My company, which makes extensive use of GPL'd software, is planning to place all the software that we develop internally under the GPL as soon as we can. We don't have spare resources to spend generalizing our code, so it will happen gradually.
Bringing RMS in for a talk would seem overkill, but I was wondering what suggestions that people have to bring a free software mindset to a corporation. Our development team is small, so that doesn't concern me. Our CFO and COO is very supportive. However, how to we explain to the rest of the company that we are giving away the fruits of our labor?
Not knowing Espy, I won't comment on him. However, this situation gets me to think.
It is great that someone was able to use the Internet to communicate with people despite physical ailments. When I was a teenager in suburban South Florida, I had no method of transportation. In an area with no useful public transportation and spread out housing, this prevented me from interacting socially with my classmates, as I went to a middle school and high school 30 minutes from my house. While I wouldn't equate a major physical illness to being under the driving age, the age issue creates a small subset of the problems.
I met many people through a local BBS. Most of the people I keep in touch with from home I originally met online. We had the advantage of living within 30-45 minutes from each other.
A good friend of mine is actually staying with me at school. He is getting on his feet, and I am glad to be of help.
Why am I commenting on this? It took me years with this particular friend to call me Alex instead of Scorp. He still thinks of certain people by their handles. I mostly used my friends' names, and tried to get others to return the favor. But this particular friend wouldn't do it for a while.
It saddens me that people who had many conversations with this gentleman may not have known his given name. It worries me when handles constantly replace names in our conversations.
Is this not a problem? Is a handle merely a chosen name that replaces a given name? Is a handle an identity, and we don't interact with their real self, merely this persona?
Perhaps I'm ready too much into this, but I find it sad that many people that knew him knew him via handle, and not name. Maybe I'm "old fashioned," but I don't think that handles are as personal as a name.
You name is at the core of your identity. Your handle is a front, a persona we put out to shield ourselves. I would like to think that I people that know me get to know the real me, instead of a convenient front.
In this case, they knew the online personality. They didn't know the individual behind the curtain. They didn't know his name, his ailment, his problems, merely a handle and his technical savvy. While I like being appreciated for my technical skills, I'd rather be known for who I am.
IM clients benefit from a huge network effect. The value of them increases as you get more users. (This throws a lot of economic paradigms out the window, but IM is "free" so it's hard to apply them).
AOL owns the two largest IM networks, AIM/AOL and ICQ. This system is an obvious one. Why, the rest of the players are tiny. If they merge and can grow, they can become significant. They need to count on users switching to the "standard" so that they can force AOL to play (after which, Microsoft takes over the non-AOL user market).
However, AOL still hasn't (to my knowledge, I mostly use AIM as my friends have all switched from ICQ) gotten ICQ and AIM to play nicely.
Now, if AOL feels any threat, then they merge the top two messaging clients and get even bigger network effects. Right now, AOL doesn't find it critical... they just don't put effort into ICQ and let everyone drift to AIM. If they needed two, they'd merge the databases.
AOL will never join one of these groups. These groups won't make a dent, as Instant Messenger/ICQ dominate the market. It would be suicide to work with this group. Who would download the AOL client if the Microsoft one shipped with Windows and was equivalent (good enough)...
Remember Netscape? AOL is too smart for this.
Alex
Re:Tenon, not Apple, is giving a way to run X on O
on
MacOSX and X11
·
· Score: 2
Even at $500, this will probably sell a LOT of copies.
In the network I run, we are a Windows shop, as we need Office to communicate with the outside world. We are moving our outside hosted websites in house, and therefore are bringing some *nix boxes in (some will be Linux, don't know about all of them yet).
Our graphic developers use Macintoshes.
I'm personally ending up with an assortment of machines, Linux for devel, Windows for Office, I'd love a G4, just need a justification.
Now, with the BSD layer, the Mac Applications (including MS Office), and an X11 Server, I can trash the Windows and Linux boxes, and run a Macintosh.
This gives me lots of power, an easy interface, and lots of flexibilty. This product WILL sell.
You make a mistake. There are two types of "courts" civil and criminal.
Criminal Courts involve the State (one of the 50, or the United States) vs. an individual. There is a prosecuter and a defendant.
Civil Courts involve two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant.
There are two jurisdictions (within the US), state and federal.
Civil Crimes between two parties within a state: state civil court.
Criminal crimes against state law: state criminal court.
Criminal cases including US law: federal court.
Civil cases involving US law, interstate commerce, etc: federal court.
I do not THINK that there is a seperate federal criminal and civil system. I believe that the states divide them because of their case load requiring so many judges that it results in an easier management system with seperate civil and criminal courts.
HOWEVER, the different courts are not different in scope, just management. i.e., cases are assigned based on the court's expertise, however a criminal court judge and a civil judge within the same district have equivalent jurisdiction, they merely see different cases.
As the federal criminal code is MUCH smaller, I do not believe that there is a seperate federal criminal court. Although there are federal crimes, most overlap with state laws and are left to the states.
Ebay appears to be asking the US court system to maintain the licensing agreement between two parties engaging in interstate commerce. As a result, federal courts have appropriate jurisdiction.
It sounds like he has been notified that he is unwelcome. He continues to establish accounts, probably in spite of agreeing to a terms of use that says he will obey the decisions.
It seems like court protection is reasonable. Federal also makes sense as this is interstate commerce. It would appear that his actions MAY be interfering with Ebay's ability to conduct business.
If I ran a store, and someone kept entering that was asked to leave, I could no doubt call the police and have them removed. This appears to be the equivalent.
I don't see a regulation of the Internet issue with this. This appears to be the same legal system that protects people in real space, and is a good precedent. The idea that you can actually remove users, even with an easy registration process, is a good one.
Remember when BBSes (awaiting the BBS and Internet aren't technically related flames) used call-back verification and would only allow one account so that you could be suspended? This is impossible on the Internet (DHCP/NAT, etc) and seems like the most reasonable approach.
Someone wrote a useful program, made it Free, everyone liked it and used it. He tried to make a buck by making it not Free. Users got mad, took the version he provided for free (the bait) and redid his tweaks. Therefore, the switch failed.
Closed source programs aren't really covered in his article. Free software that pulls a bait and switch will result in the users getting mad and reimplementing the fixes.
In otherwords, you can sell propriatary software, maybe users will pay, maybe a bunch will reimplement for free. However, don't try to release it for free to get marketshare and then try to pull a fast one with the upgrades.
If you use Free Software to establish yourself, don't expect to be able to make it proprietary, because someone will keep it Free. Proprietary software can't leverage the community, that was my reading.
Computers, while possessing the capability to enhance education, aren't used that way. Either the school takes a vocational approach (we'll teach you word processing because you need it in the workplace), it is used by students independently (in grade school I managed to get computer study, and played games for a few hours), or is totally misutilized by teachers not trained in their proper use.
A lot of time was lost when I was in school by teachers trying to figure out what was wrong with the machine, etc.
While computers can be used to assist education, merely throwing expensive distractions into classrooms doesn't provide anything.
I'm willing to pay a reasonable fee for a good one, especially a hardware one that would go quickly. I'm building a computer for my car, it'll play MP3s, have a GPS system, possible one or two systems that I'm prototyping for work, and mostly, to see what I can do with it.
