Slashdot Mirror

Oh, to reply to my own message, here are some interesting and worthwhile links related to GCC performance:

• NullStone compiler optimization benchmarks. On this page, they give some comparisons between GCC and some other compilers.
• The Stepanov Benchmark page at KAI. The Stepanov Benchmark measures C++ abstraction penalty. GCC sucks wind on this one (as do most C++ compilers), whereas Apples MrC compiler slices through the abstraction and gets a "perfect score" (eg. no penalty).
• The GCC site contains many interesting tidbits, some of which I mentioned above. For instance, news on the Sparc backend details some of the issues I described above. Note, although that rewrite occurred in late 1998, I still see the older backend's behavior in gcc 2.8.1, which is what we have at work.
• Slashdot's story on the Compaq Alpha compiler. Some good data down in the comments.

Oh, to reply to my own message, here are some interesting and worthwhile links related to GCC performance:

• NullStone compiler optimization benchmarks. On this page, they give some comparisons between GCC and some other compilers.
• The Stepanov Benchmark page at KAI. The Stepanov Benchmark measures C++ abstraction penalty. GCC sucks wind on this one (as do most C++ compilers), whereas Apples MrC compiler slices through the abstraction and gets a "perfect score" (eg. no penalty).
• The GCC site contains many interesting tidbits, some of which I mentioned above. For instance, news on the Sparc backend details some of the issues I described above. Note, although that rewrite occurred in late 1998, I still see the older backend's behavior in gcc 2.8.1, which is what we have at work.
• Slashdot's story on the Compaq Alpha compiler. Some good data down in the comments.

Open source ERP has many advantages, despite the arguments to the contrary. I am an ERP consultant, and am aware of some of the difficulties in implementing ERP solutions.

The benefits of Open Source ERP are somewhat different than those of other open source software. Most of the proprietary ERPs come with source code, so availability of source is not the main factor. Though cost could be a factor, the cost of purchasing an ERP is significantly smaller compared to the implementation cost.

So any new ERP should be focussing on reducing the implementation costs and this is where open source comes into picture.

An ERP system is *huge*. It tries to generalise all operations of various different companies into a single package. In traditional ERP packages, all these operational areas (aka, modules) are tightly integrated. So upgrading an ERP to a newer version is as painful as the initial implementation. Some ERP companies discontinue support on older versions thus forcing you to upgrade or live with all the problems. Even though the source is available, it may not be possible for every company to maintain these software without proper vendor support.

With an Open Source ERP system, it would be possible to build it fully modular, so that you can purchase different modules from different vendors, but still the system will work coherantly. It would also be cheaper for smaller companies to implement since the competition in the consultant market will drive the prices down. It will also make consultant's life easier, since he can share his work with others and benefit more from the other experience.

This is the idea behind the new GNU Enterprise project which is still in early stages of planning.

Anyway, I don't think open sourcing Baan or any other properietary ERP is a very good idea. This will still have vendor dependancy and none of those were designed for a open source style collaborative development.

-Sivaraj

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details

Here is the license and from a previous discussion, some of my analysis.

However when it comes to warranties, I am somewhat concerned. Term 5 explicitly says that you can use the software without accepting the license. Terms 11 and 12 are the disclaimer. What happens if Joe random user uses Linux, loses data because of a kernel bug, and then sues Linus saying that he had used the software but never agreed to the GPL as is his right (see term 5) and therefore had never accepted that Linus is not liable for any loss of data and business on his part!

What next?

Regards,
Ben

IANAL but when I read it closely the GPL seems to be an offer on the part of the copyright holder of a contract under which people are allowed to redistribute it. (Something that they would otherwise not have the right to do.) If the copyright holder later did something that lost them their copyright you might have a right to sue them for not maintaining their end of an offered contract, but you have no copyright on the code and hence no right to permit the code to be given away.

At least that is the way I read it.

In support of that view look at the terms:

Term 0: The license only applies if the Copyright Holder gives permission. By aquiring the code you do not become copyright holder.

Term 1: Permission is granted to redistribute verbatim copies. No copyright is transferred.

Term 2: You are granted the right to make modifications if you meet specific conditions. These modifications would leave the copyright intertwined. I would guess that at this point for the original copyright owner to give away control of the copyright would be a contract conflict.

