Well, the government has brainwashed you into thinking that everything you receive is "income" despite the fact that, if you were a business, you would, like Microsoft, get to write a lot of it off.
So, it really is more useful to compare Microsoft's "revenue" to an individual's "income."
In those terms, yes, it's about 8 days of revenue.
selven's original post said:
Illegally disabling competition in a multibillion dollar market for years = a few days of profit
In the follow-up, he said:
A few days is about half an order of magnitude low
which is about right if we substitute "revenue" for "income".
He then went on to say:
but it's still the equivalent of a speeding ticket for the average person.
which is arguably overstating his case a bit. If we take your numbers at face value, that Microsoft's revenue is approximately one million times an average individual's revenue, then the equivalent for a person would be around $900, or probably around 4 average speeding tickets where I live. As you point out, it is a bit like apples and oranges. But I have to say, if a court here somehow found me guilty of speeding continuously for several years, they would probably find a way to fine me a lot more than $900, as well as take my license away.
In any case, it was obviously a flip comment by the original poster, that, while tongue-in-cheek, is not that far off from reality. You can accept that or not, but there's not really that much more "proving" to be done.
Assuming you actually had a patent on a codec, you could certainly give out a royalty free license to companies or people who gave the source code of an implementation out. There is no law that would prohibit you from doing this. You could even do like some of the GPL companies like Aladdin or Trolltech -- in fact, you could do their business model one better, because you could license your patent in conjunction with multiple software implementations from different authors, under different licenses.
Of course, the world might change after the Supreme Court decides Bilski, but to take a real-world example, back when CompuServe decided to be stupid and start charging royalties on GIF implementations, wouldn't it have been smarter of them to say that, if your implementation is under the GPL, then there is no royalty? They killed that golden goose about the time it should have started laying them some serious eggs if they had treated it better.
So, if an implementation of GIF was under the GPL (and also available not under the GPL) both the software author and the patent holder could have profited from selling the non-GPLed software version (these could be one and the same entity/person, but that's not strictly necessary). A sane strategy would have charged "x" dollars for the use of the patent, "x+y" for the patent + software, or "0" for the software and patent in a GPLed application.
You cannot selectively license a patent (0|+inf)
I don't know what you think people do with patents, but most patents are, in fact, quite selectively licensed.
Sometimes I go to (insert big office/computer store retailer here) to buy a new machine, when I'm too busy/lazy to put one together.
When I have the big, heavy, cardboard box up near the cash register and they start asking me if I want their warranty, I set it down as quickly as possible without any damage, back up like I just found out it's infected with ebola, and say in a very loud, incredulous, voice "It's going to BREAK!!?! I don't want it if it's going to BREAK!!!"
Of course, they assure me that it's perfectly fine, so I ask why they even sell warranties, and then they go into some weaselly song and dance. But the upshot is, I don't get the usual hard-sell on the warranty, because I've convinced them I'm ready to bolt without the hardware.
Not sure. I don't use it often enough to keep track. I'd make a call now and check it, but I'd have to charge it first:-)
Seriously, I'd been waiting for years for some company to be smart enough to do what Virgin did. There were prepaid plans before, but most of those required you to stay on top of things -- didn't have the "auto-top-up." I really just wanted a phone for, well, not emergencies, exactly, but contingencies, where things might change in an unexpected fashion. I wanted a phone I hardly ever use, but where I could keep the same number for years and could do more than call 911. For around $65.00 / year, I'm a happy camper.
BTW, I haven't looked at their plans in awhile, but last time I looked they had (to compete with similar offerings from other companies, no doubt) two mid-range plans that were obviously for people who couldn't do algebra. One of them was only a good deal (better than their other offerings) if you used between 100 and 120 minutes per month, and the only one was only better if you used between 200 and 220. Any more or less, and you would have been better off with something else.
I have a cell phone (in the US) that I use for emergencies.
It is a "prepaid" plan from Virgin Mobile. It costs $0.18/minute, and to keep the number and keep the minutes, I have to give them $15.00 every 90 days. The phone cost me $35.00.