My two home machines are a K6-3 (Win2K) and K6-2 (RedHat Linux), but at work I use an Athlon 700. I'd be willing to pay a reasonable fee for a decent encoder, with hardware being preferable. I was hoping to rip my CDs and my girlfriend's CDs so that we can listen to them in the car on road trips without flipping through CDs. Right now, I buy CDs that I was for driving, but the ones I like seems to acquire scratches relatively commonly, only busting out the actual CD when I ride with a friend or visit my folks would be a nice improvement.
If anyone can help me out here, I'd appreciate it.
But if you notice, then the NSA is contracted someone to build a secure Linux. That secure Linux MIGHT be Free Software (or internal only), but it wouldn't be developed as open source.
Free Software - Software available to all respected the rights RMS believes are important
Open Source - Source available, can modify source, etc., not as many guarantees as free software
Developed as Open Source - Bazaar approach, many eyes, many contributers, anyone can submit code, roll their own patches, pressured to accept all patches, chaos, etc. Produces some really neat stuff, but it is totally chaotic.
There is a distinction there. The "Open Source Model" of millions of programmers cannot produce something to a strict spec, as that requries careful management, coordination, etc., the Mythical Man Month still holds.
Anything can be made Open Source/Free Software. there is a difference. Being Open/Free merely involves licensing, Open Source Development is the chaotic model that Mozilla, Linux, and a few other projects function with (Apache?). Others have been more controlled (the BSDs, Xfree86, GNU, etc.) while still being made available as Free.
On the NT thing: I'm not whining about it, I'm getting sick of the nonsense I see here. Microsoft's tests don't test much, they test a bare minimum. However, I'm sick of being called a moron because I know systems other than Linux. I routinely use Linux and NT, some Solaris, and learning FreeBSD and OpenBSD, unfortunantely I'm just not smart enough to realize that Linux is all you need.:)
As in, I've had many problems when using a mixture of NT 3.51 and NT 4.0 machines, or now with a mixture of 4.5 and 2K machines. I've also had nightmares where Windows 95 and Windows 98 do NOT play nicely with the same profiles.
Local profiles become corrupted all the time. Roaming profiles get screwy between different versions (NT 3.51 -> 4.0 -> 5.0/2K; Windows 95 - 98). Over a 10 Megabit connection, they are slow to setup if that machine wasn't the last one you used. Over a DSL connection (a client is using DSLs and a private network to run a cheap Wan...), it is unbearably slow, and thats a dedicated DSL for that computer.
This sounds like a horrible idea. If it is "because we can" that's pretty cool, just for the neato factor (although possible now with LMHOSTS files), but as a real approach to computing... right... Unless they are planning to REALLY strip down what goes in a profile (a good idea) and try to make the concept work... but even then, the point seems dubious.
Trusted Systems refers ONLY to the spec. The spec must match a certain criteria, and then the OS is designed and tested to that criteria.
Remember the NT C1 (now C2) compliance thing? Because NT's design happened to include some of the elements of the C2 definition, they were able to come up with a configuration that could be trusted. Not bugfree or secure, but trusted. (Note, NT's C2 security used to involve no NIC, but I think they fixed it).
OpenBSD is really fucked secure, but isn't designed to the spec, doesn't include the ACLs and other stuff needed for DoD compliance, etc.
Neither does FreeBSD, but remember the Trusted FreeBSD project? They are trying to make a B1 compliant (trusted) BSD based off FreeBSD.
Also, Operating Systems are not inherently trustable. It is the entire system that earns a security rating. It largely involves a fine tuned control of file access, but not a fine tuned fixing of bugs.
Alex
Yes, I picked NT as my "trusted OS" mostly because it will generate the stupid/. effect of "waah waah waah, NT is horrible, you must be a moron" the required "you are the stupidest ass in the world" and other stuff like that.
Get a grip kids! OSes are NOT the end all and be all of life. Further, drop the prejudices. I am an MCSE, that does not make me a moron, clueless, or a lemming. Indeed, just because all the MCSEs that you know are dumb does not mean that they are dumb BECAUSE they are MCSEs. Some of us happen to be very competant administrators, and happen to have a certification. Some of us actually learned are shit to get it, instead of just memorizing study guides.
Quit hurling insults to people that sometimes disagree. Alex
The issue deals with free speach. Laws regulating expression are given the strictest scrutiny. One of those conditions is the "least restrictive means" and other condititions like reasonable means.
It is NOT unconstitutional to prohibit minors from certain material. Adults have full freedom of expression, minors have different levels of constitutional rights.
If it was not an unreasonable burden upon publishers, than preventing minors from accessing the material is okay. However, if the burdens are unreasonable and would create a chilling affect on free speach, then it is not okay.
If there was a system whereby people could post adult material and prevent minors from accessing it, then it would be okay. If the means to prevent minors from accessing it would restrict adult speach, than it is no good.
For example, if everyone was issued a digital certificate that verified that they were an adult (age >18) at age 18, and that could be used without compromising any additional information, than it would be okay.
For example, if Biometrics were common place, and your fingerprint could unlock the key to send, than this would not be an unreasonable burden. There would be no tracking (and therefore no chilling effect), and minors wouldn't have access to adult material.
That would not be an unreasonable scenario nor likely unconstitutional.
If a ratings system was in place that could truly categorize the site, than if you could screen based on locality without an undo burden, that would also be okay. Something like P3P (client negotiating with the system) would work, because it wouldn't chill free speach, but would allow community standards to reign.
I am an MCSE, you aren't, and are stating VERY insulting things to MCSEs. I use NT and Linux, at home I run Win2K w/ Office and Exceed for my RH6.2 machine, at work I currently only have a Linux box but I'm adding a Win2K box in a few weeks.
Now, any NT Admin worth anything didn't learn from the study guides. When I did my certification, there weren't many study guides, and I was in high school (read poor). I grabbed the NT 4 Server Resource Kit from the school computer guy, and read it.
If you want to learn NT as an administrator, you MUST read the Resource Kit. It is essentially the manual.
When preparing for a test, the study guides are nice (I need to pick them up if I'm upgrading to the 2K cert), because they help you prepare for the test.
HOWEVER to run an NT network, you must learn NT inside and out, and therefore, you must read the resource kit.
To run a Linux system (not a single box, but a whole computer system), you need to read all the appropriate MAN pages to get everything togethere. The relevent books are great because they put you in the right direction, but you still need to hack around and read MAN pages for months to learn everything. Alternatively, you can read the source code.
If you really think that Linux admins will be able to get by from the GUI alone, you're on crack. If you think that an NT Admin can get by on Resource Kits and the GUI, you are on crack.
GUIs can never include everything to really administer a system, as there are always more options available as you learn the system. To run NT Networks, you need to become familiar with the Registry and the various NT Scripting Languages. KiXtart is nice for logon scripting, Perl (supported for NT from the Resource Kit or other sources) is nice, although being more of an NT than *nix guy, I don't know well enough, and the other languages are useful. Windows Scripting Host has potential, but it needs work.
MCSE study guides are NOT the way to learn NT Administration. They are a way for NT Administrators to prepare for exams. The paper MCSEs learn from those books, and are not really good Administrators.
You guys like to bash NT Admins because "the MCSEs we hired didn't know anything." Well, judging us NT Admins by the MCSEs without knowledge is about as fair as my judging the Linux Kernel hackers by the kids who post nonsense on slashdot that get mod'd to 5 despite 12 comments in response correcting them factually.
