Slashdot Mirror
OSI Launches Certification Program With Logo
Lao-Tzu writes "The Open Source Initiative has launched an OSI certification program. The OSI has trademarked a logo looking like a keyhole for their use as a graphical certification mark. Python.org is the first website to carry the new OSI logo." One might ask what took so long.
Away with you! all of you!
begonE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111
Yet another first post YOU can claim.
Just add a good quality straight pr0n story as a reply, and its all yours!!
Quality straight pr0n goes here
Word out to my dead troll homies, and bardmount.
Because 18 seconds is just a bit less than 20. Shit on a stick.
Is it good, or is it whack?
Gene Kan dead at 25
A logo. Wow. You all kick ass.
Cunning linguists
iron sights on a rifle to me... billg watch out!
Don't mean to be a naysayer, but I'm not sure using Logo in a certification program is such a spiffy idea. How hard it is to move that turtle around, really? ;)
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
...Certification program with Logo
Hey, I know logo, it's the language where you draw with a turtle. At last I can be a Certified IT worker!
Kilroy was here!
Looks pretty sexually explicit to me!
One might ask what took so long.
One might ask what it took so long for Slashdot to mention it - it's been on the Python home page for quite a while.
The plural of Logo is Logo, not Logos.
One might equally ask why it took you guys a whole month to note the launch of this certification mark...
At least they're fucking better than FreeBSD, Which has NO LOGO . . . fucking lamers. No wonder BSD is dying.
-- La1d, killed by a newt, while helpless.
How to Remove Linux and Install Windows XP (Q314458)
/dev/sda1 * 1 500 4016218 83 Linux native (SCSI hard drive 1, partition 1) /dev/sda2 501 522 176715 82 Linux swap (SCSI hard drive 1, partition 2) /dev/sda1 * 1 500 4016218 83 Linux native (SCSI hard drive 1, partition 1) /dev/sda2 501 522 176715 82 Linux swap (SCSI hard drive 1, partition 2) /dev/sdb1 1 500 4016218 83 Linux native (SCSI hard drive 2, partition 1) /dev/hda1 * 1 500 4016218 83 Linux native (IDE hard drive 1, partition 1) /dev/hda2 501 522 176715 82 Linux swap (IDE hard drive 1, partition 2) /dev/hda1 * 1 500 4016218 83 Linux native (IDE hard drive 1, partition 1) /dev/hda2 501 522 176715 82 Linux swap (IDE hard drive 1, partition 2) /dev/hdb1 1 500 4016218 83 Linux native (IDE hard drive 2, partition 1)
d mi nistration/management/mltiboot.asp
The information in this article applies to:
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
For a Microsoft Windows 2000 version of this article, see Q247804 .
SUMMARY
This article explains how to remove the Linux operating system from your computer and install Windows XP. This article assumes that Linux is already installed on your computer's hard disk, that Linux native and Linux swap partitions are in use (which are incompatible with Windows XP), and that there is no free space left on the hard disk.
NOTE : Windows XP and Linux can coexist on the same computer. For additional information, refer to your Linux documentation.
MORE INFORMATION
To install Windows XP on a computer on which Linux is currently installed (and assuming that you want to remove Linux), you must manually delete the partitions used by the Linux operating system. The Windows-compatible partition can be created automatically during the installation of Windows XP.
IMPORTANT : Before you follow the steps in this article, verify that you have a bootable disk or bootable CD-ROM for the Linux operating system, because these steps completely remove the Linux operating system from your computer. If you intend to restore the Linux operating system at a later date, verify that you also have a functional backup of all the information stored on your computer. Additionally, you must have a full release version of Windows XP to use during this installation. If you intend to use a Windows XP upgrade CD-ROM, a CD-ROM of a qualifying Windows product must be available. Setup from the Windows XP upgrade CD-ROM will prompt you for this CD-ROM.
Linux file systems use a superblock at the beginning of a disk partition to identify the basic size, shape, and condition of the file system.
The Linux operating system is generally installed on partition type 83 (Linux native) or 82 (Linux swap). The Linux boot manager (LILO) can be configured to start from either of the following locations:
The hard disk Master Boot Record (MBR)
-or-
The root folder of the Linux partition
The Fdisk tool included with Linux can be used to delete the partitions. (There are other utilities that work just as well, such as Fdisk from MS-DOS 5.0 and later, or you can delete the partitions during the installation process.)
To remove Linux from your computer and install Windows XP, follow these steps:
Remove the native, swap, and boot partitions used by Linux:
Start your computer with the Linux Setup floppy disk, type fdisk at the command prompt, and then press ENTER.
NOTE : For help with using the Fdisk tool, type m at the command prompt, and then press ENTER.
Type p at the command prompt, and then press ENTER to display partition information. The first item listed is hard disk 1, partition 1 information , and the second item listed is hard disk 1, partition 2 information .
Type d at the command prompt, and then press ENTER. You are then prompted for the partition number that you want to delete. Type 1 , and then press ENTER to delete partition number 1. Repeat this step until all the partitions have been deleted.
Type w , and then press ENTER to write this information to the partition table. Some error messages may be generated (because information is written to the partition table), but they should not be significant at this point because the next step is to restart the computer and then install the new operating system.
Type q at the command prompt, and then press ENTER to quit the Fdisk tool.
Insert either a bootable floppy disk or the bootable Windows XP CD-ROM, and then press CTRL+ALT+DELETE to restart your computer.
Follow the instructions on the screen to install Windows XP.
The installation process assists you in creating the appropriate partitions on your computer.
Sample Linux Partition Tables
Single SCSI Drive
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
Multiple SCSI Drives
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
Single IDE Drive
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
Multiple IDE Drives
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
Additionally, Linux recognizes more than 40 different partition types, including the following:
FAT 12 (Type 01)
FAT 16 > 32 M Primary (Type 06)
FAT 16 Extended (Type 05)
FAT 32 w/o LBA Primary (Type 0b)
FAT 32 w/LBA Primary (Type 0c)
FAT 16 w/LBA (Type 0e)
FAT 16 w/LBA Extended (Type 0f)
Note that there are other ways to remove the Linux operating system and install Windows XP. The preceding method is included in this article because of the assumptions that the Linux operating system is already functioning and there is no more room on the hard disk. There are methods for changing partition sizes with software designed for managing partitions. Disk partitioning software may cause instability with the Windows XP installation. Microsoft does not support the installation of Windows XP on partitions manipulated in this manner.
You can also use an MS-DOS version 5.0-or-later boot disk, a Microsoft Windows 95 Startup disk, or a Microsoft Windows 98 Startup disk that contains the Fdisk utility to remove an operating system from the hard disk and install a different operating system. When you start Fdisk and multiple drives are installed on your computer, you are presented with five choices; use option 5 to select the hard disk that has the partition to be deleted. After that (or if you have only one hard disk), select option 3 ( Delete partition or logical DOS drive ), and then select option 4 ( Delete non-DOS partition ). You should then see the non-MS-DOS partitions that you want to delete. Typically, the Linux operating system has two non-MS-DOS partitions, but there may be more. After you delete one partition, use the same steps to delete any other appropriate non-MS-DOS partitions.
