But patents extend to user data. HD Photo is heavily patented. The wiki says basically, "it's patented, but MS promises not to sue anybody who uses it but doesn't put it under the GPL."
"It weeds your garden, it mows your lawn, it cleans your bathroom, it kills your puppy, and it irons your shirts. In 4 out of 5 cases this is helpful, so I think overall it's a good thing".
As far as I know, the Linux kernel will remain with GPLv2. Right now, nothing is covered by GPLv3, so it means nothing. It should get interesting if some open source component used in Suse goes with GPLv3, though.
Actually, important point here: when you release software under the GPL, you can choose three different "modes" of application:
Choose a specific version and stick with it.
Choose a specific version and say "this version or later".
Say "any version of the GPL can apply".
What this means for the latter two, is that redistributors can take GPLv2 code, and they can change it to GPLv3. The "this version or later" clause is actually the "default", as far as the GPLv2 itself recommends you place in your code:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
(My emphasis).
This means that there is a huge amount of GPLv2 software which is set to become GPLv3 automatically. Granted, the main trunk won't necessarily become GPLv3. But it means that it's very easy for main trunks to upgrade to GPLv3, which they will do when they wish to integrate other GPLv3 code.
(Note: The Linux kernel does not use the "or later version" clause, so it is heartily stuck on GPLv2).
if MS is allowed to buy on free software distributor, they can buy others.
I think "others" would think very *very* seriously about dealing with the devil after what's happened (Novell having been basically instantly ostracised from the greater open source community).
But when it comes to cybercrime, no one really expects law enforcement to keep up technologically with criminals--it's an arms race the criminals keep winning. An alternative is to raise the penalties, in hopes of deterring criminals who weigh the benefits of committing their crimes against the risk of getting caught.
Clearly what is needed is the death penalty for all use of file sharing and other computer crimes. That is sure to reduce crime levels to near zero.
In case you missed my sarcasm, my point is that it is in no way "justice" (remember that word?) to raise penalties to offset the difficulty of catching criminals. Penalties for crimes are supposed to be in some way related to the severity of the crime. That's the notion of "justice". It's fair to weigh the penalty against the severity of the crime, not the difficulty to detect the crime.
2. "Buy it for 1 year for $25, or for life for $75".
Wow... I didn't know they were selling time-limited versions now. This Vista+Office07 operation is just such a ripoff. Without going into the moral or technical problems with these systems, just from a cost perspective there's something wrong. You used to get all the features rolled in with the pro version (and there was the cheaper home version). Now there are like 7 versions, the good features going into only the ridiculously-beyond-the-means-of-most-people versions, and you're still paying for limited time (or you can UPGRADE to a perpetual license!)
This is just going to slip slide down and get worse and worse. We predicted that in a few years you won't actually own any software, just license it... looks like it's true.
Sounds about right, but as far as the competition goes, I think Firefox is about as slim as IE, while OO and Office are as bloated as each other. Office suites tend to be.
I'm puzzled. In what way is Google open source? Yes, there are some open elements, but...
Google is a huge promoter and funder of open source software. But I agree, their core software is not, which is kinda hypocritical.
And Wikipedia's success is far from proven, nor is it entirely truly open either. If anything the area where it fails the most is in Education, since the information it contains is unreliable.
Wikipedia is as open as anything possibly could be. (Short of them giving everyone root access on their web servers).
The software it runs on (MediaWiki) was written specifically for Wikipedia. It's open source and GPL. I use it for my personal and professional (education) uses all the time.
The other software on their web servers is Apache and MySQL. Both open source.
All text which gets placed on Wikipedia is automatically released under the GFDL, so the text is "open source" (or "open text") too. This means anyone is free to copy the text and use it, but they must continue to release under the GFDL, similar to the GPL.
Finally, it's open in the sense that anyone can edit it!
Therefore I am baffled at this statement that Wikipedia is "not entirely truly open".
I have never used OpenNMS and don't know much about this product or any of the other commercial runner ups mentioned, but I noticed one thing from the OpenNMS homepage and that is that they have this OpenNMS Group which provides services, training and support for the product. I think this is a model that more many other Open Source products would have a lot to gain from following.
Yup. It sounds like the guy in charge (Tarus Balog; what an awesome name) knows how to run an open source business.
Coincidentally, I was listening to FLOSS Weekly interview him yesterday (dated November 2006), where he talks all about how he runs this business. link.
OpenNMS has nothing to do with bandwidth. Looks like their website can't handle the stress, but the software itself is just designed to let you administer huge clusters of computers and get them back up and running quickly.
Doesn't render correctly (no scrollbars, and weird nested frames which makes me think a link targeted the wrong frame or something) on Firefox either (at least, FF 1.5).
So maybe this is an "operating system that runs on any computer (that runs Internet Explorer (that runs Microsoft Windows))".
Can someone enlighten me as to why he would choose to avoid that point? Is there some precedent that makes this dangerous to his argument?
Yes, that precedent is slashdot and it's ever-raging car analogies.
Sarcasm aside, I fully agree with you.
Not only does it highlight the disparity between enforcement of copyright laws versus safety laws (ie. there is a lot more focus on laws to make billions off sucker^H^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers than laws to stop people from dying). But also, this "speed limit" analogy is precisely in the favour of anti-DRM. She is absolutely right, we have speed limits, the law enforces speed limits. Why can't we have copyright law, and enforce it (through the law itself).