Running an NT Network without the Resource Kit is foolish. You can complain about pricing schemes, but if you want to run you NT Network, but the Resource Kit and use the included software as needed.
The MCSE study guides teach you enough to pass the tests, not enough to run a system. The Windows 2000 certification fiasco was a bloody mess that caused many NT/Unix people to drop the NT side, but they are trying to make the exams less studyable and require more learning.
If you read the Resource Kit, there are sections on scripted installs. If your NT guy doesn't know what he is doing, replace him, not your network. If Linux can do something that NT can't, run Linux (I'm dropping a few Linux/FreeBSD servers in our new rack along with the 2 NT Servers that I'm using), but don't criticize NT or NT Admins by our weakest link.
I've bitched out paper MCSEs, one at the consulting firm I was at was going to do a 2000 user migration by using User Manager instead of a script. I smacked him around until we wrote the script that gets used at all client sites.
The GUI tools are useful. Sites without dedicated Admins can handle the trivial tasks (adding users, etc.) without an Admin, and bring in a consultant when they need real work done.
However, no system can be done without a proper administrator.
MCSE Study Books DO NOT TEACH YOU TO ADMINISTER A NETWORK. Resource Kits, Manuals, and Reference Guides combined with experience do.
Copyright law gives the holder the right to prevent others from distributing their work (with the exceptions of fair use). It does NOT give them a right to restrict the usage. The only reason licensing agreements work is that you are agreeing to the rules, NOT by copyright law, they stem from contract law. Now, under fair use, I can ALWAYS make 1 copy for my own personal use. This does not violate copyright law. This creates some bizarre situations because the means of production are now commonplace. For example, I borrow a friend's CD. This is perfectly legal. I make a copy of the CD for my personal use. Also legal. I return the CD to my friend, perfectly legal. At no point has anyone involved broken the copyright restriction on distribution. However, say I tell my friend I like a CD of his. He makes me a copy. He gives me the copy. I have NOT broken the law, but he has. Why? There is NOTHING illegal in possessing copyrighted material, only in the distribution of it. As a result, the people downloading the music have broken no laws. Whether I have the CD or not, I may legally make a copy for personal use. User X makes a MP3 rip of a song. User X has created a derived work of the song, so copyright remains with the owner. I may then make my personal copy of this song. However, if I share it back out, then I am distributing copyrighted material, that is illegal. Copyright was designed to allow authors to profit off their books instead of allowing the owners of the press to take all the profits. This gave authors an incentive to write. It was NEVER meant to control the masses. However, with digital medium, the power to copy is with the masses, so what do we do? Alex
It seems to me the Loki does straightfoward ports. It appears that they have developed a pretty robust toolset and they are able to port Windows software without too much difficulty. While each game no doubt requires adding to the tool-kit, voice recognition seems a bit off.
I'll be the first to admit that I haven't messed with sound much on Linux. My old 1.x kernel based Linux install choked on my PAS 16, and currently my Linux box is without sound... it all runs through the X Server on my NT machine.
However, from what I have seen, sound still doesn't have the super flexible API that MS produced. Quality or not, MS finally has a system for accessing sound cards without too much trouble. I have no doubt that Linux is pretty far along by now, but I doubt that sound integration is THAT pleasant. IIRC, there are two sound driver models... which is an improvement, but I don't see anything approaching DirectSound for at LEAST 6 months to a year.
Loki would no doubt reinvent the wheel. If the system that they bought/licensed abstracts enough, maybe they can plug in Linux sound support. But if the Linux sound capabilities isn't as flexible as the DirectSound, I wouldn't expect it.
Also, while porting old games is possible, most Linux users/gamers maintain a Win9x dual boot for games, releasing a Linux version a year down the road sounds like a bad business. Even if initial sales are solid, the later games will fail. While the novelty of a Linux port is solid in the beginning, in the end, how many people want to buy old games.
To get Linux ports, the userbase must demonstrate that there is a market (I believe there is, while Linux marketshare > %Windows users that are games), and must demonstrate that it is important to satisfy this market.
The trick is, companies must believe that a Linux port 6-12 months down the road isn't good enough. That requires companies that simultaneously release their versions see a large portion of Linux sales. If that happens, than maybe companies start working with Loki to port their game once the engine is largely complete. I mean, if properly abstracted, the game can write code that Loki can rewrite with their tools, and then the game is a straight recompile.
In a group project I was on, one person basically spend a day abstracting 1-2 line commands into a simple API. If we had to switch systems, he could rewrite his API in a day on the new system, and the higher level code would work without changes.
Portable code isn't difficult, you just abstract out all the hardware dependent features, and then have someone reimplement them. This may result in more work in the initial development, but it makes porting easier. Much like abstracting assembly code carefully, DirectX and other OS specific calls need to be abstracted away, so that they can reimplement on another system without trouble.
Well, in this case, the scripting capability bit them in the ass. However, the ease of which you can modify the registry through scripts in windows is a "Good Thing".
Yes there needs to be some kind of protection built into Outlook, because users are morons. However, if you were on a properly run NT workstation (with NTFS permissions set, etc) with the files stored on an NT server with proper permissions, this wouldn't have presented THAT wide spread a problem. An NT network is similar to a Unix network, except the ability to switch to Admin mode is busted (su is in the reskit, but still kinda screwy).
If you setup your NT network properly, you have the same protection as a Unix network, because you limit people's read/write access. The reason that viruses can hit NT networks but not Linux/Unix networks is that most systems give users admin access to their local workstation and the default NTFS permission is Everyone... however you are supposed to change this. However, most people don't so they are volunerable.
Windows Scripting Host is a wonderful thing from an administration point of view. It allows you to setup really powerful logon scripts, etc. It is arguably as powerful as the scripting available in a Unix environment, even if it is less commonly done.
I've written multipage KiXtart scripts with batch files to load the files, etc., that could have been done VERY easily in Windows Scripting host and much easier to maintain.
We commonly criticize MS for being too GUI focused because the CLI and scripts are more powerful. Well, if you go through the NT Reskit and stuff like this, MS puts out a LOT of support for CLI based approaches... which is a "Good Thing" from an administration point of view, although a "Bad Thing" from a Linux domination point of view..
Now, it is unfortunate that whoever works on the Office Suite is doing things like a moron, but it doesn't mean that Windows Scripting Host is a bad idea.
I would suggest that in that case, they'll probably replace the motherboard. They are offering to upgrade the RAM, because if the loss is the same, they want to start moving people to RDRAM... However, I doubt that they'll let you get away with rediculousness... they'll just ship out a new board.
Free Software (or the bastardized Open Source version) is about freedom. You have the right to modify or copy software that you have purchased.
RMS used to sell emacs tapes.
Redhat sells distributions with Linux, GNU, and other software.
VA Linux sells systems using Linux.
Under the GPL, you are NOT entitled to a free copy. The idea is that if you get a copy, you can do what you want.
Free Software is BEST suited to these sort of custom solutions, it is LEAST suited for general purpose applications. The fact that it has produced the general purpose applications is a fortunate result, but is odd.
Why is this?
If I need a custom solution, I need to pay for it. Either I hire a bunch of coders who right it, or I hire a consulting group to produce it.
It is CLEARLY in my interests to get the code and the right to do with it as I please.