For additional information about how to use the Fdisk utility, click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
Q255867 How to Use the Fdisk Tool and the Format Tool to Partition or Repartition a Hard Disk
After you delete the partitions, you can create partitions and install the operating system that you want. You can create only one primary partition and an extended partition with multiple logical drives by using Fdisk from MS-DOS version 5.0-and-later, Windows 95, and Windows 98. The maximum FAT16 primary partition size is 2 gigabytes (GB). The largest FAT16 logical drive size is 2 GB.
For additional information, click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
Q105074 MS-DOS 6.2 Partitioning Questions and Answers
When you install Windows XP, the Linux partitions can be removed and new partitions created and formatted with the appropriate file system type during the installation process. Windows XP allows you to create more than one primary partition. Windows XP does recognize the FAT32 file system. During the installation of Windows XP, you can create a very large FAT32 drive. The FAT32 drive can be converted to NTFS after the installation has completed, if appropriate.
For additional information about how to multiboot with Windows XP, click the article number below to view the article in the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
Q306559 HOW TO: Create a Multiple-Boot System with Windows XP
For more information, browse to the following Microsoft Web site:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/techinfo/a
The third-party contact information included in this article is provided to help you find the technical support you need. This contact information is subject to change without notice. Microsoft in no way guarantees the accuracy of this third-party contact information.
The third-party products discussed in this article are manufactured by vendors independent of Microsoft; we make no warranty, implied or otherwise, regarding these products' performance or reliability.
Published Jan 15 2002 3:57PM Issue Type kbhowto kbinfo
Last Modifed Mar 14 2002 1:05PM Additional Query Words kbfaqw2ksetup
Keywords kbsetup
no it's not, fartknocker.
Can't think of any genius reason why a person would need this when you can just sift through pages and pages of legalese to find out the same thing. I feel bad for these folks because they'll approve (or not, but either way they're eating their lives away studying (and debating) bleeping license legalese!) any license that's thrown at them.
Worse yet, licenses change and components can be closed sourced (right, Source Forge?) so I don't see much but big bad headaches for these folks in return for something that really doesn't add much to the community. So it goes.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
what in the world does this one means?
Is it an "O" for open source with a keyhole or a drunken "C" tripping over itself?
- sigs are for wimps.
Here is a complete list of various sized images for your web pages.
w eb /
http://opensource.org/trademarks/osi-certified/
Enuf said
Rercome to me :)
I am cord and ronry and need to instar this Runix for Rindors 98 SE 2 Nipponese Edition prz hrp!
Or does the OSI logo look like a cleaned up line-art version of goatse.cx?
This may end up being too-little, too-late. The OSI has frequently fallen off the map, rising up now and again to issue some bland press release or statement - perhaps this is the turning of a new leaf? Will the OSI start to update its web page more frequently and take a more active role in the community?
Signs point to no.
do you have TP for my keyhole
are you threatening me
I am Corn Holeo
One might ask who the hell cares.
IT'S UGLY!!!!!!
.. I get the part about the keyhole .. but it doesnt mean anything .. it's ugly. It's generic.
puke. I'm sorry
they should have had a contest.
I wonder, why hasn't the FSF, with their decent cash hoard, done something like this?
What if Microsoft comes out with a shared source license called "The GPL"(tm) or something? Yeah that's improbable but still I'm sure there is "branding" value in having a recognizable mark (and not just a recognizable hippy with a beard)...
"One might ask what took so long."
One might ask "Who Cares?"
The best thing about grass-roots organizations is they are always there for a laugh when Jerry Springer isn't on the tube.
Simpleface.org is an organization trying to do a similiar thing for OSS User Interface design. We're developing a set of graphical design patterns in an open and collaborative way (using the website, it's a wiki) and once we have a decent set we're going to roll them into a guide and try to get OSS projects to use them. Those projects that comply with guidelines get to use the Simpleface logo.
I think this type of certification is a good thing for OSS projects. It provides everyone with the knowledge that some sort of consistency has been achieved. For OSI, it's consistency of the Open Source definition. For Simpleface, it's consistency of design and human computer interaction.
-Russ
Me
I like the idea, but there doesn't appear to be any way of regulating it. Perhaps, I didn't find that text on the web site.
It doesn't seem to be any more powerful then saying, "Hey my stuff's Open Source. See look GPL." If your code really isn't GPL then Stallman knocks on your door and gives your titty-twisters until your nipples fall off.
It's cool to spread the term Open Source and do some branding though, it doesn't matter.
The new logo is now online. Quite stunning.
The OSI logo contest information might clear this up. It was conceived by ESR with some pretty specific rules. There were a wide variety of submissions. There was a diverse interpretation of what OS was to represent. The selected image was provided by "Hilmar". Additionally, here is the index of all the submissions.here
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
That logo is just begging for a little s in the middle of that white circle. That would make the big cut circle look like the 'O' and coupled with the 'S' I mentioned, plus the white intersection which looks like an 'I' - which would spell 'OSI', how novel! :)
An omission from their approved license list is the most liberal "license" of all, which is "released unconditionally to public domain".
It's amazing what you can do with a little turtle graphics. ...
What's wrong with this logo?
Sorry...I know. Trolling. But what else is karma for?
OSI/ISO - waaaaaah! big deal...
a reference to the famous "copy down" movement...
I'm much funnier now that I'm a subscriber.
It is a fact, turdbuglar.
Much cooler selection here.
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
Look up http://singlegoal.com and http://eternalambition.com . Then
look at the only purpose anybody can have--as follows.
MEANING
The meaning of all conscious beings is to pursue one of two
goals--love or power.
All subgoals except L2 are unachievable.
A conscious being...
-Common subgoals:
C1. controls reality.
C2. knows reality.
C3. has mastery of potential reality.
C4. has mastery of the abstract plane.
-Love subgoals:
L1. and one other are the only conscious beings to exist for all time
and space.
L2. is bound by a seed of love to the other conscious being.
-Power subgoals:
P1. is the only conscious being to exist for all time and space.
we have a logo, we have a logo, we have a logo, we have a logo, we have a logo, we have a logo... YAY!!
(ed)
I have seen a few other projects with the OSI Certification logo/notice. Heck, I've had it on my projects for at least a week (Modified BSD License and GPL).
I find it funny that out of all the logos that were submitted....with fancy names with many characters....the one that one was named 'hi.gif'.
