I suspect that gold mining itself does a lot more damage than this kind of recycling. And what are the alternatives? Dump it into a dump and not recycle it? That will leach even more toxic metals into the ground. Or stop producing electronics altogether?
I think it's good that this stuff is being recycled at all. We should now focus on:
-- reducing the amount of heavy metals we put into electronics
-- improving the safety and working conditions of the people doing the recycling
-- redesigning electronics to reduce overall waste and make parts easier to recycle
-- making sure that more electronics reach those countries in working order (open hardware standards and increasing compatibility can help with that)
Yeah, another GREAT feature Firefox added was making it so it doesn't load URLs that you click on in the URL bar[1], so you have to hit enter or click the "go" button,
Why in the world would I want it to behave differently?
In any case, if you do, it would be a tiny, simple extension to write. The fact that that extension doesn't exist suggests that very few people want that behavior.
Please, Microsoft, enforce your copyrights and patents in clear, unequivocal terms. Take everybody to court who violates them. We'll all be better off that way. While you're at it, please also scrap your student discounts, "philanthropic donations", and bundling deals and pick a single price for your product.
If people have to bear the full cost of Microsoft Windows from day 1, they'll start looking for alternatives. It's only that once they have invested a lot in Microsoft Windows that they stay with it.
And maybe that's what the monopoly enforcement action should focus on: force Microsoft to set a fixed, uniform price for all customers for each product.
Really? How so? You are implying that absence of evidence is equivalent to the evidence of absence.
No, I'm not.
What disturbs me is that many people today exibit the absolute certainty
I said "it's not certainty".
eqivalent to that of "knowing" that Newtonian physics is 100% correct and unchallengeable
When Newtonian physics was challenged, people accepted the new theory fairly quickly once there were experiments to support it.
while experimental evidence abounds that it is vastly incomplete
None of the areas in which physics is incomplete have ever been shown experimentally to have any effect on consciousness. Simply put, a whack on the head or a crack pipe have been shown to affect your consciousness, quantum entanglement and extra dimensions have not.
Untrue. There are possibilities of interaction of matter/energy forms in extra-dimentional spaces
No, there are no such "possibilities" in known physics. Even completely wacky theories of consciousness involving quantum effects still tie consciousness to the physical substrate of the brain and have no mechanism by which it could survive destruction of the brain. If you want to challenge current mainstream theory of brain function, you need a plausible hypothesis plus actual experiments.
About the only mechanism that might give you consciousness after death is the simulation argument, but that is not physics.
That is why I am a "we have insufficient data" sort of an Agnostic. It is in my view the only scientifically honest position.
No, the scientifically honest position is to behave as if consciousness ends with physical death. That's because all other scientific hypotheses have been experimentally disproven. It's not certainty, but it's as close as rational humans ever get to certainty.
For example, it is conceivable that some fundamental properties of matter/energy on quantum (or lower) level play a part in the phenomenon of consciousness by influencing (and possibly being influenced by) the electro-chemical processes within neurons. What if that is so? What if Everett's "multiple universe" theory (or some such like thing) combined with murky phenomena in some directly unobservable by physicists dimentions of space combine to play a direct role and we simply are not grasping the implications because we still lack appropriate explanatory models and/or apparatus? Remember that fundamental areas of quantum physics and the properties of space-time continuum are still largely a mistery, despite tremendous progress made so far.
All those speculations fall into two categories: those that are unobservable in principle (so they are not part of physical reality) and those that have no bearing on the continuation of consciousness after death.
Well, LinuxTag has a choice: they can continue under the auspices of Schauble, or they can disassociate themselves from him. Either choice makes a political statement.
In general, Schauble seems to be a persona non grata to many people, and the smart thing would have been to avoid the controversy by choosing someone else in the first place.
Thanks for the pointer. Nevertheless, that doesn't show that it's hard to come up with a solution that moves the Linux kernel to GPLv3. First, as I was saying, there may be a way of having a GPLv3 with exception. Second, it may well be a lot easier than you think to track down the people/companies that own most of the contributions to the Linux kernel and replace the rest.