If I want an air traffic system that will cost $100 million dollars over 5 years, I had better be asking for the included source code, right?
That's all that open source requires. If I pay the development costs, I don't want a copy that I can license, I want the work produced.
If I copy it to all my servers, or publish it on my web site asking for feedback, that is MY right.
The systems created are AUTOMATICALLY open source, as I have a copy of the binary and also have a copy of the source.
If I write a general purpose application, it is most likely to succeed in the proprietary form.
Why? Take an Office platform. The cost/copy is VERY low, because the development costs is spread over millions of users. With custom solutions, there is only one user, so they can pay the entire development costs, and they will INSIST on the right to modify and reuse their copy.
They won't give it to competitors, but the creator of the code may try to sell their services to competitors. That is the service model of open source.
Open Source does NOT mean that millions of eyes look at it. Linux, GNU, Apache, Mozilla, etc., utilize the bazarre model.
Why? Because they are creating a product that is too difficult to produce as an individual project. Torvalds could NOT have single handedly written a kernel to compete with SCO, but he wrote one for his own use. He made it open, and other people played around with it. It eventually became competitive with existing products, but only because millions of people kicked in a little work.
The bazarre model kicks in in general purpose applications when authors know that they can't make the product cost competitive with entrenched software, so they solicit wide ranging help.
Open Source doesn't mean free as in beer. You may still have to buy the copy, but you can then distribute it. For general purpose applications, the cost to buy would be low, so you would buy to redistribute... hence the bazarre/free development.
For custom applications, you spend a lot on something only valuable to one person/entity, so they'll pay a lot of money to develop it, but insist of the rights to use it as they please.
Stop confusing the bazarre model with open source.
They are independent events that happen to overlap.
This is kinda interesting. What is a mere conduit, what is a provider.
Okay, if I am an ISP, and people can automatically publish a website, everyone has a directory to store stuff in that is web accessable, I'm a conduit. I can't prevent people from putting stuff up. I can take it down if notified but prior restraints on speach in this case would be a nightmare.
If I run an IRC server, I'm a conduit, speach flows freely, files flow freely, and there is little that I can do.
However, Napster is more than a funky IRC server. They provide a search engine to find a song based on the title and artist. They automatically makes available on your machine and music in the directory that you download do. How is this a "mere" conduit.
I mean, if I provide a forum to publish files and tell people that I'll take down illegal ones, I'm argueably a conduit.
However, Napster does not GIVE people the opportunity to share files, it defaults to doing so. I've been ripping my CDs recently. Some are badly damaged, and I replace the missing songs with downloads from Napster. Am I doing anything illegal, no. In fact, I can arguably download music I don't own legally. Copyright refers to distribution, not use. I can borrow my friend's CD. If make a SINGLE copy of it for personal use, I am under fair use. If my friend makes me a copy of his CD and hands it to me, it is illegal, as he is distributing copyrighted works.
Now, Napster's default to share MP3s and make them searchable puts it into a grey area. The fact is, I, like most people, have a single directory of MP3s (subdirectories, but a single directory). Some of the songs are copies of music I bought a copy of, some are songs that I have not bought a copy of, and some are songs that are freely downloadable.
However, Napster makes NO effort to prevent me from sharing illegal to share files. So far, they are still, IMO, okay. Napster AUTOMATICALLY shares out all the songs in my directory that I download to. If I am downloading replacements for damaged tracks, it is legal for me to download them. HOWEVER, Napster will AUTOMATICALLY share those same tracks out. That to me makes Napster a publisher.
They are providing software that shares out my copyrighted songs. I DIDN'T choose to share them out, Napster did. Therefore, Napster is breaking the law.
Yes, as the sole copyright owner, the FSF can relicense should they choose to do so. However, as you have a copy of the software under the GPL, you still have the rights to make derived works.
However, should a third party begin using the Linux kernel illegally, it would be interesting to see how it could be enforced. First of all, the author of the specific code would need to file the suit. Now, this might be a random programmer somewhere, without the legal staff of the FSF.
Also, it is questionable if the GPL would work. I mean, IANAL, but my understanding is that the copyright owner has the authority to license their work for redistribution. However, Linux doesn't appear to have a copyright owner. As a result, if the GPL collapsed legally and needed to be rewritten, then Linux is dead. Why? Because NOBODY has the authority to redistribute the kernel.
Without a single owner, it couldn't be placed under a new license that could be upheld. Furthermore, a single GPL license for Linux may not be reasonable. Why? Each section is owned by a different individual. It would appear, to me, that they would all have to have their copy of the GPL included, and you should, theoretically, need to agree to dozens of separate GPLs with different parties to redistribute the GPL.
This is a potential nightmare. Again, it all comes down to, do we do things the "Right Way" FSF style whoses body of lawyers and Ph.Ds have done their best to work within the legal regime. Of the "hacker way" of daying "damn the man" even if it means that the GPL'd code base is worthless because we haven't done it correctly.
For example, say there is code in the Linux kernel written by someone under the employ of Microsoft. They didn't aquire a release from Microsoft to license their code under the GPL. Microsoft wants to shut down Linux, and files a lawsuit against Redhat, Caldera, S.U.S.E., the owners of various FTP sites with Linux, etc. Why can they do this? Because they own some code within the kernel that is being illegal distributed.
The Linux way leaves us open to blackmail or destruction by ANY malicious company whose employee didn't double check his contract and wrote kernel code. The FSF way guarantees that the code will always be free, although if the FSF went renegade, we would need to fork it under the GPL. If the FSF has the authority to revoke the license (we don't know what the courts would say) and they chose to do so, there is nothing that we can do, as FSF code is everywhere, so we'd be screwed. Worrying about the FSF turning on free software is absurd, because if they did so, we're dead regardless of if we turn the code over or not.
Now, I can think of two recent slashdot articles demonstrating the pros and cons.
BeOS, a well liked company, took code accidentally into a closed module. The code wasn't really used, but it was there. Bruce Perens, as the copyright owner, was able to issue them a writ allowing it. If the FSF owned it, they would have probably demanded that BeOS open that module... what would be better? I don't know. The former built up good will, the latter would result in more open code.
The other example is the nVidia mess. Much like the example of a company building a derived work from GNU Readline (I think I have the right name), the FSF might have been able to demand that they open the module or face a lawsuit. Instead, the individual developer accepted the answer of: "we'll fix it in a few weeks by removing your code" instead of demanding that they open the module.
I would suggest that in nVidia's case, the latter would have been better. The reason is that I am fundamentally opposed to groups writing closed code to interface with the Linux kernel. They are using a technicality in Linus's interpretation of the GPL to avoid contributing back while using the GPL code to sell hardware.
Why is this different? Be is writing a closed source OS that tries to be friendly to the free software community that made a mistake, and is moving the code out of all CDs. nVidia is trying to profit off the free software community by using Linux to sell hardware without giving back.
Slashdot Mirror
My company, which makes extensive use of GPL'd software, is planning to place all the software that we develop internally under the GPL as soon as we can. We don't have spare resources to spend generalizing our code, so it will happen gradually.
Bringing RMS in for a talk would seem overkill, but I was wondering what suggestions that people have to bring a free software mindset to a corporation. Our development team is small, so that doesn't concern me. Our CFO and COO is very supportive. However, how to we explain to the rest of the company that we are giving away the fruits of our labor?