Term 3: Distribution rights. Again no transfer of copyright here.

Term 4: You may not request any other distribution terms. (Question relevant to Perl. If foo accepts Perl under the GPL, are they *bar*ed from distributing under the original terms? Looks like it!)

Term 5: A reminder that copyright law prevents you from redistributing if you do not negotiate a license with the copyright holder.

Term 6: A note that you have no obligations for the actions of the people that you distribute to. Obviously true since your contract is with the copyright holder(s). They must likewise seek a license with the copyright holder(s) and that is then a matter between the copyright holder and them.

Term 7: Basically outlines in detail the consequences of term 4. If you have no right to distribute except as the license allows, and you are unable to meet the license, then you cannot distribute.

Term 8: Affirms that the copyright holder may add terms regarding geography if there are likely to be enforcement problems of the license in those countries.

Term 9: Outlines FSF policy, and outlines out the consequence of accepting the statement that the FSF asks people to use.

Term 10: An explicit reminder of the rights of the copyright holder to negotiate different distribution terms at their will.

Terms 11, 12: The usual disclaimer in lieu of warranty that we know and love in software.

So it seems pretty clear to me. The license is an offered contract with the copyright holder. Should the copyright holder give up copyright then they are in serious danger of breaching their end of the offered contract. But that doesn't give you any rights to the software.

Regards,
Ben

PS Again, IANAL but I am pretty convinced of this line of reasoning.

--

http://howto.ewtoo.org/show.cgi? howto=autoconf.txt. It's not bad, but it doesn't go too in-depth. I found it enough to get started with though.

Also the user manual for autoconf, at http://www.gnu.org/manual/autoconf-2.13 is very good, once you are a little more familiar with the tools.

The original poster asks: This report in Upside Today suggests that big software companies are attracted by the "gated community" model - unsurprisingly as it seems to be classic "help us debug our software and we'll keep the copyright, thanks". Upside (in my opinion, naively) presumes that because this idea is attractive to software companies, who will invest in it, it's obviously going to take off. But is this likely? Who works for gated community projects, and why?

Right to the top of my head people that work for gated community projects are a.) the Blackdown folk who are porting Java to Linux, b.) the people who contribute to Mozilla which will have proprietary extensions added to it as AOL's default browser and c.) anyone who has ever released code under the BSD license (which can be seen as gated community development since the code can be closed by third parties). Your questions seems to smack of someone who equates open source with the GPL. Remember ESR's Cathedra l and the Bazaar, many developers write open source code to scratch an itch and note necessarily to further the ideal of Free Software. After all this is why the Blackdown developers work on Java, they like the language and want a port for it on Linux, and whoever copyrights the software is not a concern as long as they get a quality port of Java to Linux. Frankly, I would place myself as someone who'd work on a gated community program, simply because I'd contribute patches to proprietary code and not care if the became GPL afterwards or not. E.g. I use Visual Studio (as well as Emacs) to develop code, sometimes Intellisense (the drop down box and tooltips that show function arguments, comments and class members while editing code) sometimes freezes up on me and goes away. If I somehow get at the code and patch this I would, and frankly I wouldn't feel that a requirement for my patch to be accepted be that MSFT GPL a few million lines of code that took them years to develop. Also if I did this my itch would be scratched.

The original poster also asked: If it's just for the "bounty" isn't this just programmers working as contractors? Surely for there to be any special open source goodness, these projects must attract collaboration over and above that which is payed for. But are they? And why should I contribute to a gated community rather than a true open source one?

Hmmmm, exactly what does special Open Source goodness mean? I doubt that everyone who has ever contributed a patch or reported a bug has done this out of an altruistic pursuit of goodness. Frankly, software is simply a tool to get a job done and for most software developers that's as far as it goes. So if one had a choice between improving an established product that one uses so as to make it better and getting paid to do it or creating a competing product in one's free time while working at a reqular job...which would the average software developer choose?

big business can innovate and often does a damn better job than what comes out of somebody's garage

Yes, Bill Gates put it best:

"The royalty paid to us, the manual, the tape and the overhead make it a break-even operation. One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software available to hobbyists. Most directly, the thing you do is theft."