A 'state of matter' is typically regarded as having different macroscopic properties brought about by a phase transition.
Typically (i.e., to most people), a "state of matter" is regarded to be what people learn in school to be a state of matter: solid, liquid, gas, and sometimes plasma. That definition is what counts in a press release to the general public. If a press release talks about a "new state of matter", it implies that something has been added to that list, or at least obviously belongs on that list.
When communicating with the public, it's the responsibility of scientists to use the commonly understood meaning of terms. That's not "philosophical" or "linguistic" minutiae, it's a question of clear and honest communication.
Of course ice/water is a great example, but superconductor/metal in aluminum is another example as well. If you really don't agree with this, then you'd consider gas and plasma to be the same state of matter (a point that the original poster disagrees since (s)he specifically mentioned gas/plasma being distinct states).
It's not obvious at all to me that the gas/plasma distinction is comparable to the superconductor/metal distinction. I think there are many reasonable definitions of "state of matter" that would distinguish gas/plasma, but consider superconductor/metal to be the same state of matter.
However, there probably should be a few more "states of matter" included in the standard list: neutron matter and superfluids, for example.
If someone in possession of a voucher waits until there's GPLv3 software in Suse Linux and then redeems it, Microsoft has procured the distribution of v3 software.
That's wishful thinking. Even if people obtained GPLv3 software through Microsoft's vouchers, Microsoft could simply say "sorry, we're not honoring the coupons, we revoke our no-sue guarantee and declare our agreement with SuSE null and void".
Sure, if you have a coupon, you could sue them. But for what? To give you a guarantee not to sue over patents they don't really have to being with? At best the court would give you your money back. And SuSE could sue, but they aren't going to because they still made hundreds of millions in the deal.
The GPLv3 will protect against future deals like Novell/Microsoft, and that's a good thing. It won't magically make the "235 patent" issue go away because this issue isn't a legal issue, it's Microsoft FUD and it has already done its job.
The fact that you question whether it's a new state of matter, and you refer merely solid, liquid, gas, and plasma without any reference to phase transitions, really shows your limited understanding of this subject.
"State of matter" doesn't really have a strict definition in terms of phase transitions: most phase transitions don't give rise to new states of matter, and one state of matter may be transformed into another one without a phase transition (as you yourself observe).
Important as this result may be, it does not seem to meet the criteria for a "new state of matter". In fact, the objects in which these interactions take place seem to be simply in the solid state, and the objects (polaritons) composing the new state are not made of matter. So, you have a new state, and it's a state that exists inside a solid object, but it's not a "new state of matter".
If and only if the GPLv2 code contains the "or any later version" clause -- which most of the kernel code doesn't.
Says who? Code under the GPLv2 can be linked with a lot of other code; all that matters is that the licenses are compatible. I have seen no indication that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible.
If they aren't, the kernel developers can always add a clause to the GPLv3 to make the two compatible, while retaining the patent provisions for new code.
Without Linus's support, switching to v3 would be impossible (because he owns so much of the code).
Without Linus's support, switching to v3 would be impossible since he runs the project, that's all.
So where's the OS X port? No, I know it's there. I mean the native one?
Gtk+ is moving to Cairo, and the native OS X port based on Cairo. The more apps use that, the faster it will be done and the better it will work.
Being able to skin GTK+ to look like native Windows, for example, isn't what I want -- I want it to actually use whatever skin Windows is using at the moment, to the extent that I can change that.
So why are you using Firefox then? Firefox isn't a native Windows app.
We're not talking about migrating Firefox from a native Windows app to a cross-platform app, we're talking about what cross-platform toolkit Firefox should use. Right now, Firefox is maintaining its own toolkit and mostly worrying about Windows. That's great for Windows users, but it sucks for everybody else.