Alex
Not knowing Espy, I won't comment on him. However, this situation gets me to think.
It is great that someone was able to use the Internet to communicate with people despite physical ailments. When I was a teenager in suburban South Florida, I had no method of transportation. In an area with no useful public transportation and spread out housing, this prevented me from interacting socially with my classmates, as I went to a middle school and high school 30 minutes from my house. While I wouldn't equate a major physical illness to being under the driving age, the age issue creates a small subset of the problems.
I met many people through a local BBS. Most of the people I keep in touch with from home I originally met online. We had the advantage of living within 30-45 minutes from each other.
A good friend of mine is actually staying with me at school. He is getting on his feet, and I am glad to be of help.
Why am I commenting on this? It took me years with this particular friend to call me Alex instead of Scorp. He still thinks of certain people by their handles. I mostly used my friends' names, and tried to get others to return the favor. But this particular friend wouldn't do it for a while.
It saddens me that people who had many conversations with this gentleman may not have known his given name. It worries me when handles constantly replace names in our conversations.
Is this not a problem? Is a handle merely a chosen name that replaces a given name? Is a handle an identity, and we don't interact with their real self, merely this persona?
Perhaps I'm ready too much into this, but I find it sad that many people that knew him knew him via handle, and not name. Maybe I'm "old fashioned," but I don't think that handles are as personal as a name.
You name is at the core of your identity. Your handle is a front, a persona we put out to shield ourselves. I would like to think that I people that know me get to know the real me, instead of a convenient front.
In this case, they knew the online personality. They didn't know the individual behind the curtain. They didn't know his name, his ailment, his problems, merely a handle and his technical savvy. While I like being appreciated for my technical skills, I'd rather be known for who I am.
Is this an unusual perspective?
Alex
IM clients benefit from a huge network effect. The value of them increases as you get more users. (This throws a lot of economic paradigms out the window, but IM is "free" so it's hard to apply them).
AOL owns the two largest IM networks, AIM/AOL and ICQ. This system is an obvious one. Why, the rest of the players are tiny. If they merge and can grow, they can become significant. They need to count on users switching to the "standard" so that they can force AOL to play (after which, Microsoft takes over the non-AOL user market).
However, AOL still hasn't (to my knowledge, I mostly use AIM as my friends have all switched from ICQ) gotten ICQ and AIM to play nicely.
Now, if AOL feels any threat, then they merge the top two messaging clients and get even bigger network effects. Right now, AOL doesn't find it critical... they just don't put effort into ICQ and let everyone drift to AIM. If they needed two, they'd merge the databases.
AOL will never join one of these groups. These groups won't make a dent, as Instant Messenger/ICQ dominate the market. It would be suicide to work with this group. Who would download the AOL client if the Microsoft one shipped with Windows and was equivalent (good enough)...
Remember Netscape? AOL is too smart for this.
Alex
Even at $500, this will probably sell a LOT of copies.
In the network I run, we are a Windows shop, as we need Office to communicate with the outside world. We are moving our outside hosted websites in house, and therefore are bringing some *nix boxes in (some will be Linux, don't know about all of them yet).
Our graphic developers use Macintoshes.
I'm personally ending up with an assortment of machines, Linux for devel, Windows for Office, I'd love a G4, just need a justification.
Now, with the BSD layer, the Mac Applications (including MS Office), and an X11 Server, I can trash the Windows and Linux boxes, and run a Macintosh.
This gives me lots of power, an easy interface, and lots of flexibilty. This product WILL sell.
Alex
And I thought that I was the only one who does that...
I do it routinely up at school and nobody realizes what I'm saying.
Sigh... still looking to buy an old Gauntlet arcade machine...
Wizard shot the potion...
Elf needs food badly...
You make a mistake. There are two types of "courts" civil and criminal.
Criminal Courts involve the State (one of the 50, or the United States) vs. an individual. There is a prosecuter and a defendant.
Civil Courts involve two parties, the plaintiff and the defendant.
There are two jurisdictions (within the US), state and federal.
Civil Crimes between two parties within a state: state civil court.
Criminal crimes against state law: state criminal court.
Criminal cases including US law: federal court.
Civil cases involving US law, interstate commerce, etc: federal court.
I do not THINK that there is a seperate federal criminal and civil system. I believe that the states divide them because of their case load requiring so many judges that it results in an easier management system with seperate civil and criminal courts.
HOWEVER, the different courts are not different in scope, just management. i.e., cases are assigned based on the court's expertise, however a criminal court judge and a civil judge within the same district have equivalent jurisdiction, they merely see different cases.
As the federal criminal code is MUCH smaller, I do not believe that there is a seperate federal criminal court. Although there are federal crimes, most overlap with state laws and are left to the states.
Ebay appears to be asking the US court system to maintain the licensing agreement between two parties engaging in interstate commerce. As a result, federal courts have appropriate jurisdiction.
Alex
It sounds like he has been notified that he is unwelcome. He continues to establish accounts, probably in spite of agreeing to a terms of use that says he will obey the decisions.
It seems like court protection is reasonable. Federal also makes sense as this is interstate commerce. It would appear that his actions MAY be interfering with Ebay's ability to conduct business.
If I ran a store, and someone kept entering that was asked to leave, I could no doubt call the police and have them removed. This appears to be the equivalent.
I don't see a regulation of the Internet issue with this. This appears to be the same legal system that protects people in real space, and is a good precedent. The idea that you can actually remove users, even with an easy registration process, is a good one.
Remember when BBSes (awaiting the BBS and Internet aren't technically related flames) used call-back verification and would only allow one account so that you could be suspended? This is impossible on the Internet (DHCP/NAT, etc) and seems like the most reasonable approach.
I wish Ebay well.
Alex
My take on the article:
Bait and switch is dumb, and won't work...
Go over the story.
Someone wrote a useful program, made it Free, everyone liked it and used it. He tried to make a buck by making it not Free. Users got mad, took the version he provided for free (the bait) and redid his tweaks. Therefore, the switch failed.
Closed source programs aren't really covered in his article. Free software that pulls a bait and switch will result in the users getting mad and reimplementing the fixes.
In otherwords, you can sell propriatary software, maybe users will pay, maybe a bunch will reimplement for free. However, don't try to release it for free to get marketshare and then try to pull a fast one with the upgrades.
If you use Free Software to establish yourself, don't expect to be able to make it proprietary, because someone will keep it Free. Proprietary software can't leverage the community, that was my reading.
Alex
Computers, while possessing the capability to enhance education, aren't used that way. Either the school takes a vocational approach (we'll teach you word processing because you need it in the workplace), it is used by students independently (in grade school I managed to get computer study, and played games for a few hours), or is totally misutilized by teachers not trained in their proper use.
A lot of time was lost when I was in school by teachers trying to figure out what was wrong with the machine, etc.
While computers can be used to assist education, merely throwing expensive distractions into classrooms doesn't provide anything.
Alex
I'm willing to pay a reasonable fee for a good one, especially a hardware one that would go quickly. I'm building a computer for my car, it'll play MP3s, have a GPS system, possible one or two systems that I'm prototyping for work, and mostly, to see what I can do with it.
