Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Should Dual Cores Require Dual Licenses?

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the symmetrical-multi-paying dept.

sebFlyte writes "The multi-core debate continues. HP and Intel have laid into Oracle and (to a lesser extent) BEA over their their treatment of multi-core processers. Oracle's argument that 'a core is a CPU and therefore you should pay us all your money' isn't a popular one, it would seem. What does Oracle's stubbornness imply for the industry as a whole, with multicore chips coming to the fore so strongly?"

2 of 425 comments (clear)

  1. What about CELL? by enigmatiX · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Just imagine how much we'd have to pay for Cell's multiunit design...

  2. dreamworld by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    The whole fucking software industry lives in a bloody dreamworld.
    When i buy a car its mine ill do with it what i want , put as many people in it as i want etc.
    Software CO's are rip of artists i give them straight money they give me zip. I can use the car for recreation as well but at least i own it. !
    If i buy software i will do what i want with it - there's
    an unwritten contract attached to my $$ that supercedes the software pricks bullshit licences.
    I can dream too :)