In any case, it's pretty clear that neither the Firefox nor the OpenOffice developers are going to dump their own internal attempts at cross-platform toolkits. Most likely, this will simply get fixed by replacing both apps with one of the Gnome-based alternatives that already exists.
What if the GPL were changed requiring any distributor to give ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS to the user?
Presumably, distributors would simply choose not to distribute under the new license. And they can always choose not to distribute the software at all, just like people can choose not to sell or buy new versions of Microsoft software that may come under new licensing terms.
Could a user legally force a developer who released software under a prior GPL version, with the future version clause included, to pay such a sum?
First, the developer can change the license and just strike the "or later" clause for future releases if he likes since he owns the code.
Second, the standard clause says "or later", which means that you can continue to distribute under the old version.
One more thing: it's not like Microsoft and Novell are trapped by this deal. If Microsoft doesn't like the terms of the GPLv3, Microsoft can simply stop distributing coupons. Whether that constitutes a breach of contract with Novell and whether Microsoft still has to pay Novell is for those two companies to work out between them.
If Linus was still staunchly for it (which all signs point to that he doesn't like it), he'd have to strip out GPLv2 code and rewrite it with GPLv3 code.
AFAIK, GPLv3 and GPLv2 code can be linked, so nothing needs to be stripped. If they can't track down the author for some old piece of code, they can just leave it under GPLv2.
So, they could probably put a large chunk of the existing code under GPLv3 plus all new code, making the kernel effectively GPLv3 in its entirety (of course, you're free to use the GPLv2 bits under the GPLv2).
As discussed above, Novell has little / no option except to distribute under the 3.0 GPL, but doing so subjects their partner to very harsh terms which are explicity intended to fuck them over. That is a text-book worthy demonstration of abusive languge in a contract.
Novell got a license for the current version of Linux and related software under the GPLv2. Nobody is taking that away from them. Novell has no justification to demand that they get future versions under the same license.
Microsoft signed a contract with Novell; if they can't fulfill it because external conditions have changed, then that's a problem between those two companies only. The fact that future versions of Linux may be under the GPLv3 and that that screws Novell's business model is nobody's problem but theirs. That's no different from when Microsoft forces me to upgrade or cancels a product that my business has been depending on.
If there is any "intent" here that matters at all, it's the intent of the GPLv2 authors. They have made their intent clear: many of them believe that even the current Microsoft/Novell deal violates the terms of the GPLv2 and notified Novell before Novell even signed their deal. All they are doing now is clarifying the language. If anything, Novell should be worried that even their current distribution falls under GPLv3-like terms because they clearly and deliberately are violating the intent of the GPLv2.
Mr. Bungi, you need to realize that in the English language, there is such a thing as context. The word "own" can refer to several things, including constitutionally protected private property, intellectual authorship, and even homosexual rape.
Perhaps Sun will release Solaris under the GPLv3, but it will still be a Sun-run project. Just look at Java and Java evolution for how "well" that works.
I'm not a lawyer, but I still don't see how this makes MS a distributor.
They don't have to be a "distributor" under the GPLv3; what matters is that Novell is.
Furthermore, intent matters under the law. If Microsoft and SuSE are using coupons in a way to knowingly evade the intent of the GPLv2, a court may well find that they are a distributor.
It seems to me that the voucher is like a gift card - Once I give you the gift card, any transactions are between you and the vendor and I have nothing to do with them.
That may not be true either. If you knowingly give someone a gift card specifically for illegal drugs or pirated movies, you may well be held accountable for that as well.
Sounds like close to what I'd do, except Gtk+ is probably not such a good idea (not for cross-platform, anyway).
I think Gtk+ is perfect for this kind of cross-platform work: it already runs well on Windows, there are some big software packages that run on Windows using Gtk+, and its architecture (Cairo, etc.) makes it easy to port to new platforms.
I have no idea what IBM's stance on patent reform is, and apparently neither do you.
Whatever their stance may be, you're only going to convince them to do more if you understand why they're getting patents in the first place, and you can't understand that by simply jumping to conclusions based on one or two factoids.