After all, who would spend THREE WHOLE MAN YEARS developing software. Free software could never put that much work into programming, bug finding, or documenting, and distributing for free hobbyist (free) software.

linux isn't even a true Unix

Being not a true UNIX® system lets the GNU system (the system that runs on the Linux® kernel) be both good and free; UNIX system vendors have to pay royalties.

a great way to code a new kernel is to look at other, open-source kernels. Also, learn assembly if you don't know it already. It is a low-level language so you get a feel for the architecture, and the concepts in assembly are definitely needed in kernel development.

...but then, I'm using Java (at home: OpenGL)...or I might use CodeWarrior on my iMac.

Some people may not be this lucky.

...but then, I'm using Java (at home: OpenGL)...or I might use CodeWarrior on my iMac.

Some people may not be this lucky.

More so, if something seems broken, you find out what it is, and you can fix it once and for all, whatever it may be: you have the source code to everything. What developer would want to use a platform that restricts her freedom to do this? For more information see GNU.

Jan.

PS: What I really don't understand is, if you're a developer, why not simply give Linux a try (or, why haven't you still given it a try, for that matter)?

No, Stallman releasing his version of Happy Birthday would be a very Bad Thing. Listen to his Free Software Song, available from http://www.gnu.org/music/free-soft ware-song.html and you will agree that the world is not yet ready for his unique vocal talents. And the less said about his lyrics, the better...

Cheers,

Matt

The G is supposed to be pronounced. Check out the explanation from the GNU Manifesto:

To avoid horrible confusion, please pronounce the `G' in the word `GNU' when it is the name of this project.

I assume that the main confusion that is supposed to be avoided is with the word "new", not with the animal. ("Have you heard of the new project?")

--

Well I, for one, am running it in part because it works on multiple platforms. I may be on x86, but that does not mean that I don't care whether or not it runs on Alphas, PPCs, and SPARCs. Everything from GNU does and frankly I don't see why anyone should settle for less.

I am using the GNU definition, which is the correct one. Read this page and see which catagory QT fits into.

How does FUD like this get moderated up? The FSF/GNU recognises the freeness of other licenses. Before you go putting words in their mouth, Why not see what they have to say at www.gnu.org?

There is nothing wrong with having what license you want. The problem comes when you violate the GPL. KDE violates the GPL and as such, works against the efforts of the people who have tried to create GPL'd software. How would you like someone else subverting your work?

If you create a software package, use the license you wish. If you want to call it Open Source, or Free Software, there are some basic guidelines, but this is only to create standards that reduce confusion in the market.

Even ESR agrees, IIRC that there are situations that call for other licenses. However it would all be better, IMHO if we just used GPL. Nevertheless, using a different license will not cause you to be boycotted. Do you see GNU calling for an end to Perl, Mozilla, and any number of other non-GPL'ed yet quite free projects?

How does FUD like this get moderated up? The FSF/GNU recognises the freeness of other licenses. Before you go putting words in their mouth, Why not see what they have to say at www.gnu.org?

There is nothing wrong with having what license you want. The problem comes when you violate the GPL. KDE violates the GPL and as such, works against the efforts of the people who have tried to create GPL'd software. How would you like someone else subverting your work?

If you create a software package, use the license you wish. If you want to call it Open Source, or Free Software, there are some basic guidelines, but this is only to create standards that reduce confusion in the market.

Even ESR agrees, IIRC that there are situations that call for other licenses. However it would all be better, IMHO if we just used GPL. Nevertheless, using a different license will not cause you to be boycotted. Do you see GNU calling for an end to Perl, Mozilla, and any number of other non-GPL'ed yet quite free projects?

From Gnu.org:

The Mozilla Public License (MPL).
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the MPL for this reason.

Note that "cannot legally be linked together" part. That certainly sounds like you cannot have a Mozilla renderer in a GPL app. I don't keep up with GNOME to know if they do use it. But I have seen it said here many, many times (ie with each milestone release or KDE release), "Why are KDE people making their own HTML rendering engine? Just use Mozilla, no duplication of effort, etc." To me, this would be a fine reason.

But sdram has been produced for years with no lawsuits or harrasment from Rambus.