My two home machines are a K6-3 (Win2K) and K6-2 (RedHat Linux), but at work I use an Athlon 700. I'd be willing to pay a reasonable fee for a decent encoder, with hardware being preferable. I was hoping to rip my CDs and my girlfriend's CDs so that we can listen to them in the car on road trips without flipping through CDs. Right now, I buy CDs that I was for driving, but the ones I like seems to acquire scratches relatively commonly, only busting out the actual CD when I ride with a friend or visit my folks would be a nice improvement.
If anyone can help me out here, I'd appreciate it.
Alex
But if you notice, then the NSA is contracted someone to build a secure Linux. That secure Linux MIGHT be Free Software (or internal only), but it wouldn't be developed as open source.
:)
Free Software - Software available to all respected the rights RMS believes are important
Open Source - Source available, can modify source, etc., not as many guarantees as free software
Developed as Open Source - Bazaar approach, many eyes, many contributers, anyone can submit code, roll their own patches, pressured to accept all patches, chaos, etc. Produces some really neat stuff, but it is totally chaotic.
There is a distinction there. The "Open Source Model" of millions of programmers cannot produce something to a strict spec, as that requries careful management, coordination, etc., the Mythical Man Month still holds.
Anything can be made Open Source/Free Software. there is a difference. Being Open/Free merely involves licensing, Open Source Development is the chaotic model that Mozilla, Linux, and a few other projects function with (Apache?). Others have been more controlled (the BSDs, Xfree86, GNU, etc.) while still being made available as Free.
On the NT thing: I'm not whining about it, I'm getting sick of the nonsense I see here. Microsoft's tests don't test much, they test a bare minimum. However, I'm sick of being called a moron because I know systems other than Linux. I routinely use Linux and NT, some Solaris, and learning FreeBSD and OpenBSD, unfortunantely I'm just not smart enough to realize that Linux is all you need.
Well, if you notice, I included semi-colons.
As in, I've had many problems when using a mixture of NT 3.51 and NT 4.0 machines, or now with a mixture of 4.5 and 2K machines. I've also had nightmares where Windows 95 and Windows 98 do NOT play nicely with the same profiles.
Same client, different version.
Local profiles become corrupted all the time. Roaming profiles get screwy between different versions (NT 3.51 -> 4.0 -> 5.0/2K; Windows 95 - 98). Over a 10 Megabit connection, they are slow to setup if that machine wasn't the last one you used. Over a DSL connection (a client is using DSLs and a private network to run a cheap Wan...), it is unbearably slow, and thats a dedicated DSL for that computer.
This sounds like a horrible idea. If it is "because we can" that's pretty cool, just for the neato factor (although possible now with LMHOSTS files), but as a real approach to computing... right... Unless they are planning to REALLY strip down what goes in a profile (a good idea) and try to make the concept work... but even then, the point seems dubious.
Remember the NT C1 (now C2) compliance thing? Because NT's design happened to include some of the elements of the C2 definition, they were able to come up with a configuration that could be trusted. Not bugfree or secure, but trusted. (Note, NT's C2 security used to involve no NIC, but I think they fixed it).
OpenBSD is really fucked secure, but isn't designed to the spec, doesn't include the ACLs and other stuff needed for DoD compliance, etc.
Neither does FreeBSD, but remember the Trusted FreeBSD project? They are trying to make a B1 compliant (trusted) BSD based off FreeBSD.
Also, Operating Systems are not inherently trustable. It is the entire system that earns a security rating. It largely involves a fine tuned control of file access, but not a fine tuned fixing of bugs.
Alex
Yes, I picked NT as my "trusted OS" mostly because it will generate the stupid /. effect of "waah waah waah, NT is horrible, you must be a moron" the required "you are the stupidest ass in the world" and other stuff like that.
Get a grip kids! OSes are NOT the end all and be all of life. Further, drop the prejudices. I am an MCSE, that does not make me a moron, clueless, or a lemming. Indeed, just because all the MCSEs that you know are dumb does not mean that they are dumb BECAUSE they are MCSEs. Some of us happen to be very competant administrators, and happen to have a certification. Some of us actually learned are shit to get it, instead of just memorizing study guides.
Quit hurling insults to people that sometimes disagree.
Alex
The issue deals with free speach. Laws regulating expression are given the strictest scrutiny. One of those conditions is the "least restrictive means" and other condititions like reasonable means.
It is NOT unconstitutional to prohibit minors from certain material. Adults have full freedom of expression, minors have different levels of constitutional rights.
If it was not an unreasonable burden upon publishers, than preventing minors from accessing the material is okay. However, if the burdens are unreasonable and would create a chilling affect on free speach, then it is not okay.
If there was a system whereby people could post adult material and prevent minors from accessing it, then it would be okay. If the means to prevent minors from accessing it would restrict adult speach, than it is no good.
For example, if everyone was issued a digital certificate that verified that they were an adult (age >18) at age 18, and that could be used without compromising any additional information, than it would be okay.
For example, if Biometrics were common place, and your fingerprint could unlock the key to send, than this would not be an unreasonable burden. There would be no tracking (and therefore no chilling effect), and minors wouldn't have access to adult material.
That would not be an unreasonable scenario nor likely unconstitutional.
If a ratings system was in place that could truly categorize the site, than if you could screen based on locality without an undo burden, that would also be okay. Something like P3P (client negotiating with the system) would work, because it wouldn't chill free speach, but would allow community standards to reign.
Alex
I am an MCSE, you aren't, and are stating VERY insulting things to MCSEs. I use NT and Linux, at home I run Win2K w/ Office and Exceed for my RH6.2 machine, at work I currently only have a Linux box but I'm adding a Win2K box in a few weeks.
Now, any NT Admin worth anything didn't learn from the study guides. When I did my certification, there weren't many study guides, and I was in high school (read poor). I grabbed the NT 4 Server Resource Kit from the school computer guy, and read it.
If you want to learn NT as an administrator, you MUST read the Resource Kit. It is essentially the manual.
When preparing for a test, the study guides are nice (I need to pick them up if I'm upgrading to the 2K cert), because they help you prepare for the test.
HOWEVER to run an NT network, you must learn NT inside and out, and therefore, you must read the resource kit.
To run a Linux system (not a single box, but a whole computer system), you need to read all the appropriate MAN pages to get everything togethere. The relevent books are great because they put you in the right direction, but you still need to hack around and read MAN pages for months to learn everything. Alternatively, you can read the source code.
If you really think that Linux admins will be able to get by from the GUI alone, you're on crack. If you think that an NT Admin can get by on Resource Kits and the GUI, you are on crack.
GUIs can never include everything to really administer a system, as there are always more options available as you learn the system. To run NT Networks, you need to become familiar with the Registry and the various NT Scripting Languages. KiXtart is nice for logon scripting, Perl (supported for NT from the Resource Kit or other sources) is nice, although being more of an NT than *nix guy, I don't know well enough, and the other languages are useful. Windows Scripting Host has potential, but it needs work.
MCSE study guides are NOT the way to learn NT Administration. They are a way for NT Administrators to prepare for exams. The paper MCSEs learn from those books, and are not really good Administrators.
You guys like to bash NT Admins because "the MCSEs we hired didn't know anything." Well, judging us NT Admins by the MCSEs without knowledge is about as fair as my judging the Linux Kernel hackers by the kids who post nonsense on slashdot that get mod'd to 5 despite 12 comments in response correcting them factually.
Running an NT Network without the Resource Kit is foolish. You can complain about pricing schemes, but if you want to run you NT Network, but the Resource Kit and use the included software as needed.