Presumably, if the "Journal of Applied Optoelectronics" just puts its stuff on the web and stops having Wiley (or whoever) print it, it's just as reputable, since it has the same editorial board, right?
The quality of a journal is largely determined by its reputation and history, not the specific makeup of its editorial board. A journal that has traditionally published important papers will attract a good editorial board and good submissions. And journals are identified by their names, which are owned by their publishers. If the editorial board leaves, the publisher will just replace them with another top quality editorial board. Basically, it's the brand name that matters, and the brand name that guarantees quality.
Really, very few academics have any financial interest in the current system of copyrights and copyright restrictions, and probably the great majority of them hate that copyrights make it so hard and expensive for other to see their work. And people are making a real effort to change it. It just can't be done overnight.
And why are we feeling sorry for people like Michael Dell, again? Lest we forget, this man became a multi billionaire largely due to the "blackmail" contracts he signed with Microsoft.
Dell is rich because they are selling good products in a competitive market. Gates is rich because he managed to establish an illegal monopoly and continues monopolistic practices.
And this isn't about "feeling sorry" for Dell, it's about the fact that he is trying to offer alternative products that people want to buy, and Microsoft is trying to prevent him from doing that. The people we feel sorry for are the end users who don't get to make a choice based on quality and technology.
MS signed a contract saying that they'd offer discounts IF they didn't sell competing products. There is nothing evil about this.
If you have 90% of the market, that kind of behavior is pretty much the definition of "evil" in a free market system.
Slashdot Mirror
I've had a couple of Acer monitors, and they were the worst. They all failed quickly and in ways I didn't even know LCD panels could fail.
I suspect that gold mining itself does a lot more damage than this kind of recycling. And what are the alternatives? Dump it into a dump and not recycle it? That will leach even more toxic metals into the ground. Or stop producing electronics altogether?
I think it's good that this stuff is being recycled at all. We should now focus on:
-- reducing the amount of heavy metals we put into electronics
-- improving the safety and working conditions of the people doing the recycling
-- redesigning electronics to reduce overall waste and make parts easier to recycle
-- making sure that more electronics reach those countries in working order (open hardware standards and increasing compatibility can help with that)
Yeah, another GREAT feature Firefox added was making it so it doesn't load URLs that you click on in the URL bar[1], so you have to hit enter or click the "go" button,
Why in the world would I want it to behave differently?
In any case, if you do, it would be a tiny, simple extension to write. The fact that that extension doesn't exist suggests that very few people want that behavior.
Please, Microsoft, enforce your copyrights and patents in clear, unequivocal terms. Take everybody to court who violates them. We'll all be better off that way. While you're at it, please also scrap your student discounts, "philanthropic donations", and bundling deals and pick a single price for your product.
If people have to bear the full cost of Microsoft Windows from day 1, they'll start looking for alternatives. It's only that once they have invested a lot in Microsoft Windows that they stay with it.
And maybe that's what the monopoly enforcement action should focus on: force Microsoft to set a fixed, uniform price for all customers for each product.
Really? How so? You are implying that absence of evidence is equivalent to the evidence of absence.
No, I'm not.
What disturbs me is that many people today exibit the absolute certainty
I said "it's not certainty".
eqivalent to that of "knowing" that Newtonian physics is 100% correct and unchallengeable
When Newtonian physics was challenged, people accepted the new theory fairly quickly once there were experiments to support it.
while experimental evidence abounds that it is vastly incomplete
None of the areas in which physics is incomplete have ever been shown experimentally to have any effect on consciousness. Simply put, a whack on the head or a crack pipe have been shown to affect your consciousness, quantum entanglement and extra dimensions have not.
Untrue. There are possibilities of interaction of matter/energy forms in extra-dimentional spaces
No, there are no such "possibilities" in known physics. Even completely wacky theories of consciousness involving quantum effects still tie consciousness to the physical substrate of the brain and have no mechanism by which it could survive destruction of the brain. If you want to challenge current mainstream theory of brain function, you need a plausible hypothesis plus actual experiments.