So, for $5.00 / month (+ 8.25% sales tax, so more like $5.43) I have a phone that currently has hundreds of minutes available on it.
I haven't found a data plan which gives equivalent value yet, though...
I'm sure there's some cultural conditioning, but in the "nurture vs. nature" debate, many P.C. people try desperately to remove "nature." It's much worse than global warming politics.
The fact is, more young boys than girls will treat any kind of toy or stick or whatever they can find as a weapon, and more young girls than boys will treat any kind of toy or stick or whatever they can find as a doll, and I think most people who are parents and truly think about it realize that this happened at an extremely young age for their kids. If there is a "nurture" side to how this works, it is exerted very early and in a round-about way.
There are multiple parts to the DMCA, which is an update to copyright law.
Google and wikipedia are your friends here, but basically, without the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA, any ISP or search engine would be at major risk.
if, as claimed, google ignored the DMCA takedown notices.
I actually had the misfortune to have to send google a takedown notice after our neighborhood's property manager put some of our newsletters online at a public place (they were already available on a different website via password). I got the idiot property manager to take them down (but only after threatening him with going to the state board of realtors for violating his fiduciary duty), but google was actually a *lot* harder. In the end, I was never sure whether they responded to my takedown notice, or whether the newsletters just rolled off the cache. (FWIW, Microsoft Live!, at the time, took them down almost immediately.)
In any case, forcing google to take the takedown process more seriously and deal with it more expeditiously can only be a good thing, IMHO.
Arguably, it would be stupid of you to assume that this was done because somebody at the company didn't read the documentation, rather than because some ancient C compiler vendor didn't read the documentation and this bit one of the programmers at the company.
Also arguably, it would be stupid of you to not to follow the existing conventions, regardless of how stupid they are.
But it probably wouldn't be stupid to gently point out that all the calls to calloc/bzero could be replaced with a macro invocation, which on most platforms could have the bzero removed, and then the bzero could be ifdefed back in if there is still call for the thing to run on a broken compiler...
Yes, back in the 90's, I worked with a junior developer who thought that everyVariableMustTellItsOwnStoryIncludingItsLifeHistoryInItsName.
He misspelled one of these gems, and I was grepping for a solid half hour before I figured out why I couldn't locate it, after glancing at the name in one of the source files.
Defenders of the Oracle acquisition of its competitor naively say Oracle cannot harm MySQL, because a free version of the software is available to anyone under GNU GPL version 2.0, and if Oracle is not a good host for the GPL version of the code, future development will be taken up by other businesses and individual programmers, who could freely and easily "fork" the GPL'd code into a new platform. This defense fails for the reasons that follow.
MySQL uses the parallel licensing approach to generate revenue to continue the FLOSS development of the software. If Oracle acquired MySQL, it would then be the only entity able to release the code other than under the GPL. Oracle would not be obligated to diligently sell or reasonably price the MySQL commercial licenses. More importantly, Oracle is under no obligation to use the revenues from these licenses to advance MySQL. In making decisions in these matters, Oracle is facing an obvious conflict of interest - the continued development of a powerful, feature rich free alternative to its core product.
As only the original rights holder can sell commercial licenses, no new forked version of the code will have the ability to practice the parallel licensing approach, and will not easily generate the resources to support continued development of the MySQL platform.
Stallman basically says that community-driven development of MySQL will fail, and that a corporate backer who can sell MySQL under a non-GPL license is required for the continuing viability of MySQL. The only reason that someone would buy MySQL under a non-GPL license is to link it with other proprietary software. So when I wrote:
So, I'm an unethical evil person because I make money writing proprietary software. However, it's a requirement that MySQL be sold to a different big evil corporation that doesn't already have a database offering and that can make money off it, else they might not support it.
there is no question that I was paraphrasing Stallman. Perhaps I was even satirizing Stallman. But I don't think I was twisting his words; just condensing them down to make the true essence of his bullshit more easily visible.
In my own daily life, I avoid, to the best of my ability, transactions with people and entities I consider evil and unethical.