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
I know they have the best intentions but, I've had it with these acronyms! OSI(Open Source Initiative), not to be confused with OSI(Open Systems Interconnect) Model, courtesy of the good old ISO(International Organization for Standardization). Yes, the last one is correct.
I've had it with these groups, which are all in the same industry, coming up with multitudes of acronyms that all have different meanings. In some cases, even the context in which the acronym is used does not reduce the ambiguity of the acronym. Some of these acronyms are so cute I just want to wretch!
Enough already!!
Change it. It *is* an Open Source Initiative, isn't it? Just make sure you abide by the GPL.
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
I don't think it looks so much like a keyhole, as it does the outline of the top of a person. Which makes sense. Its an "O" for open, and it puts people in the middle. How 'bout that. :)
Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
Er ... copyright?
Open Source built the Internet
Because it did. All major server side software on the internet (major meaning leads its market), an Open Source application (as, of course, defined by the Open Source Definition) leads.
- Web Servers - Apache
- Proxy Servers - Squid
- Email Servers - Sendmail
- DNS - BIND9
- FTP - WuFTPd
- Even OpenSSH is more prominent than the proprietary alternatives (though from an end user point of view that's not really much of an argument).
Most people have absolutely no idea this is the case. They don't realize that every time they connect to the internet they're relying on the root nameservers, all of which use Open Source software on Unix, to do their jobs. And those Open Source systems are rising to the challenge. There are people out there - including many journalist (Adam Turner from The Age is a good example if you live in Australia) who literally think proprietary Microsoft software is fundamenttal to the operation of the internet - even more so than OSS applications.I know I'm risking some karma by sort of stating the obvious, but I like how the design is very simple yet incorporates the following important elements:
1. "O" for Open Source
2. "C" for Certification
3. A "Keyhole" for Security
The "Keyhole" element also looks a little like a stylized person so I suppose it also represents the human element of the development process (community, people power) as well as the personal/functional aspects of software (built for users, usability, productivity).
I'd also interpret the Green colour as reflecting the "natural"/"friendly" aspects of the open source process.
Just my initial reactions, and obviously you can get carried away (it's the "product" not the logo that really counts), but I think OSI's smart to have a consistent brand for certification and that their logo choice is fairly strong and representative of the "product". I like the new logo, the only nitpicks - I'm still not sure about the font choices (OSI certified, TM) and the edges/lines/contrast seem a little too blurred.
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
For those of us who prefer not to use the term "Open Source", how about something similar from the FSF? The FSF already maintains a list of licenses that it considers free software licenses, after all, and it'd be nice to be able to show that your software is truly free, as well as supporting the FSF (make the graphic link to the Free Software Definition, perhaps).
--Joakim Ziegler
Would you buy software with a logo with a huge gaping hole in it?
----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
Yet another pointy haired boss device.
Now I can tell my PHB it's ok for me to use Python for development at work. It's certified, with a logo even. That's all he needs to know.
Perl was ok a long time ago, it has had that dot-com domain name for a while now. I didn't even have to argue to be able to use it.
Seriously, is this certification anything else than a PHB pacifier?
It's 11pm, do you know what your deamons are up to?
Internet Protocol
Intellectual Property
Information Protection (the name of the security group where I work)
Implementation Plan (saw this one abbreviated today at work -- it confused the manager)
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
I can see why Python was so quick to adopt the new logo. It looks like "C" in a nosedive, about to crash and burn.
Svenska Livsmedelsverket, Gröna Nyckelhålet Anyone see the resemblence? The green keyhole is the swedish symbol for healthy food :)
i like the logo (not even going to talk about OSI/certifcation)
i just climb trees, and look for rhythm everywhere.
After our new logo was featured on Slashdot, we have received a ton of email asking where to obtain a LOGO Interpreter for Linux. This is the LOGO interpreter we used to create our new, um, logo:
ftp://ftp.anarres.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/ucblogo
-OSI Certification Program
Is the following slogan:
Open Source built the Internet
Because it did. All major server side software on the internet (major meaning leads its market), an Open Source application (as, of course, defined by the Open Source Definition) leads.
Well, that statement actually isn't be true, and the folks at the Free Software Foundation would likely (and correctly) take exception to that claim. There really isn't any reason to create more bad blood between the Free Software people and the Open Source people, and I would be very surprised if ESR would ever make such a claim, given that the entire process preceeded his movement by a number of years.
The internet was built using Free Software, by free software developers, back when it was still called Free Software, and the term "open source" had not yet been coined. NOTE that 'Free Software' isn't the same as GNU.
Free Software built the Internet. Not Open Source. Not GNU. Not the Free Software Foundation.
Open Source, on the other hand, provided an important bridge between corporate suits and the concept of using peer review and the scientific process to obtain better quality software. My only nit to pick with the open source folks is their shyness in discussing Software Freedom, but perhaps that is simply incompatible with their role, which is to extend the concepts of free source code availability to corporate Earth, to which the words Free Software and Freedom remain somewhat alien and mistrusted.
It is rather amazing that so many corporate types, who pride themselves on a deeper understanding of capitalism than the average person (though I suspect that pride is misplaced much of the time) are unable to recognize the importance of fundamental freedom which allows free markets to operate, and instead of understanding the deep pragmatism that underlies freedom in general, and software freedom in particular, they associate it with vague notions of "idealism" that they somehow assume are therefor incompatible with business. Freedom, and software freedom in particular, are incompatible with oligarchies and monopolies, not free markets and competetive capitalism. Quite the reverse, but I digress.
Open Source plays an important role in educating the public at large, and bringing them part way toward understanding what software freedom is about, which is why I personally regret the animosity I've seen between the OSI folks and the FSF. From my perspective OSI is the guy at the door saying "come into my shop and have a look" to someone who would have otherwise walked on by, while the FSF is the guy behind the counter explaining the fundamentals of what it is you are buying, and why.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Did anyone else read that as "OSI Launches Certification Program with Logo"
Had me befuddled there - OSI initiates thier certification program by choosing that old Windows learn-to-program langauge with the turtle?
Long day...
Now, how many workers at our favorite monopoly are off to the patent office to pattent thier newest 'idea' ....
The key
It'll happen.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
More to the point, why do I need this? If this is the last line of defense, if the text in my license isn't descriptive enough, and if I need another group/consortium to put their stamp of approval on my work, then how is my software supposed to qualify as soft. I mean isn't that what software is supposed to be? Soft?
Man, this is getting out of hand. Why don't we all wear color coded uniforms based on whether we're trying to get something out of software development or contribute something back to it.
The last thing I think software developers need, especially those of the open source ilk, are certifications. Standards, sure. We have a hard enough time selling folks on the quality of our stuff. Why hamstring development more with yet another hurdle? I doubt developers will curry this certification's favor.