And GIFs were created in 1987 (hence the 87a version). But Unisys didn't start defending their LZW patent until 1995, when the format was well established.

Unless the development stalls BECAUSE it must remain free... the special case that GPL boosters always skip.

Well, because it is free (as in speech; see the GNU site), any user can modify it. Thus, development need never stall, because, since every use has the right to see the source code, and the right to modify it and incorporate it in other GPL software packages, development should never stall.

In other words, it is really owned by the community. Worst-case scenario: the company does nothing with it. Then, hackers across the globe will say, "Hey, what a cool program!" and pick it up and submit patches.

Then, everyone benefits. This is the true power of the GNU General Public License.

Have you ever heard of a thing known as "kernel" and that is needed by Lilo, Grub, Loadlin or whatever to boot a computer ? Btw, do you know what Linux really is ? A kernel. Just a kernel. What we call Linux is in fact the Linux kernel, plus the GNU tools, plus everything that you you want and can run on it, like KDE for example.

A word of advice: if you have enough room on your harddrive, let KDE and GNOME together. They can cohabit peacefully, and this way, if you want to use a KApplication under GNOME, or vice-versa, you can, because you have all required library.
Better to have something we don't need than to need something we don't have.

I beg to differ. The true father of the Open Source Revolution is none other than Richard M. Stallman. ers is nothing but an outcast, a reject, with inferiority syndromes because his contributions were not of high enough quality to be included in the allmighty emacs .

OSS programmers make fewer, if any, mistakes than their commerical counterparts, and scientific studies have backed this up.

Agreed. Only I would have chosen the British spelling: commercial.

Fetchmail is a very sucessful Open Source Projects which from Eric S. Raymond. I use it all the time.

But isn't emacs a much better example? It allows you not only to fetch mail, but to read it as well. Furthermore it allows you to read news, compile and even execute programs, play games and it is self documenting too! I hope you see the error of your ways and are more careful in the future when choosing who you listen to.

I'm just hoping they'll become interested in NetBSD!

Aha! Another indication of your ignorance, although I do not blame you. You have clearly been misguided by that blasphemous esr.

As the wonderful Richard M. Stallman says here NetBSD has numerous problems with its license, including even advertising clauses! Well, so much for Open Source Software.

Thank you.

I compile new kernels frequently (two yesterday, one today so far) and I don't like running LILO every time I want to use a new kernel.

Use GRUB instead.

This quote is from one of the texts on the GNU webpage:

We can also see why the abstractness of intellectual property is not the crucial factor. Other forms of abstract property represent shares of something. Copying any kind of share is intrinsically a zero-sum activity; the person who copies benefits only by taking wealth away from everyone else...By contrast, copying useful, enlightening or entertaining information for a friend makes the world happier and better off; it benefits the friend, and inherently hurts no one. It is a constructive activity that strengthens social bonds.

N.B. I don't want to sound like I want artists to just be screwed--they do need to be compensated for their work, but (ab)using the current copyright laws to do that doesn't fit anymore.

slashdot probably ran this a few months ago, but it's always a good laugh:

http://www.gnu.org/fun/humor.html

Having worked on a VAX/VMS for two courses, my favorite one is The Varorcist :)

(After a few hours/days of work and a few cups of coffee, who needs easter eggs to start laughing at your computer/operating system/software?)

slashdot probably ran this a few months ago, but it's always a good laugh:

http://www.gnu.org/fun/humor.html

Having worked on a VAX/VMS for two courses, my favorite one is The Varorcist :)

(After a few hours/days of work and a few cups of coffee, who needs easter eggs to start laughing at your computer/operating system/software?)

You underestimate me, sir!

It was never my intention to imply that you were unfamilar with the difference between the LGPL and the GPL. I posted more for general information sake. At the same time, I felt a finer brush was needed on the issue of acceptabillity of using either license for GNU libraries in combination with commercial software. This distinction seems to confuse many people.

This has to be the most reasonable exchange I have seen on Slashdot in a long time.

Cheers,

Broody

You underestimate me, sir!

It was never my intention to imply that you were unfamilar with the difference between the LGPL and the GPL. I posted more for general information sake. At the same time, I felt a finer brush was needed on the issue of acceptabillity of using either license for GNU libraries in combination with commercial software. This distinction seems to confuse many people.