Then you must either have a loose definition of evil, a loose definition of unethical, or live a very closeted life.
If by "loose definition of evil" you mean that I don't think ordinary people who have slightly different moral compasses than mine aren't evil, then guilty as charged. But, judging by the rest of your comments, you and I have way different opinions of how overloaded the connotations of the actual word "evil" are. To me, it is a word that should only be used to describe that which should be exterminated without further thought or debate. That also seems to be how most people use it.
Stallman is considered by some to be a pure saint. People think he lives his life without compromises.
Sure, some very small minority believe Stallman is a pure saint. Most recognize that he pushes an extreme ideology which is currently unlivable, so compromise is necessary to avoid living a closeted life.
Yes, currently unlivable, and always unlivable, just like pure communism, pure libertarianism, etc. But, to me, he's not compromising one whit if he calls what I do for a living "evil". Sorry, don't buy it.
Yet, he simultaneously holds the position that proprietary software is evil, and that people who write GPLed software won't do so unless they are incented by the ability to sell non-GPLed copies of that software to evil people who are going to merge it with their proprietary software and sell it for a profit.
Not quite. He holds the position that some people can't reasonably work on GPL software unless they dual-license it. This, like the LGPL, is a compromise Stallman has taken to try to foster more development in GPL or GPL-like licenses. Hopefully, even more people will realize Stallman isn't a saint.
See, there again, it might just have to do with our definitions of "evil." If he used a less-loaded term like "not ideal" or "unfortunate" I could be on board. But I honestly can't see working really hard to enable behavior that I consider to be evil. Perhaps I'm just naive in that way. That's exactly what I was trying to say in the next section...
If I believed that someone was evil, I wouldn't have anything to do with them, and if I merely thought they were misguided, I wouldn't use that term -- it is very heavily loaded. I would almost go so far as to say Stallman is evil for using it. (See how that works?)
Granted. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. But, such a position really works into being unable to call anyone or anything evil unless one is a pure saint. Since few to no such people exists, I don't think it's a reasonably position to take. The real issue is how overly broadly and commonly uses the word evil, not that he uses it at all.
See, I don't believe that first part at all. Even without moral absolutes, you can draw a line somewhere on the bell curve and get 99% of the people to agree that what is past it is evil. You can draw a line somewhere else, and get 99% of the people to agree that, while they don't think it's evil, they can easily see how someone else would. Stallman draws the line where only about 10% of the population would agree with him.
Personally, I believe that Stallman has done some good things, but also has some stuff to answer for, and calling me evil is one of those things he will eventually have to answer for. He and his followers are not yet as single-mindedly obsessed as the Taliban or the anti-abortionists, but they are getting there.
Speaking of glass houses... Yes, there will almost certainly be those few p
You may not be an evil person, but certainly the situation of complete dependency in which you put your clients could be aptly described as evil (the path to hell is paved with good intentions they say).
Umm, no, that wouldn't be me. The only reason I don't open-source pretty much everything I write is because of contractual obligations. (For example, right now I'm an employee, and my employer owns my production.) Both now and when I was contracting, my employers/customers typically aren't selling my software; they are using it for an internal competitive advantage, which even Stallman seems to be OK with.
Harm may come if somebody uses the proprietary license to create another proprietary application without a similar dual-licensing system, but that would be the fault of developer of this new application, rather than being the fault of original application/library developer.
Oh, come on! Except in your and RMS's fantasy moral-relativistic framework, that's complete, utter, bullshit.
I have turned down multiple job offers because I felt the companies were immoral, and one of those times I was on unemployment (though not for long).
The only reason for someone to pay to get a non-GPL license is to turn around and sell the software to other customers, embedded in a non-open-source proprietary application. I don't personally feel that proprietary software is evil, but if I did I would certainly not be enabling others to be evil by taking money from them when I knew they were going to commit the heinous act of linking my precious software with their private stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but why would I want to buy exactly the same part as the one that just went bad? Maybe I can get a better one from a different manufacturer...