What happened to the TacoBell logo for the OSI model? Or did they get sued?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
I'm all for the OSI, but I can't say I care for the keyhole symbol. The keyhole has long been a symbol of invaded privacy... y'know, people peeping through the keyhole. This association is all the more strengthened because of the term "open source", meaning "look inside the program". I don't think the general punlic is going to get a particularly positive message from this logo.
Miko O'Sullivan
Some say that the Tinkertoy certification is just a paper certification while you really have to know your blocks to pass the lego exam. So I think I will going to Toy's-R-us and get me a study kit and passing the seven-11 to get me a 6 pack.
--- Sueños del Sur - a webcomic about four young siblings
Funny. I was under the impression that BSD software built the internet
Only in part
So, no. It wasn't built on Free Software, either. It was built on BSD.
BSD is free software. Indeed, many of the BSD folks will argue that their software is "free-er" than GPLed software (it depends on your definition of freedom as to whether you agree with that stance or not, but either way it is irrelevant to this discussion).
I doubt you will find any BSD developer or proponent, anywhere on the face of the Earth, that would argue that their software isn't free software, and while FreeBSD predates Open Source by many, many years, FreeBSD does not predate the FSF, or the widespread, colloqual use of the term free software used to describe it, and many other projects all of which, taken together, formed the core of what we now call the Internet.
It is another very common myth that Free Software == GPLed software, and that is a myth that the Free Software Foundation, as well as the BSD folks, are at pains to dispell.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
"After spending 20 months trying to use the Internet to bring together
corporate IT workers and open-source software developers to collaborate on
technology projects, CollabNet Inc. has shut down its SourceXchange online
marketplace due to a lack of adequate revenue."
says
CollabNet did not lack a flashy name (co-founder Brian Behlendorf of Apache
fame) or money ($35 million in funding last June) or big-name partners (HP,
Intel, Oracle and Sun). So not much else to blame it on!
This one is dedicated to those open source zealots who are in the habit of
browbeating non-open source projects/companies (including Mac OS X/Apple)
with threats of imminent extinction.
What Open Source Zealots Don't Get
.doc file. I'm continually annoyed myself by people who send HTML mail, never mind the lunatics who use Microsoft Word as their text editor in Microsoft Outlook. Email is much more efficient as plain text. If Stallman had positioned his screed as "use the right tool for the right audience in the right medium" I would have been totally on board with him.
.doc format. It's a lofty and valuable goal. But until the day when Stallman or someone else can figure out a way to get open source developers to scratch someone else's itch with the same fervor and quality with which they scratch their own, it's just not a realistic goal.
The News Forge editorial, We can put an end to Word attachments [link via Camworld], by Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, illustrates perfectly why the free software/open source movement is never going to penetrate the mainstream consumer consciousness.
Caveat: I like open source software. I like the concept and I support it. What I dislike is the zealotry of hardcore open source/free software advocates, like Stallman, and their total disregard for how consumers view and use software. These zealots are stuck in a dogma that is constructed from the viewpoint of someone who develops software, not from the viewpoint of consumers who use software for reasons other than developing more software (which constitute the vast majority). The zealots of open source/free software present the movesment as serving manking, but in fact they have an overwhelming tendency to ignore the needs of any user not like themselves. This essay isn't an anti-open source rant, nor is it flag-waving support of Microsoft's monopolistic practices. It is intended to be a pragmatic look at why open source hasn't lived up to the hype.
Stallman's point in his editorial is that people shouldn't send Word attachments via email. Much of Stallman's rhetoric is justifiable. In fact, I think it's not only counter-productive, but rude, to send Word attachments to people who use open source software incapable of reading a
However, much of Stallman's rhetoric is the usual open source/free software wheel-spinning that shows little consideration for or understanding of the vast majority of computer users. This part of the second paragraph sticks out:
Most computer users use Microsoft Word. That is unfortunate for them, because Word is proprietary software, denying its users the freedom to study, change, copy, and redistribute it.
There are all kinds of problems with Stallman's rhetoric, but this is the most glaring and is the ultimate of example of What "Open Source Zealots Don't Get." Here's the underlying concept that the open source movement has continually failed to understand. Ready? Here it is:
Most computer users don't give a crap about studying or changing software.
Get it? 99.985% of Microsoft Word users have absolutely no desire to view -- never mind modify -- the source code of Word. Why would they? They don't know how to code! Nor do they want to learn! It's like asking them to re-design the shovel to make it more appropriate to their needs. Hey, sure maybe 0.015% of shovel-users customize their shovels, but most people use the tool off-the-shelf, as is.
Stallman is right that people would like to freely copy and distribute software, but this is where we run up against the dirty secret of open source: open source developers like to scratch their own itch. And, unfortunately, that attitude doesn't jive with creating consumer applications, so those consumer needs get left up to businesses that need to make money off their product to exist.
Open source developers tend to work on projects that solve their own problems (which usually revolve around building software and working with others who build software). That's why we have great open source operating systems, web servers, compilers, etc., but are severely lacking in open source office suites, graphics and design tools, games, etc. Independent open source developers don't come together to develop those kind of applications like they do to develop web servers, compilers, and databases because developers typically don't have a desperate need for those kinds of apps. No itch, so why scratch?
Yes, I know there are some alternatives out there (primarily because the zealots have this mistaken idea that Linux will compete with Windows and Macintosh for the consumer desktop). I know about KOffice, AbiWord, GNOME Office, OpenOffice, and Sun Microsystems StarOffice.The only competitive contender on that list is StarOffice, which, of course, started as a proprietary application. Sun Microsystem's CEO, Steve McNeally, acquired StarOffice and open sourced it purely to attempt to spite Microsoft; Bill Gates just laughed. The Gimp is a fine graphics program, but it doesn't measure up (especially running under Windows) to Adobe Photoshop, or even Jasc Paint Shop Pro. And where are the competitive open source competitors for Adobe's Illustrator, ImageReady, PageMaker, InDesign, Premier, AfterEffects, etc.? What open source app would professionals choose over Macromedia Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Freehand, Flash, Shockwave, Director, Authorware, etc? Answer: they don't exist.
Open source developers don't care enough about those applications to develop them, and they sure don't care enough to develop them for the non-open source platforms (e.g. Windows, Mac) that most of the world uses. The bottom line is...well, the bottom line. If consumers want these kinds of tools that are of interest to consumers, but not of use to the geeks who know programming languages, then the consumers are either going to have to learn to code themselves (ain't gonna happen; we all have other careers) or the consumer will need to pay to have someone else develop them.
The demands for these consumer apps gets filled by corporations who exercise proprietary control over their intellectual property in order to recoup the development costs, because the companies have to hire developers to scratch someone else's itch. And that proprietary control means patents and copyrights1, because to make money off a product you must, repeat MUST, control reproduction and redistribution. And businesses are about making money.
