a minimum of seven days notice

Unfortunately, I still think this is hardly acceptable. You are warned about the new terms in the service, and if you don't act in seven days, even if you didn't read your Facebook messages in that period, you are automaticly accepting the new Terms.

With this, further discussion about other items is more or less irrelevant, since even if all the rest is acceptable, there's no warranty that one month after you sign it, the Terms are still the same. Remember: this isn't acceptable in any "paper contract" you sign, how come should it be acceptable in an online contract?

Anyway, let me highlight some other items in that Terms that should worry you...

2.3 For content that is covered by intellectual property rights (like photos and videos), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub.licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of ("use") any content you post on or in connection with Facebook

3.2 You will not collect users' information, or otherwise access Facebook, using automated means (such as harvesting bots, robots, spiders, or scapers) without our permission

4.5 You will keep your contact information accurate and up-to-date

5.6 You will not use our copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook, the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Face, Poke, Wall and 32665) without our written permission

6.2 In the event you change or deactivate your mobile telephone number, you will promptly update your account information on Facebook to ensure that your messages are not sent to the person who acquires your old number

Sorry Facebook, to get me as an user, you still have a lot of work to do.

Update

I know, I know... I've been quite lazy lately regarding this blog, and have been posting mere links instead of proper blog posts. Sorry, but that isn't going to change soon. On the other hand, I'll try to explore a bit more the story behind each of those links.

One of thinks that I tell a lot regarding iPod's and the iPhone is that, while I understand that some people don't see any problem at all with having a device that will only work in a certain setup and under certain circumstances, I don't see myself getting a music player or a cellphone that would force me to use a certain program, Operating System or stuff like that. I mean, if it was a technological issue... but it isn't! Any music player can be designed to work just like any other USB device, be USB mountable and work as an USB disk and at the same time play its files. That will make it work in any operating system, in any piece of software. Now, iPod's or iPhones... Fred Emmott wrote an HOWTO [1] on how to make your iPod Touch or iPhone (and, I guess, later iStuff) work with Amarok. While I think it is awsome that he had the work of writting it, the biggest value of this HOWTO is just to prove my point: why the hell should a buyer have to do all that mess to make the piece of hardware they bought work?

Last100 also talks about the iPhone, but regarding the mobile web [2]. It doesn't bring as nothing really new, but it's quite a good overview of what's the state of "mobile web", a term that I don't really like: we're not really talking about something called "mobile web", only about "the web" as viewed in mobile devices... My question regarding these matters is: the biggest problem with the adoption of mobile devices as web clients is the services or the devices? In other words: if you don't use your mobile devices as web terminals, is it because your service isn't as good as you wanted to (bandwith, price, ...) or is it because your device isn't really fit for the job? (keyboard and screen limitations, usability, ...)

While we're walking towards a more digital future, the record industry simply does not get it. One great example of that was given yesterday, when Doug Morris, Universal Music CEO, admited he knows nothing about the music industry of nowadays [3]. The article is called "Universal Music CEO Doug Morris Speaks, Recording Industry in Even Deeper Shit Than We Thought", and the title says it all.

In the same veign of digital weirdness, we still have the ODF x OOXML war. An e-book is being written about the whole issue, so you might be interested in reading it [4].

Finaly, the new trend in social networks: Facebook. If you're a regular reader of this blog you already know by now that I don't like it nor its privacy policies so I decided to suspend my account. Also, you'll notice that there's a lot of fuss lately regarding facebook's privacy issues. TechCrunch tells us that the privacy issues will continue [5], but in Mashable we have an article about what's happening to Facebook business-wise [6]. But the most important thing about this, in my oppinion, came from Cory Doctorow, that tells us not only why is FaceBook going to die but also all the other (generic?) social networks [7]. It's a social issue, really: as Pedro Custodio said in his presentation at the Web 2.0 Expo Berlin, we're kind of afraid of refusing "friend invites" from people we don't really consider friends... Of course that this is something easily fixed, but they must think about the issue first, and I don't see them doing such.

Oh, today is the release date for the new book Exodus to the Virtual World: How Online Fun Is Changing Reality" [8], which I'm probably going to buy as soon as a paperback edition comes out. The author says this about the book [9]:

I try to project the medium-term impact of virtual worlds on daily life in the real world, especially in regards to politics and policy. To make projections, I rely on the history of human migration: knowing in general what happens when people migrate, we can forecast what?s going to happen as people migrate to virtual worlds. To explain why many will migrate, I propose a psycho-physiological theory of fun. Then I argue that the people who design virtual worlds are actually doing public policy. As such, their innovations will bleed over into real-world policy-making. You get some odd outcomes when you suggest that real world governments will try to please citizens raised in virtual world policy environments: things like zero economic growth, huge estate taxes, and full-employment economies, all at once. Bottom line: big political change is coming.

[1] - http://www.fredemmott.co.uk/blog_121
[2] - http://smallr.net/mobile-web
[3] - http://smallr.net/DougMorris112007
[4] - http://smallr.net/war-of-the-words
[5] - http://smallr.net/facebook-privacy
[6] - http://smallr.net/facebook-business
[7] - http://smallr.net/facebook-death
[8] - http://smallr.net/exodus-virtual-world
[9] - http://smallr.net/about-exodus-vw

Links for today

Another round of links...

http://www.worldsinmotion.biz/2007/09/agdc_biowares_gordon_walton_gi.php
Lessons we can take from the WoW success

http://mashable.com/2007/11/21/holiday-facebook-functionality-updates/
More facebook privacy issues

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_moveon_beacon_privacy.php
More facebook privacy issues, part II

http://lmms.sourceforge.net/home.php
Yet another open source tool to produce music. It looks cool, and I installed it, so I expect to give it a try this weekend or so...

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/21/chris-collins-from-linden-lab-stability-is-the-key/
Interview to Linden Labs about the future of Second Life. Hot points: they aim to open up everything; they'll introduce more registration requirements; they're working on the best way of implementing verification that is inclusive of all legitimate signups no matter where users live (forget anonymity :-( )

http://secondliferesearch.blogspot.com/2007/11/second-lifes-virtual-potential-is-real.html
The second life potencial is real... Now let's see people using it, shall we?

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3898293
Making Second Life more like real life

So Long, Facebook

I just deactivated my Facebook account. Thanks Armando: http://www.asourceofinspiration.com/2007/10/25/scared-of-facebook/

Another Facebook lawsuit

While I have a Facebook account (don't we all?), I really don't like Facebook. I was (am?) intending to write about it for a while now, but until then I can leave the issue by just saying that I generaly agree with Fred's opinion about Facebook.

But not liking Facebook, nor the hype around it, doesn't mean that I think that something bad happens to them - as a matter of fact I wish them good luck, and it seems that they'll need it. They're already facing a lawsuit, which I think they'll manage to win, but now there are news about another lawsuit, about a patent infringement. Well, they are really infringing the patent in question, like any other social network, I might add. I find odd how did this guys got this patent, there is obviously prior art. See, we're talking about a software patent, bad by definition, that basicly say that this guys own the idea of «social networks built around communities of users with “common interests.”».

Do you need more proof that software patents are silly? Facebook, I wish you good luck.