The MCSE study guides teach you enough to pass the tests, not enough to run a system. The Windows 2000 certification fiasco was a bloody mess that caused many NT/Unix people to drop the NT side, but they are trying to make the exams less studyable and require more learning.
If you read the Resource Kit, there are sections on scripted installs. If your NT guy doesn't know what he is doing, replace him, not your network. If Linux can do something that NT can't, run Linux (I'm dropping a few Linux/FreeBSD servers in our new rack along with the 2 NT Servers that I'm using), but don't criticize NT or NT Admins by our weakest link.
I've bitched out paper MCSEs, one at the consulting firm I was at was going to do a 2000 user migration by using User Manager instead of a script. I smacked him around until we wrote the script that gets used at all client sites.
The GUI tools are useful. Sites without dedicated Admins can handle the trivial tasks (adding users, etc.) without an Admin, and bring in a consultant when they need real work done.
However, no system can be done without a proper administrator.
MCSE Study Books DO NOT TEACH YOU TO ADMINISTER A NETWORK. Resource Kits, Manuals, and Reference Guides combined with experience do.
Alex
Copyright law gives the holder the right to prevent others from distributing their work (with the exceptions of fair use). It does NOT give them a right to restrict the usage. The only reason licensing agreements work is that you are agreeing to the rules, NOT by copyright law, they stem from contract law. Now, under fair use, I can ALWAYS make 1 copy for my own personal use. This does not violate copyright law. This creates some bizarre situations because the means of production are now commonplace. For example, I borrow a friend's CD. This is perfectly legal. I make a copy of the CD for my personal use. Also legal. I return the CD to my friend, perfectly legal. At no point has anyone involved broken the copyright restriction on distribution. However, say I tell my friend I like a CD of his. He makes me a copy. He gives me the copy. I have NOT broken the law, but he has. Why? There is NOTHING illegal in possessing copyrighted material, only in the distribution of it. As a result, the people downloading the music have broken no laws. Whether I have the CD or not, I may legally make a copy for personal use. User X makes a MP3 rip of a song. User X has created a derived work of the song, so copyright remains with the owner. I may then make my personal copy of this song. However, if I share it back out, then I am distributing copyrighted material, that is illegal. Copyright was designed to allow authors to profit off their books instead of allowing the owners of the press to take all the profits. This gave authors an incentive to write. It was NEVER meant to control the masses. However, with digital medium, the power to copy is with the masses, so what do we do? Alex
It seems to me the Loki does straightfoward ports. It appears that they have developed a pretty robust toolset and they are able to port Windows software without too much difficulty. While each game no doubt requires adding to the tool-kit, voice recognition seems a bit off.
I'll be the first to admit that I haven't messed with sound much on Linux. My old 1.x kernel based Linux install choked on my PAS 16, and currently my Linux box is without sound... it all runs through the X Server on my NT machine.
However, from what I have seen, sound still doesn't have the super flexible API that MS produced. Quality or not, MS finally has a system for accessing sound cards without too much trouble. I have no doubt that Linux is pretty far along by now, but I doubt that sound integration is THAT pleasant. IIRC, there are two sound driver models... which is an improvement, but I don't see anything approaching DirectSound for at LEAST 6 months to a year.
Loki would no doubt reinvent the wheel. If the system that they bought/licensed abstracts enough, maybe they can plug in Linux sound support. But if the Linux sound capabilities isn't as flexible as the DirectSound, I wouldn't expect it.
Also, while porting old games is possible, most Linux users/gamers maintain a Win9x dual boot for games, releasing a Linux version a year down the road sounds like a bad business. Even if initial sales are solid, the later games will fail. While the novelty of a Linux port is solid in the beginning, in the end, how many people want to buy old games.
To get Linux ports, the userbase must demonstrate that there is a market (I believe there is, while Linux marketshare > %Windows users that are games), and must demonstrate that it is important to satisfy this market.
The trick is, companies must believe that a Linux port 6-12 months down the road isn't good enough. That requires companies that simultaneously release their versions see a large portion of Linux sales. If that happens, than maybe companies start working with Loki to port their game once the engine is largely complete. I mean, if properly abstracted, the game can write code that Loki can rewrite with their tools, and then the game is a straight recompile.
In a group project I was on, one person basically spend a day abstracting 1-2 line commands into a simple API. If we had to switch systems, he could rewrite his API in a day on the new system, and the higher level code would work without changes.
Portable code isn't difficult, you just abstract out all the hardware dependent features, and then have someone reimplement them. This may result in more work in the initial development, but it makes porting easier. Much like abstracting assembly code carefully, DirectX and other OS specific calls need to be abstracted away, so that they can reimplement on another system without trouble.
Alex
Well, in this case, the scripting capability bit them in the ass. However, the ease of which you can modify the registry through scripts in windows is a "Good Thing".
Yes there needs to be some kind of protection built into Outlook, because users are morons. However, if you were on a properly run NT workstation (with NTFS permissions set, etc) with the files stored on an NT server with proper permissions, this wouldn't have presented THAT wide spread a problem. An NT network is similar to a Unix network, except the ability to switch to Admin mode is busted (su is in the reskit, but still kinda screwy).
If you setup your NT network properly, you have the same protection as a Unix network, because you limit people's read/write access. The reason that viruses can hit NT networks but not Linux/Unix networks is that most systems give users admin access to their local workstation and the default NTFS permission is Everyone... however you are supposed to change this. However, most people don't so they are volunerable.
Windows Scripting Host is a wonderful thing from an administration point of view. It allows you to setup really powerful logon scripts, etc. It is arguably as powerful as the scripting available in a Unix environment, even if it is less commonly done.
I've written multipage KiXtart scripts with batch files to load the files, etc., that could have been done VERY easily in Windows Scripting host and much easier to maintain.
We commonly criticize MS for being too GUI focused because the CLI and scripts are more powerful. Well, if you go through the NT Reskit and stuff like this, MS puts out a LOT of support for CLI based approaches... which is a "Good Thing" from an administration point of view, although a "Bad Thing" from a Linux domination point of view..
Now, it is unfortunate that whoever works on the Office Suite is doing things like a moron, but it doesn't mean that Windows Scripting Host is a bad idea.
Alex
I would suggest that in that case, they'll probably replace the motherboard. They are offering to upgrade the RAM, because if the loss is the same, they want to start moving people to RDRAM... However, I doubt that they'll let you get away with rediculousness... they'll just ship out a new board.
Alex
Free Software (or the bastardized Open Source version) is about freedom. You have the right to modify or copy software that you have purchased.
RMS used to sell emacs tapes.
Redhat sells distributions with Linux, GNU, and other software.
VA Linux sells systems using Linux.
Under the GPL, you are NOT entitled to a free copy. The idea is that if you get a copy, you can do what you want.
Free Software is BEST suited to these sort of custom solutions, it is LEAST suited for general purpose applications. The fact that it has produced the general purpose applications is a fortunate result, but is odd.
Why is this?
If I need a custom solution, I need to pay for it. Either I hire a bunch of coders who right it, or I hire a consulting group to produce it.
It is CLEARLY in my interests to get the code and the right to do with it as I please.
If I want an air traffic system that will cost $100 million dollars over 5 years, I had better be asking for the included source code, right?
That's all that open source requires. If I pay the development costs, I don't want a copy that I can license, I want the work produced.