If anyone had been able to demonstrate a competitive, scalable business model for a company that develops open source software, then I might get on board. But even RedHat, the open source developer with probably the most solid foundation and best shot, is still hemorrhaging money. Developing open source software works as a hobby; so far no one has been able to make developing open source software work as a business.
A bunch of developers might come together to develop a super open source web server like Apache to solve their own problems, but they don't get the same personal satisfaction from developing, for example, an open source consumer desktop publishing application or a GUI desktop -- witness the struggle to get KDE and GNOME to some usable point, and remember that Eazel tanked. Problems like those that have plagued the attempt to put an open source GUI on the Linux operating system illustrate another problem with open source: too many cooks in the kitchen screw up the menus. (Oooh. Pun!)
Choice is sometimes counterproductive to usefulness, and usefulness is paramount for a consumer application. This is where "network externalities" -- the economy of increasing returns -- comes into play. If ACME Industries makes ACME WonderSoap, the soap doesn't become more useful to the consumer (e.g. it doesn't clean your armpits better) if more people use it. That might be better for ACME, but my armpit gets just as fresh whether ten thousand or ten million people use ACME WonderSoap. Not so with software. If ACME industries makes a word processor, ACME WonderWord, then ACME WonderWord is much more valuable to me if ten million people use it as opposed to ten thousand, because we're all using the same tool. The best illustration of the concept of an economy of increasing returns is the Microsoft monopoly. People won't switch to Linux and StarOffice, because everyone else in their workplace or community is using Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office. In a networked environment where you have to share your output and input, life is more difficult if you're not using the same tool. This is where the open source approach shoots itself in the knew -- every Microsoft Windows XP desktop works the same, but if I want to get my officemate to help me with something, and I'm running GNOME and StarOffice and he's using KDE and KOffice, then we might as well be working on Windows and Macintosh. There's no increasing returns, when there's no consistency.
The open source response to that is "it's not the tool, it's the standard." If every tool adhered to an open standard, then they'd all work together. Which is basically Stallman's point -- use text or HTML instead of the proprietary Word
1I think copyright is an idea that has run it's course, but we're not at the point yet where it can be tossed out the window. And the little known fact is that Stallman has to support copyright, even if he won't announce it very loudly, because the GNU General Public License is founded on copyright. Putting software in the public domain doesn't satisfy Stallman's zealotry because someone can still use public domain software as the foundation or part of proprietary software. Instead, Stallman advocates copyleft, whereby instead of relinquishing copyright, the software developer retains copyright and licenses the software and source code under the condition that any changes or modifications also be licensed under the same restrictions. It's admirably clever, but I think Stallman ought to be as concerned as the RIAA about copyright. If copyright unravels, so does the GPL. [back]
The internet was built using Free Software, by free software developers, back when it was still called Free Software, and the term "open source" had not yet been coined. NOTE that 'Free Software' isn't the same as GNU.
I don't think which term was coined first matters. AFAIK most of these tools were not labelled as Free Software by their authors in terms of the FSF's definition (the FSF list of freedoms). They were applications created by people who wanted to share their code with the internet, but not under a specific definition of Free Software (the FSFs) or Open Source. However all these applications are both Open Source and Free Software (in the FSF sense) because they comply with the Open Source Definition and the FSF's list of freedoms.
A Friend of mine recently authored OpenVPN which appeared in Slashdot. We were talking about ways to generate money from Open Source.
So I suggested that the GPL be gently modified to require non-profit and government organization who use the software to submit a receipt for donated services to the author of the Open Source program as a tax rightoff. Most programmers pay 30% to 50% in taxes, so the rightoff is worth 30% to 50% face value - provided the Programmer is gainfully employed).
This would really be a way to get the government to pay Open Source programmers for their contribution.
Can anyone give a reason why the GPL - or "Certified Open Source" software shouldn't or couldn't include the idea of manditory donantion receipts for qualifying organizations?
And why this wouldn't be a fair and practical approach to funding part-time Open Source Efforts?
AIK
There, one did it.
The OSI has trademarked a logo looking like a keyhole for their use as a graphical certification mark
While it is correct that a trademark registration for the typed phrase "OSI Certified" has been applied for by OSI, that application has been initially refused. I could find no application at the USPTO website for the logotype, apart from the typed mark.
Within the software industry, the recent clash of source-code licensing philosophies has proponents of commercial software and open-source advocates frequently at loggerheads. Both commercial and open-source software models, however, have demonstrated value for various sectors of the software market, which has determined that multiple licensing and distribution models should coexist in healthy competition. The market, in fact, is driving both camps toward a middle ground where the most beneficial aspects of both philosophies are embraced.
In May 2001, Microsoft® responded with a Shared Source Initiative (SSI) to provide source access to a broad range of customers, partners, independent developers, researchers and other interested individuals, while preserving the intellectual property rights that have sustained innovation throughout the industry over the past quarter-century. The SSI framework supports a spectrum of licensing programs, each tailored to the source-access needs of a specific constituent community. Meanwhile, prominent open-source developers began to adopt certain commercial distribution methods in their own pragmatic migration toward the middle. These developers commonly rely on open-source licenses, like those based on the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license, that place few if any restrictions on licensees' subsequent use of licensed source code, including its use in commercial software development.
Free software distributors, by contrast, use the highly restrictive GPL, which was created by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) in furtherance of its philosophy that software should not be subject to ownership, and thus that commercial software is inherently immoral. The GPL governs distribution of some popular free software, including Linux. The GPL may be beneficial to noncommercial developers and certain licensees in other contexts, but several of the license's terms and uncertainties should raise red flags for commercial developers considering its use.
Because many businesses may not understand the GPL and its potential implications, Microsoft offers this document as a checklist and to provide important background information. Most or all of the following questions will be familiar to those who have examined the GPL. Many of them have generated considerable debate even among open-source and free-software advocates. Comments in this document are based on GPL Version 2, Lesser General Public License (LGPL) Version 2.1 and the GNU GPL FAQ page (www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html).
The GPL is a complicated agreement. To understand your potential rights and obligations, you must interpret the various provisions of the license and apply them to your particular circumstances. Microsoft recommends that you obtain legal counsel as appropriate. This document does not and cannot offer legal advice.
1. Have your lawyers read the GPL (and the LGPL)? Because the GPL is so frequently misunderstood and because it attempts, under certain circumstances, to impose significant obligations on licensees and their intellectual property rights, no responsible business should use GPL software without ensuring that its lawyers have read the license and explained the business' rights and obligations. They should also review and explain the Lesser General Public License, or LGPL, a related license that is sometimes used with open source libraries.
2. How are you using GPL software and what obligations does it impose? The obligations associated with the GPL vary substantially depending upon the way in which GPL code is used. Even limited or relatively obscure uses (e.g., including a few lines of GPL code in a commercial product or linking directly or indirectly to a GPL library) may have a dramatic effect on your legal rights and obligations. To understand the potential implications of the GPL, you need to have a detailed understanding of your use of GPL code. Basing any analysis upon a superficial understanding may present serious risks.