This has to be the most reasonable exchange I have seen on Slashdot in a long time.

Cheers,

Broody

Macro: int ED
The experienced user will know what is wrong.

Macro: int EGREGIOUS
You did what?

Macro: int EIEIO
Go home and have a glass of warm, dairy-fresh milk.

Macro: int EGRATUITOUS
This error code has no purpose.

If you want to use a GPLed library to save yourself the trouble of rewriting it, then do so

I would consider the above suggestion ill advised because of the following:

"The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One is the GNU Library GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice of license makes a big difference: using the Library GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs."

No offense intended, just information.

Broody

Hm, biometric identification to ``protect'' intellectual property. Is anyone reminded of The Right To Read?

4.5: If you attempt to type your password into a non-free, closed-source biometric identification system, you have to listen the god-awful free software song.

;-)
seanmeister

To get the copyright, you'd have to have the copyright holder (either the programmer's estate or the company) assign it to you. It might be easier to just have them assign it to the FSF. Then you, and we, can simply maintain it.

To get the copyright, you'd have to have the copyright holder (either the programmer's estate or the company) assign it to you. It might be easier to just have them assign it to the FSF. Then you, and we, can simply maintain it.

The Authors Note of Richard Stallman's 'The Right to Read'> (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html)
lists a license agreement of a Chicago university. Although I have not myself seen this agreement, I believe Mr. Stallman that it was in force then. Now? Who knows. One thing is certain though - my university could have had one much the same...


The following text is a direct quote of the Author's note
-------------------------
...For example, a computer at one Chicago-area university prints this message when you log in (quotation marks are in the original):

"This system is for the use of authorized users only. Individuals using this computer system without authority or in the excess of their authority are subject to having all their activities on this system monitored and recorded by system personnel. In the course of monitoring individuals improperly using this system or in the course of system maintenance, the activities of authorized user may also be monitored. Anyone using this system expressly consents to such monitoring and is advised that if such monitoring reveals possible evidence of illegal activity or violation of University regulations system personnel may provide the evidence of such monitoring to University authorities and/or law enforcement officials." This is an interesting approach to the Fourth Amendment: pressure most everyone to agree, in advance, to waive their rights under it.
-------------------

The Authors Note of Richard Stallman's 'The Right to Read'> (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html)
lists a license agreement of a Chicago university. Although I have not myself seen this agreement, I believe Mr. Stallman that it was in force then. Now? Who knows. One thing is certain though - my university could have had one much the same...


The following text is a direct quote of the Author's note
-------------------------
...For example, a computer at one Chicago-area university prints this message when you log in (quotation marks are in the original):

"This system is for the use of authorized users only. Individuals using this computer system without authority or in the excess of their authority are subject to having all their activities on this system monitored and recorded by system personnel. In the course of monitoring individuals improperly using this system or in the course of system maintenance, the activities of authorized user may also be monitored. Anyone using this system expressly consents to such monitoring and is advised that if such monitoring reveals possible evidence of illegal activity or violation of University regulations system personnel may provide the evidence of such monitoring to University authorities and/or law enforcement officials." This is an interesting approach to the Fourth Amendment: pressure most everyone to agree, in advance, to waive their rights under it.
-------------------

I personally like the GPL and LGPL better than the BSD license, because it prevents people from usurping the popularity of your software, by adding features that they only available in their binary distribution, but BSD licensed source code is definitely the easiest to use without worrying about legal implications.

I personally like the GPL and LGPL better than the BSD license, because it prevents people from usurping the popularity of your software, by adding features that they only available in their binary distribution, but BSD licensed source code is definitely the easiest to use without worrying about legal implications.

The only thing that's unusual is that one is required to provide bell labs with changes, but only at their request.

Smacks of APSL (I'd provide a link but Apple's server is down), a license RMS hates because he claims it "disrespect[s] ... privacy."

I make my living off an intelectual property I produce. But I'm against all this stuff going for 'protection of intelectual property'. Because it is not protecting MY rights. Itis protecting only the rights of those who employ me and make big bucks on my work. Sure, they pay me so much that I won't leave. But where I would leave to ? Another place where I will be only a producer of intelectual merchandise ?