Prove this, and I'll show by induction that all the positive integers are subsets of 1!
We'll share the credit!
So, it really is more useful to compare Microsoft's "revenue" to an individual's "income."
In those terms, yes, it's about 8 days of revenue.
selven's original post said:
In the follow-up, he said:
which is about right if we substitute "revenue" for "income".
He then went on to say:
which is arguably overstating his case a bit. If we take your numbers at face value, that Microsoft's revenue is approximately one million times an average individual's revenue, then the equivalent for a person would be around $900, or probably around 4 average speeding tickets where I live. As you point out, it is a bit like apples and oranges. But I have to say, if a court here somehow found me guilty of speeding continuously for several years, they would probably find a way to fine me a lot more than $900, as well as take my license away.
In any case, it was obviously a flip comment by the original poster, that, while tongue-in-cheek, is not that far off from reality. You can accept that or not, but there's not really that much more "proving" to be done.
Of course, some days I can't tell the difference either, what with Microsoft being the main backer of the BSA.
That's what the weak encryption is all about.
Of course, the world might change after the Supreme Court decides Bilski, but to take a real-world example, back when CompuServe decided to be stupid and start charging royalties on GIF implementations, wouldn't it have been smarter of them to say that, if your implementation is under the GPL, then there is no royalty? They killed that golden goose about the time it should have started laying them some serious eggs if they had treated it better.
So, if an implementation of GIF was under the GPL (and also available not under the GPL) both the software author and the patent holder could have profited from selling the non-GPLed software version (these could be one and the same entity/person, but that's not strictly necessary). A sane strategy would have charged "x" dollars for the use of the patent, "x+y" for the patent + software, or "0" for the software and patent in a GPLed application.
I don't know what you think people do with patents, but most patents are, in fact, quite selectively licensed.
When I have the big, heavy, cardboard box up near the cash register and they start asking me if I want their warranty, I set it down as quickly as possible without any damage, back up like I just found out it's infected with ebola, and say in a very loud, incredulous, voice "It's going to BREAK!!?! I don't want it if it's going to BREAK!!!"
Of course, they assure me that it's perfectly fine, so I ask why they even sell warranties, and then they go into some weaselly song and dance. But the upshot is, I don't get the usual hard-sell on the warranty, because I've convinced them I'm ready to bolt without the hardware.
Not sure. I don't use it often enough to keep track. I'd make a call now and check it, but I'd have to charge it first :-)
Seriously, I'd been waiting for years for some company to be smart enough to do what Virgin did. There were prepaid plans before, but most of those required you to stay on top of things -- didn't have the "auto-top-up." I really just wanted a phone for, well, not emergencies, exactly, but contingencies, where things might change in an unexpected fashion. I wanted a phone I hardly ever use, but where I could keep the same number for years and could do more than call 911. For around $65.00 / year, I'm a happy camper.
BTW, I haven't looked at their plans in awhile, but last time I looked they had (to compete with similar offerings from other companies, no doubt) two mid-range plans that were obviously for people who couldn't do algebra. One of them was only a good deal (better than their other offerings) if you used between 100 and 120 minutes per month, and the only one was only better if you used between 200 and 220. Any more or less, and you would have been better off with something else.
It is a "prepaid" plan from Virgin Mobile. It costs $0.18/minute, and to keep the number and keep the minutes, I have to give them $15.00 every 90 days. The phone cost me $35.00.
So, for $5.00 / month (+ 8.25% sales tax, so more like $5.43) I have a phone that currently has hundreds of minutes available on it.
I haven't found a data plan which gives equivalent value yet, though...
The fact is, more young boys than girls will treat any kind of toy or stick or whatever they can find as a weapon, and more young girls than boys will treat any kind of toy or stick or whatever they can find as a doll, and I think most people who are parents and truly think about it realize that this happened at an extremely young age for their kids. If there is a "nurture" side to how this works, it is exerted very early and in a round-about way.
At the least, you must be an American. The rest of the world seems to still realize that lawyers usually cause more problems than they solve.