If I copy it to all my servers, or publish it on my web site asking for feedback, that is MY right.
The systems created are AUTOMATICALLY open source, as I have a copy of the binary and also have a copy of the source.
If I write a general purpose application, it is most likely to succeed in the proprietary form.
Why? Take an Office platform. The cost/copy is VERY low, because the development costs is spread over millions of users. With custom solutions, there is only one user, so they can pay the entire development costs, and they will INSIST on the right to modify and reuse their copy.
They won't give it to competitors, but the creator of the code may try to sell their services to competitors. That is the service model of open source.
Open Source does NOT mean that millions of eyes look at it. Linux, GNU, Apache, Mozilla, etc., utilize the bazarre model.
Why? Because they are creating a product that is too difficult to produce as an individual project. Torvalds could NOT have single handedly written a kernel to compete with SCO, but he wrote one for his own use. He made it open, and other people played around with it. It eventually became competitive with existing products, but only because millions of people kicked in a little work.
The bazarre model kicks in in general purpose applications when authors know that they can't make the product cost competitive with entrenched software, so they solicit wide ranging help.
Open Source doesn't mean free as in beer. You may still have to buy the copy, but you can then distribute it. For general purpose applications, the cost to buy would be low, so you would buy to redistribute... hence the bazarre/free development.
For custom applications, you spend a lot on something only valuable to one person/entity, so they'll pay a lot of money to develop it, but insist of the rights to use it as they please.
Stop confusing the bazarre model with open source.
They are independent events that happen to overlap.
Alex
So I'm in a board room...
Wow, have you guys seen our stock price today?
Yeah, our valuation is off the charts, and it keeps going up?
Yeah!!! People believe in us! So, how should we earn a return for our investors...
Uhhh....
I've GOT it!
What?
We'll invest the money people invested in our overhyped company into new companies, so when they go public and get overhyped, we'll make that return!
You're brilliant!
I know, I'm off to file with the SEC to sell some stock...
Alex
This is kinda interesting. What is a mere conduit, what is a provider.
Okay, if I am an ISP, and people can automatically publish a website, everyone has a directory to store stuff in that is web accessable, I'm a conduit. I can't prevent people from putting stuff up. I can take it down if notified but prior restraints on speach in this case would be a nightmare.
If I run an IRC server, I'm a conduit, speach flows freely, files flow freely, and there is little that I can do.
However, Napster is more than a funky IRC server. They provide a search engine to find a song based on the title and artist. They automatically makes available on your machine and music in the directory that you download do. How is this a "mere" conduit.
I mean, if I provide a forum to publish files and tell people that I'll take down illegal ones, I'm argueably a conduit.
However, Napster does not GIVE people the opportunity to share files, it defaults to doing so. I've been ripping my CDs recently. Some are badly damaged, and I replace the missing songs with downloads from Napster. Am I doing anything illegal, no. In fact, I can arguably download music I don't own legally. Copyright refers to distribution, not use. I can borrow my friend's CD. If make a SINGLE copy of it for personal use, I am under fair use. If my friend makes me a copy of his CD and hands it to me, it is illegal, as he is distributing copyrighted works.
Now, Napster's default to share MP3s and make them searchable puts it into a grey area. The fact is, I, like most people, have a single directory of MP3s (subdirectories, but a single directory). Some of the songs are copies of music I bought a copy of, some are songs that I have not bought a copy of, and some are songs that are freely downloadable.
However, Napster makes NO effort to prevent me from sharing illegal to share files. So far, they are still, IMO, okay. Napster AUTOMATICALLY shares out all the songs in my directory that I download to. If I am downloading replacements for damaged tracks, it is legal for me to download them. HOWEVER, Napster will AUTOMATICALLY share those same tracks out. That to me makes Napster a publisher.
They are providing software that shares out my copyrighted songs. I DIDN'T choose to share them out, Napster did. Therefore, Napster is breaking the law.
Alex
Yes, as the sole copyright owner, the FSF can relicense should they choose to do so. However, as you have a copy of the software under the GPL, you still have the rights to make derived works.
However, should a third party begin using the Linux kernel illegally, it would be interesting to see how it could be enforced. First of all, the author of the specific code would need to file the suit. Now, this might be a random programmer somewhere, without the legal staff of the FSF.
Also, it is questionable if the GPL would work. I mean, IANAL, but my understanding is that the copyright owner has the authority to license their work for redistribution. However, Linux doesn't appear to have a copyright owner. As a result, if the GPL collapsed legally and needed to be rewritten, then Linux is dead. Why? Because NOBODY has the authority to redistribute the kernel.
Without a single owner, it couldn't be placed under a new license that could be upheld. Furthermore, a single GPL license for Linux may not be reasonable. Why? Each section is owned by a different individual. It would appear, to me, that they would all have to have their copy of the GPL included, and you should, theoretically, need to agree to dozens of separate GPLs with different parties to redistribute the GPL.
This is a potential nightmare. Again, it all comes down to, do we do things the "Right Way" FSF style whoses body of lawyers and Ph.Ds have done their best to work within the legal regime. Of the "hacker way" of daying "damn the man" even if it means that the GPL'd code base is worthless because we haven't done it correctly.
For example, say there is code in the Linux kernel written by someone under the employ of Microsoft. They didn't aquire a release from Microsoft to license their code under the GPL. Microsoft wants to shut down Linux, and files a lawsuit against Redhat, Caldera, S.U.S.E., the owners of various FTP sites with Linux, etc. Why can they do this? Because they own some code within the kernel that is being illegal distributed.
The Linux way leaves us open to blackmail or destruction by ANY malicious company whose employee didn't double check his contract and wrote kernel code. The FSF way guarantees that the code will always be free, although if the FSF went renegade, we would need to fork it under the GPL. If the FSF has the authority to revoke the license (we don't know what the courts would say) and they chose to do so, there is nothing that we can do, as FSF code is everywhere, so we'd be screwed. Worrying about the FSF turning on free software is absurd, because if they did so, we're dead regardless of if we turn the code over or not.
Now, I can think of two recent slashdot articles demonstrating the pros and cons.
BeOS, a well liked company, took code accidentally into a closed module. The code wasn't really used, but it was there. Bruce Perens, as the copyright owner, was able to issue them a writ allowing it. If the FSF owned it, they would have probably demanded that BeOS open that module... what would be better? I don't know. The former built up good will, the latter would result in more open code.
The other example is the nVidia mess. Much like the example of a company building a derived work from GNU Readline (I think I have the right name), the FSF might have been able to demand that they open the module or face a lawsuit. Instead, the individual developer accepted the answer of: "we'll fix it in a few weeks by removing your code" instead of demanding that they open the module.
I would suggest that in nVidia's case, the latter would have been better. The reason is that I am fundamentally opposed to groups writing closed code to interface with the Linux kernel. They are using a technicality in Linus's interpretation of the GPL to avoid contributing back while using the GPL code to sell hardware.
Why is this different? Be is writing a closed source OS that tries to be friendly to the free software community that made a mistake, and is moving the code out of all CDs. nVidia is trying to profit off the free software community by using Linux to sell hardware without giving back.
I WISH that the FSF owned the code in question.
Alex
If you could e-mail me regarding the CD, I might like to borrow it and take a look at it..
Thanks,
Alex
e-mail: scorpion@mit.edu