3. How does your use of GPL software affect your intellectual property rights? One of the most significant impacts of the GPL is its potential effect on your intellectual property rights. The GPL is widely referred to as 'viral' because it attempts to subject independently-created code (and associated intellectual property) to the terms of the GPL if it is used in certain ways together with GPL code (see Sections 2 and 3 of the GPL). For example, a business that combines and distributes GPL code with its own proprietary code may be obligated to share with the rest of the world valuable intellectual property (including patent) rights in both code bases on a royalty free basis. Other uses of GPL code may also create obligations for the user. It is important to perform a careful legal and technical review of this issue before using GPL software.
4. What if you are simply a customer, acquiring GPL software from other businesses? Does the GPL have any effect on your rights and obligations? Section 0 of the GPL says "[a]ctivities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted." So, a customer who only runs the Program should have no obligations to the author of the code under the GPL. As discussed below, however, such a customer also has no rights from the author (e.g., no assurance that the code is even free from "known" copyright infringement problems) and may have liabilities to third parties. If, on the other hand, the customer's use of GPL code involves even limited modification, copying or distribution of the code, the GPL arguably does impose obligations to the author, discussed above and below. In assessing this possibility, customers should carefully consider what the GPL means by "copying, modifying and distribution."
5. Can you develop applications for a GPL program, like Linux, without subjecting those applications to the GPL? This is a particularly important question. The answer will almost certainly depend upon a detailed analysis of the way in which the application was developed and distributed and will be subject to caveats regarding the interpretation and enforceability of the GPL. For example, the analysis will presumably involve a careful review of your development team's exposure to and use of GPL code during the development process, especially whether the application incorporated any such code or was otherwise derived from it. The analysis would also likely consider what libraries are used; how are they used (e.g., statically linked or dynamically linked); whether they, in turn, link to other libraries; and which licenses (GPL or LGPL) govern all of these various libraries. Similarly, the analysis would probably consider what header files are used; whether they, in turn, include other headers; and which licenses govern these various headers. In addition, the analysis would presumably consider whether the application is distributed with GPL code and, if so, how it is distributed and by whom.
6. Can distribution of your code with GPL code require you to license your code under the GPL? Have you combined your own code with code licensed under the GPL? The GPL attempts to address these questions directly. Section 2 of the GPL says that identifiable sections of a work that are not derived from a GPL program and that "can be reasonably considered independent and separate" are not subject to the GPL when distributed as separate works. But if these separate sections are distributed "as part of a whole which is a work based on" a GPL program, then this distribution of the "work as a whole" is subject to the GPL. Section 2 also says that a "mere aggregation of another work not based on the [GPL] Program on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License." A licensee is left with the difficult task of deciding whether a particular combination is a "work as a whole" (GPL infection apparently intended) or a "mere aggregation" (GPL infection disclaimed).
7. If your software becomes "infected" by the GPL, do you have to give it away for free? Section 3 of the GPL says that you can copy and distribute a GPL program (or a work based on such a program) in object code or executable form, subject to several restrictions. You are supposed to make the corresponding source code available, for example, by including the source code with the object code or offering to distribute it to any third party (Section 3). Section 1 says that you "may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy," but Section 2 says that you "must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from [a GPL] Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." The net effect is, apparently, that you are able to charge a fee for your software, but that right is significantly undercut by your obligation to give others (including your competitors) the right to distribute your software for free.
8. Are your obligations under the GPL "flexible" or "proportional" to your use of GPL code? Suppose Business A uses a few hundred lines of GPL code in its existing 500,000-line proprietary program and makes copies for its own employees or distributes ten copies of the modified program as a collective work. Suppose Business B combines 500,000 lines of GPL code with an existing 1000-line proprietary program and distributes 500,000 copies of the modified program as a collective work. The GPL may be read as to require both businesses to share the source code for their modified programs (including their existing commercial programs) and allow royalty-free redistribution of those programs. This is true despite the potentially dramatic differences in the volume, value and copies of the GPL code used.
9. Do you have all of the rights required to use GPL code? Could your use of GPL code cause you to infringe on the intellectual property rights associated with code you have licensed from others? The seemingly obvious answer to the first question is yes because those rights are provided under the GPL. The correct answer, however, may require more careful analysis. If, for example, you plan to combine and distribute GPL code with pre-existing code, the "viral" nature of the GPL may require you to provide source code for the pre-existing code to all third parties and license others to use it on a royalty-free basis (see Section 2). Unfortunately, if you licensed some of the pre-existing code from a third party, you may not even have access to the source code, much less the right to license it to the rest of the world on a royalty-free basis under the terms of the GPL.
10. Do you have any existing obligations that might preclude your use of GPL software? Could your use of GPL code put you in breach of existing contractual obligations? As noted above, the use of GPL code with code licensed from another party could, under certain circumstances, arguably obligate you to sublicense the other party's code under the GPL. If you expressly agreed not to attempt to sublicense the other party's code, you should consider whether your use of the GPL code presents a risk that breaches your earlier contract. Even if no breach occurs, the GPL includes provisions that may make it impossible for licensees to retain both their GPL rights and rights under other agreements. For example, Section 7 of the GPL says that if "conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this license, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all." Suppose Business A has developed a program using trade secret rights that were licensed from Business B under an agreement that prohibited their disclosure. Now assume that A uses GPL code in a way that "infects" its program. Section 7 apparently says that use of GPL code in such a program is impermissible. This places A in an untenable situation: unless it persuades B to divulge its trade secrets to the world, A must cease distribution of its program. This may be true even if A's use of GPL code is minimal.
11. Have you considered the risk that GPL code might infringe on third party intellectual property rights? Although it is always difficult for a business to ensure that acquired products do not infringe on third-party intellectual property rights, the risks associated with the use of GPL software may be substantially higher than those associated with commercial software. For example, given the distributed nature of open source development, you should understand what controls, if any, you have in place to screen unlicensed code or trade secret information from inclusion in the GPL program. This view is perhaps reinforced by the fact that Section 11 of the GPL expressly disclaims any warranties, including presumably a warranty that the program is free from infringements of third-party copyrights or trade secrets known to the contributor. You should also ask yourself if GPL developers may conclude that this disclaimer makes it okay to distribute code under the GPL when they know they don't have the rights required to do so. Developers of commercial software, in contrast, typically have procedures, contractual obligations, and a substantial financial stake in minimizing potential infringements.
12. What happens if an intellectual property owner, who claims that your use of GPL code infringes its intellectual property rights, sues you? As noted above, Section 11 suggests that you are "on your own" with respect to defense of the suit and payment for damages.