Of course, i can become a conslutant (this is not a typo). A mercenary. A shadowrunner in corporate world. Be free and hope to find the next contract to pay my bills. Using illegal tricks (I work in network security and it is starting to be illegal to posess breakin tools (i.e. a portscanner - a basic tool in this trade)). With this, I see no difference between current situation and Shadowrun (though I prefer Delta Green.

Alex
--

...the open source community isn't building back doors into its software to aggressively hunt down copyright pirates that violate the privacy and security of every user. I just wonder how far off we are from a law that will effectively outlaw open source software in its current state... From there, how many more steps are there to Stallman's dystopia in The Right to Read? Our philosophies play a greater role in a greater number of our everyday decisions than most people realize...

The main argument for the term ``open source software'' is that ``free software'' makes some people uneasy. That's true: talking about freedom, about ethical issues, about responsibilities as well as convenience, is asking people to think about things they might rather ignore... It does not follow that society would be better off if we stop talking about these things...

[Some software] companies actively try to lead the public to lump all their activities together [really free software and deceptively-not-free software]; they want us to regard their non-free software as favorably as we would regard a real contribution, although it is not one. They present themselves as ``open source companies,'' hoping that we will get a warm fuzzy feeling about them, and that we will be fuzzy-minded in applying it.

...the open source community isn't building back doors into its software to aggressively hunt down copyright pirates that violate the privacy and security of every user. I just wonder how far off we are from a law that will effectively outlaw open source software in its current state... From there, how many more steps are there to Stallman's dystopia in The Right to Read? Our philosophies play a greater role in a greater number of our everyday decisions than most people realize...

The main argument for the term ``open source software'' is that ``free software'' makes some people uneasy. That's true: talking about freedom, about ethical issues, about responsibilities as well as convenience, is asking people to think about things they might rather ignore... It does not follow that society would be better off if we stop talking about these things...

[Some software] companies actively try to lead the public to lump all their activities together [really free software and deceptively-not-free software]; they want us to regard their non-free software as favorably as we would regard a real contribution, although it is not one. They present themselves as ``open source companies,'' hoping that we will get a warm fuzzy feeling about them, and that we will be fuzzy-minded in applying it.

One of the reasons that I use open source software is because it is a declaration of personal ownership and control of my computer and my data. There is nothing on my computer with a license that would permit anyone to revoke my use of the tools that access my data. The licenses state that I have all the rights that I associate with owning a copy of the software, and more. Furthermore, the open source community isn't building back doors into its software to aggressively hunt down copyright pirates that violate the privacy and security of every user.

I just wonder how far off we are from a law that will effectively outlaw open source software in its current state. When will we have a law that mandates back doors for law enforcement? That law will undoubtedly prohibit removal of the back door. From there, how many more steps are there to Stallman's dystopia in The Right to Read?

Our philosophies play a greater role in a greater number of our everyday decisions than most people realize. Simson Garfinkel argues at the end of his book Database Nation: The Death of Privacy at the End of the 21st Century that technology is not ethically neutral. It is easier to ignore concerns of privacy, or to waive them aside in favor of particular narrow interests than it is to consistently favor privacy and security.

Remember, any code you write can and will be used against you.

Remember that UCITA applies to software-hardware combinations as well, so your next PC might have a license agreement applying to the hardware.

I am slowly losing hope for the future, save for free software. I remember being aware of the problems with shrinkwrap licenses more than a year or so back, and thinking to myself, "This is trash; the courts will eventually throw out such licensing.". But on the contrary, things have gotten worse. UCITA has become law in several states. Courts have upheld these licenses (ok, so the linked article talks about a specific contract and not mass-market licenses, but hey, the EULAs are also specific contracts, if Big Company will have its way).

It is deja vu time. I get this feeling that hardware, software, cars, telephones, you-name-it-what-not will all be licensed in the future. Nothing will ever be sold. Except your soul. And Big Company would have found the perfect way to screw copyright law, and you.

Sreeram.
----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but didn't Windows and Office each hold monopoly positions for their products? Do we not now have two companies, each with a monopoly in their realm?

I suppose that if the OS & App companies can't collude, then that opens things up for competitors in both fields, eventually... but I liked RMS's suggestions better than this.

---