It's really not that difficult, especially if you are distributing a CD. Just include the source on the CD.
There are multiple parts to the DMCA, which is an update to copyright law. Google and wikipedia are your friends here, but basically, without the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA, any ISP or search engine would be at major risk.
I actually had the misfortune to have to send google a takedown notice after our neighborhood's property manager put some of our newsletters online at a public place (they were already available on a different website via password). I got the idiot property manager to take them down (but only after threatening him with going to the state board of realtors for violating his fiduciary duty), but google was actually a *lot* harder. In the end, I was never sure whether they responded to my takedown notice, or whether the newsletters just rolled off the cache. (FWIW, Microsoft Live!, at the time, took them down almost immediately.)
In any case, forcing google to take the takedown process more seriously and deal with it more expeditiously can only be a good thing, IMHO.
Also arguably, it would be stupid of you to not to follow the existing conventions, regardless of how stupid they are.
But it probably wouldn't be stupid to gently point out that all the calls to calloc/bzero could be replaced with a macro invocation, which on most platforms could have the bzero removed, and then the bzero could be ifdefed back in if there is still call for the thing to run on a broken compiler...
Yes, back in the 90's, I worked with a junior developer who thought that everyVariableMustTellItsOwnStoryIncludingItsLifeHistoryInItsName. He misspelled one of these gems, and I was grepping for a solid half hour before I figured out why I couldn't locate it, after glancing at the name in one of the source files.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_building_code
You'd think that google, of all companies, would realize that making people google for "go" is practically a non-starter.
Stallman basically says that community-driven development of MySQL will fail, and that a corporate backer who can sell MySQL under a non-GPL license is required for the continuing viability of MySQL. The only reason that someone would buy MySQL under a non-GPL license is to link it with other proprietary software. So when I wrote:
there is no question that I was paraphrasing Stallman. Perhaps I was even satirizing Stallman. But I don't think I was twisting his words; just condensing them down to make the true essence of his bullshit more easily visible.
If by "loose definition of evil" you mean that I don't think ordinary people who have slightly different moral compasses than mine aren't evil, then guilty as charged. But, judging by the rest of your comments, you and I have way different opinions of how overloaded the connotations of the actual word "evil" are. To me, it is a word that should only be used to describe that which should be exterminated without further thought or debate. That also seems to be how most people use it.
Yes, currently unlivable, and always unlivable, just like pure communism, pure libertarianism, etc. But, to me, he's not compromising one whit if he calls what I do for a living "evil". Sorry, don't buy it.
See, there again, it might just have to do with our definitions of "evil." If he used a less-loaded term like "not ideal" or "unfortunate" I could be on board. But I honestly can't see working really hard to enable behavior that I consider to be evil. Perhaps I'm just naive in that way. That's exactly what I was trying to say in the next section...
See, I don't believe that first part at all. Even without moral absolutes, you can draw a line somewhere on the bell curve and get 99% of the people to agree that what is past it is evil. You can draw a line somewhere else, and get 99% of the people to agree that, while they don't think it's evil, they can easily see how someone else would. Stallman draws the line where only about 10% of the population would agree with him.
SparkFun should be laughing all the way to the bank, once they get past the lawyerly nuisance.
Umm, no, that wouldn't be me. The only reason I don't open-source pretty much everything I write is because of contractual obligations. (For example, right now I'm an employee, and my employer owns my production.) Both now and when I was contracting, my employers/customers typically aren't selling my software; they are using it for an internal competitive advantage, which even Stallman seems to be OK with.
Oh, come on! Except in your and RMS's fantasy moral-relativistic framework, that's complete, utter, bullshit.
I have turned down multiple job offers because I felt the companies were immoral, and one of those times I was on unemployment (though not for long).
The only reason for someone to pay to get a non-GPL license is to turn around and sell the software to other customers, embedded in a non-open-source proprietary application. I don't personally feel that proprietary software is evil, but if I did I would certainly not be enabling others to be evil by taking money from them when I knew they were going to commit the heinous act of linking my precious software with their private stuff.