13. What is the extent of your liability for GPL-related infringements? Several provisions of the GPL may be read as requiring a GPL licensee to effectively sublicense its rights to the rest of the world (e.g., Section 2, relating to the modification and distribution of GPL works). GPL licensees should ask themselves whether, and to what extent, they might be responsible for the actions of their sub-licensees. For example, suppose Business A distributes a modified copy of GPL code to Businesses B, C, and D, and each of them further distributes 1000 copies. If Business A is sued for patent infringement relating to its use of GPL software, the patent owner might claim that the business is liable for direct infringement based upon the three copies distributed to Businesses B, C, and D and is further liable for direct, contributory, or induced infringement by the 3000 additional copies distributed by these businesses (and, of course, any and all later distributions by such businesses and their downstream sub-licensees). While actual liability would depend upon a host of factual issues, if Business A has deeper pockets than the other businesses, it should not be surprised to find plaintiff's counsel pursuing such an approach and claiming theoretically unlimited damages caused by Business A's limited initial distribution.
14. Can the author of a GPL program 'unilaterally' withdraw your right to distribute the program? Section 8 of the GPL gives "the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License" the right to preclude distribution in certain countries based on patents or interface copyrights. It is not clear that a licensee has any right to object to this restriction, which may be solely within the discretion of the original copyright holder. It is also not clear whether this restriction can be imposed retroactively, although Section 8 does say, "this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License." Companies relying on GPL code should carefully consider the potential impact such a geographical restriction could have on their business.
15. Can you use GPL tools in the development of your own software without subjecting your software to the GPL? As noted above, the GPL is sometimes referred to as being 'viral' because it attempts to subject related third-party code and intellectual property to the GPL. People concerned about this aspect of the GPL are probably careful about modifying GPL programs or combining their code with GPL code, but they may assume that their use of GPL tools cannot 'infect' the software they are developing. While this is probably true in many cases, it is not necessarily a safe assumption. For example, the 'Bison' parser developed by Richard Stallman, Robert Corbett and Wilfred Hansen was licensed under the GPL for some time before users realized that the software they were developing with the tool was arguably subject to the GPL. The potential exposure resulted from the parser's inclusion of incidental GPL material in the tool's output. In response to this problem, Bison version 1.24 and later was distributed with a 'special exception' regarding output files. The implication is that businesses concerned about the possible infection of their software by the GPL should make sure they consider: what, if any, GPL tools are being used by their developers; how those tools are used; and the possibility that such uses might subject their own code to the GPL.
16. If the GPL requires you to 'contribute' your modifications to GPL code to 'the community,' are you sure that your competitors are doing the same? Assuming that two competitors are making similar use of GPL code, their obligations under the GPL should be the same. There are, however, a number of scenarios to consider. Some competitors may not understand their obligations under the GPL and, for that reason, might not share their improvements with competitors. Other competitors' interpretation of the GPL might lead them to conclude that they have no obligation because they might believe the GPL is unenforceable in its entirety. Some competitors may intentionally ignore their obligations under the GPL to obtain a competitive advantage, relying on a variety of factors to avoid compliance. These factors might include obscuring object code to hide use of GPL code and the strength and enforcement of intellectual property laws in the country where they are doing business.
17. Does the GPL present any special challenges for businesses developing or distributing products with embedded software? The GPL does not expressly impose any 'special' obligations on embedded software businesses, but embedded businesses should consider whether the GPL presents any unique risks based upon scenarios common to the embedded product space. For example, the manufacturer of a hardware system that includes some embedded GPL software and some of the manufacturer's own proprietary software may find it particularly important to carefully assess whether the GPL and proprietary software form a 'mere aggregation' (GPL infection disclaimed under Section 2); a 'collective work' (GPL infection apparently intended); or something else altogether. Some embedded software developers, such as Caldera and Wind River, have publicly expressed concerns about the risks associated with the GPL.
18. Are your software developers aware of the many development-related issues that may affect GPL risks and obligations? Are you asking (or allowing) them to act as your legal counsel and are you willing to accept that risk? Are you 'betting your business' on informal or anonymous interpretations of the GPL posted on the Internet? As noted by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), the potential implications of the GPL on software development ultimately depend on the way in which judges will interpret provisions of the GPL. A host of relatively detailed, development-related questions are also likely to be critical. You should probably make sure your developers are asking themselves a number of questions, including: Given the subtle nature of some of the legal issues presented by the GPL, you should also make sure your developers know when to consult legal counsel regarding any potential risks presented by a particular development activity. All businesses would be well advised to avoid taking actions based upon general 'understandings' of the GPL that are not based on a careful reading of the agreement itself.
19. Who can you go to if you have a question regarding the GPL's interpretation, want to clarify your risks under the GPL, or amend your obligations? The GPL was developed under the auspices of the FSF. The FSF is not, however, necessarily the owner of any and all intellectual property rights embodied in particular programs licensed under the GPL. Section 10 recognizes this by suggesting that a GPL licensee could write to a program's author (or authors) for permission to distribute the program under different terms. In some cases, no single person or entity may own all of these property rights. As a result, a prospective (or existing) GPL licensee may find it impractical, if not impossible, to negotiate a desired change in its rights and obligations or even obtain a clarification of those rights and obligations. Even if a licensee were somehow able to identify key contributors and reach agreement with all of them regarding a desired change or clarification, presumably those contributors would be unwilling or unable to represent and warrant that they had the entire right and title required to do so.
20. Are you using any software governed by the Lesser General Public License (LGPL) and, if so, how does that license affect your rights and obligations? The LGPL was developed by the FSF to give library developers an alternative to the GPL. Specifically, although the FSF generally discourages use of the LGPL, it notes that "using the Library GPL permits use of the library in commercial programs." The LGPL retains the 'viral' provisions of the GPL in the context of modifications to an LGPL library (Section 2). But a different set of obligations are imposed when code is linked to an LGPL library (Sections 5 and 6). If you are developing programs that link to LGPL libraries you should review and understand these obligations. You should also check whether the LGPL libraries used, in turn, link to other libraries and especially consider the implications if the LGPL library links to a GPL library.
21. Does the use of GPL software reduce the acquisition value of your company (as a start-up) or a particular business unit (as a spin-off)? As noted above, the GPL attempts, under certain circumstances, to subject licensees' code and related intellectual property to the terms of the GPL (see, e.g., Section 3). Once your software is 'infected' by the GPL, it is not clear whether and how this process can be reversed. So, while GPL code may seem like an inexpensive, convenient and useful way for a start-up to develop a new product quickly, it may also have costly and long-term consequences for the start-up. Parties interested in acquiring the business are likely to conclude, as a part of any acquisition due diligence, that the business has already effectively given away most of the commercial value in its code.