Of course, being velcro, it's rather easy to peel off, and everyone knows how to do it. But it's against the law, and if the cops catch you driving with your rate limiter removed, you're screwed.
(Though they are now offering "pre-litigation" settlement options).
That's great. Coincidentally enough, I just became aware of Randall Schwartz the other day when I listened to the FLOSS Weekly podcast where they interviewed him. It was a good listen (as always) - he talks about this case if anyone's interested.
Slashdot Mirror
itsatrap.
"It weeds your garden, it mows your lawn, it cleans your bathroom, it kills your puppy, and it irons your shirts. In 4 out of 5 cases this is helpful, so I think overall it's a good thing".
- Choose a specific version and stick with it.
- Choose a specific version and say "this version or later".
- Say "any version of the GPL can apply".
What this means for the latter two, is that redistributors can take GPLv2 code, and they can change it to GPLv3. The "this version or later" clause is actually the "default", as far as the GPLv2 itself recommends you place in your code:(My emphasis).This means that there is a huge amount of GPLv2 software which is set to become GPLv3 automatically. Granted, the main trunk won't necessarily become GPLv3. But it means that it's very easy for main trunks to upgrade to GPLv3, which they will do when they wish to integrate other GPLv3 code.
(Note: The Linux kernel does not use the "or later version" clause, so it is heartily stuck on GPLv2).
Or ... maybe ... like ... get firefox?
(But yes, IE 7 > IE 6 on standards compliance, so that's a good thing for web designers who can't choose what software the zombies use).
Hm... did you hear of Windows ME? :P
That's the best analogy I've seen for the GPL. Thankyou!
Um... excuse me. What the hell do you think you're doing poking around in our operating system?
In case you missed my sarcasm, my point is that it is in no way "justice" (remember that word?) to raise penalties to offset the difficulty of catching criminals. Penalties for crimes are supposed to be in some way related to the severity of the crime. That's the notion of "justice". It's fair to weigh the penalty against the severity of the crime, not the difficulty to detect the crime.
It's not cheating if
1. Rofl rofl rofl.
2. "Buy it for 1 year for $25, or for life for $75".
Wow... I didn't know they were selling time-limited versions now. This Vista+Office07 operation is just such a ripoff. Without going into the moral or technical problems with these systems, just from a cost perspective there's something wrong. You used to get all the features rolled in with the pro version (and there was the cheaper home version). Now there are like 7 versions, the good features going into only the ridiculously-beyond-the-means-of-most-people versions, and you're still paying for limited time (or you can UPGRADE to a perpetual license!)
This is just going to slip slide down and get worse and worse. We predicted that in a few years you won't actually own any software, just license it... looks like it's true.
Er... not that I care because I don't pay for software anymore.
Sounds about right, but as far as the competition goes, I think Firefox is about as slim as IE, while OO and Office are as bloated as each other. Office suites tend to be.
I personally haven't had much trouble with OOo.
Oh... yeah ... forgot Linux!
- The software it runs on (MediaWiki) was written specifically for Wikipedia. It's open source and GPL. I use it for my personal and professional (education) uses all the time.
- The other software on their web servers is Apache and MySQL. Both open source.
- All text which gets placed on Wikipedia is automatically released under the GFDL, so the text is "open source" (or "open text") too. This means anyone is free to copy the text and use it, but they must continue to release under the GFDL, similar to the GPL.
- Finally, it's open in the sense that anyone can edit it!
Therefore I am baffled at this statement that Wikipedia is "not entirely truly open".If you're comparing MS Office to IE, and OpenOffice.org to Firefox, well history is starting to look quite good on the open side...
Coincidentally, I was listening to FLOSS Weekly interview him yesterday (dated November 2006), where he talks all about how he runs this business. link.
OpenNMS has nothing to do with bandwidth. Looks like their website can't handle the stress, but the software itself is just designed to let you administer huge clusters of computers and get them back up and running quickly.
guess it worked
Wow. That sucks man.
Doesn't render correctly (no scrollbars, and weird nested frames which makes me think a link targeted the wrong frame or something) on Firefox either (at least, FF 1.5).
So maybe this is an "operating system that runs on any computer (that runs Internet Explorer (that runs Microsoft Windows))".
But then it isn't really using dominos for the turing completeness, is it?
I assume that Dominos aren't (and will never be) turing complete...?
I mean, each domino can fall over only once. So while you can do an adder, I'm not sure you could really get a for loop going.
Sarcasm aside, I fully agree with you.
Not only does it highlight the disparity between enforcement of copyright laws versus safety laws (ie. there is a lot more focus on laws to make billions off sucker^H^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers than laws to stop people from dying). But also, this "speed limit" analogy is precisely in the favour of anti-DRM. She is absolutely right, we have speed limits, the law enforces speed limits. Why can't we have copyright law, and enforce it (through the law itself).
Of course, being velcro, it's rather easy to peel off, and everyone knows how to do it. But it's against the law, and if the cops catch you driving with your rate limiter removed, you're screwed.
(Though they are now offering "pre-litigation" settlement options).
That's great. Coincidentally enough, I just became aware of Randall Schwartz the other day when I listened to the FLOSS Weekly podcast where they interviewed him. It was a good listen (as always) - he talks about this case if anyone's interested.
Could God could create a DRM so secure even he himself couldn't crack it?