22. Does your use of GPL code present any issues re shareholder value and exposure to suit? In the context of initial public offerings, at least some businesses based upon GPL software have concluded that such software introduces risks that should be disclosed as part of the offering. These risks include: the companies 'inability' to offer warranties and indemnities because the code is developed by independent parties over whom the offering business has no control or supervision; the uncertain future of the code base (will further development occur and, if so, in what direction); the availability of the same code from other sources for free; and concerns about negative reactions from the open source community. (These issues are discussed in the '10Ks' of several of the publicly traded companies that distribute GPL programs). If you are beginning to use GPL code, you should ask whether this presents similar risks to your business.
23. Do you have a process for reviewing and approving prospective uses of GPL software? Are you willing to use precious developer resources required to assess the impact of prospective uses of GPL code that you will depend on? Most businesses that are engaged in software development establish procedures to avoid tainting their development process with software that is subject to other people's intellectual property rights. Although GPL code is often described as 'free,' as noted above it may impose severe obligations on users and is perhaps even more deserving of a company-wide process regarding review and approval before use.
24. Do you have or need any special procedures regarding potential GPL issues created by your licensing of third-party software and or acquisitions of software? Given the potential effect that the GPL may have on code and intellectual property acquired by (or licensed into) a company, it may make sense for businesses to develop procedures to ensure that such acquisitions and licenses are reviewed for GPL issues. For example, many companies have established 'due diligence' procedures to help them identify and evaluate potential issues associated with the acquisition of businesses, product lines, and intellectual property rights. Companies pursuing software-related acquisitions or investments should probably consider whether their due diligence procedures should be updated to specifically address GPL-related issues.
Am I the only one who is reminded of a certain Trojan's logo? You decide.
It looks like a Pacman just died up-side-down.
I haven't seen one of those since the fifties. That logo is a PERFECT representation of a "Magic Eye" tube.
These tubes that had a cone-shaped phosphor-covered anode that lit up green, and a single grid wire that prevented electrons from striking a portion of the anode. The grid wire cast a wedge-shaped shadow on the anode. The width of the shadow varied with the grid voltage, causing the wedge to get wider or narrower.
They were widely used a cheap substitutes for meters. They also had the advantage of being inertialess. They were most familiar as tuning indicators in radios, recording level indicators on tape recorders, and null indicators on certain kinds of lab equipment (capacitance bridges, etc.)
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Funny you mention that. Today I did "apt-get install gopher". Seems that many of the sites for the blind were/are gopher sites.
/usr/doc
For what we actually use the web for, gopher seems remarkably useful. Not sure of the ins/outs of it, but certainly it would work better when I'm browsing
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Are the tests really hard? :)
This
Don't forget the BSD TCP/IP stack!!
:)
/. you already know
BTW: great slogan, I agree they should use it.
Best wishes
\\Uriel
P.S.: I think there are a few more OSS projects that built the
internet, but the the BSD TCP/IP stack *was*(*is*?) the internet!
P.P.S.: And for those idiots that think that Internet is only the
Web, the NCSA browser was open source, and just check the "About"
menu in IE, and tell me what you find there? more open source,
even in the core of M$ products
P.P.P.S.:Of course that if you are reading
all this, right?
"When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
Yet another crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered trolling community when recently Slashdot confirmed that, after several changes were made to production Slashcode, wide posts account for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all Slashdot posts. Coming on the heels of the latest verions of IE which make page-widening more difficult, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. the wide posts that we love are collapsing into the narrow posts that we are used to, as further exemplified by the lack of Slashbots complaining about difficulty reading Slashdot's articles. You don't need to be a Klerck to predict PWP's future. The hand writing is on the wall: PWP faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for PWP because PWP is dying. Things are looking very bad for PWP. As many of us are already aware, PWP continues to be defeated by users with thresholds of 1 or higher. Mod points flow like a river of blood. Klerck's PWP-bot posts are the most endangered of them all, having been filtered early on because of their uniformity. Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers. PWP leader Klerck states that there are 7 wide posts in the average Slashdot article. How many non-wide crapflood posts are there? Let's see. The number of crapflood versus wide posts on Slahdot is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7*5 = 35 non-wide crapflood posts in every Slashdot article. Tacosnotting posts on Slashdot are about half of the volume of crapflood posts. Therefore there are about 17 tacosnotting posts per article. A recent article put Goatse.cx trolls at about 80 percent of total troll posts. Therefore there are a hell of a lot of homosexual trolls. This is consistent with the number of Goatse.cx Slashdot posts. But Slashdot is only part of the picture. Due to the troubles at Slashdot, negative revenue and so on, the site will soon go out of business and many users will flock to alternative weblogs, where PWP is almost completely unknown. Trollaxor.com, the popular troll hangout, is also dying, its corpse sodomized in yet another Greek bath house. All major surveys show that PWP has steadily declined in the scope of all troll posts. PWP is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If PWP is to survive at all it will be among Blog faggot using outdated versions of Slashcode. PWP continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, PWP is dead.
/. since 7/8/02
Trolling
I like poop!
I'm pretty sure that you're joking, but just in case you aren't: LOGO was not made for Windows. There are Windows LOGO interperaters, but LOGO was initially designed back in the old days, way pre-Windows.
My first experience with programming was using LOGO on a Tandy TRS-80 computer. I was six and I thought it was absolutely great.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
Distribution and packaging of certified software is now more restrictive. Imagine all those duplicate logos in the thousands of packages distributed with your favourite OS.
I don't know if it is just coincidence or not, but isn't that the same font that SGI use for their company logo & graphics?
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
This logo looks similar to the logo of the State Bank of India (http://www.sbi.co.in)
I turn my head a little... that's it. It's a copyright symbol which fell down. The "C" is facing the baseline.
--binkley
Open Source, on the other hand, provided an important bridge between corporate suits and the concept of using peer review and the scientific process to obtain better quality software.
The scientific process is making a hypothesis, seeing if it fits the facts of nature, and a lot of "lather, rinse, repeat"ing. Can you not misuse the term please, because it can cause as much confusion as the "Linux"/"Gnu/Linux" and "Free"/"Open Source" nomenclature.
Am I the only one who notices the irony of slapping a big horsey TM on an Open Source logo?
That aside, adding a (tm) to anything is usually a knee-jerk reaction of inexperienced designers and naive clients who dictate that the trademark be added because 1) they think it entitles them to sue people, 2) it makes the logo "look official," 3) "everyone else does it," 4) "it will scare people away from using it, or 5) "our lawyers said we need it." Even a cursory search into trademark law reveals that you don't need to (tm) something for it to be trademarked or copyrighted. The mere act of publishing work (e.g., posting for public view) establishes trademark rights and allows you to file a lawsuit if your rights are infringed. You don't need to file anything with the government, either. Just do your homework and you'll be fine.
The only time a (tm) helps is in court, to protect against the defense of "I didn't know it was trademarked."
But just imagine if the OSI started suing Web sites for infringing on their copyrights. They'd become a laughingstock overnight.