About the only mechanism that might give you consciousness after death is the simulation argument, but that is not physics.
That is why I am a "we have insufficient data" sort of an Agnostic. It is in my view the only scientifically honest position.
No, the scientifically honest position is to behave as if consciousness ends with physical death. That's because all other scientific hypotheses have been experimentally disproven. It's not certainty, but it's as close as rational humans ever get to certainty.
For example, it is conceivable that some fundamental properties of matter/energy on quantum (or lower) level play a part in the phenomenon of consciousness by influencing (and possibly being influenced by) the electro-chemical processes within neurons. What if that is so? What if Everett's "multiple universe" theory (or some such like thing) combined with murky phenomena in some directly unobservable by physicists dimentions of space combine to play a direct role and we simply are not grasping the implications because we still lack appropriate explanatory models and/or apparatus? Remember that fundamental areas of quantum physics and the properties of space-time continuum are still largely a mistery, despite tremendous progress made so far.
All those speculations fall into two categories: those that are unobservable in principle (so they are not part of physical reality) and those that have no bearing on the continuation of consciousness after death.
Well, LinuxTag has a choice: they can continue under the auspices of Schauble, or they can disassociate themselves from him. Either choice makes a political statement.
In general, Schauble seems to be a persona non grata to many people, and the smart thing would have been to avoid the controversy by choosing someone else in the first place.
Thanks for the pointer. Nevertheless, that doesn't show that it's hard to come up with a solution that moves the Linux kernel to GPLv3. First, as I was saying, there may be a way of having a GPLv3 with exception. Second, it may well be a lot easier than you think to track down the people/companies that own most of the contributions to the Linux kernel and replace the rest.
A 'state of matter' is typically regarded as having different macroscopic properties brought about by a phase transition.
Typically (i.e., to most people), a "state of matter" is regarded to be what people learn in school to be a state of matter: solid, liquid, gas, and sometimes plasma. That definition is what counts in a press release to the general public. If a press release talks about a "new state of matter", it implies that something has been added to that list, or at least obviously belongs on that list.
When communicating with the public, it's the responsibility of scientists to use the commonly understood meaning of terms. That's not "philosophical" or "linguistic" minutiae, it's a question of clear and honest communication.
Of course ice/water is a great example, but superconductor/metal in aluminum is another example as well. If you really don't agree with this, then you'd consider gas and plasma to be the same state of matter (a point that the original poster disagrees since (s)he specifically mentioned gas/plasma being distinct states).
It's not obvious at all to me that the gas/plasma distinction is comparable to the superconductor/metal distinction. I think there are many reasonable definitions of "state of matter" that would distinguish gas/plasma, but consider superconductor/metal to be the same state of matter.
However, there probably should be a few more "states of matter" included in the standard list: neutron matter and superfluids, for example.
If someone in possession of a voucher waits until there's GPLv3 software in Suse Linux and then redeems it, Microsoft has procured the distribution of v3 software.
That's wishful thinking. Even if people obtained GPLv3 software through Microsoft's vouchers, Microsoft could simply say "sorry, we're not honoring the coupons, we revoke our no-sue guarantee and declare our agreement with SuSE null and void".
Sure, if you have a coupon, you could sue them. But for what? To give you a guarantee not to sue over patents they don't really have to being with? At best the court would give you your money back. And SuSE could sue, but they aren't going to because they still made hundreds of millions in the deal.
The GPLv3 will protect against future deals like Novell/Microsoft, and that's a good thing. It won't magically make the "235 patent" issue go away because this issue isn't a legal issue, it's Microsoft FUD and it has already done its job.
The fact that you question whether it's a new state of matter, and you refer merely solid, liquid, gas, and plasma without any reference to phase transitions, really shows your limited understanding of this subject.
"State of matter" doesn't really have a strict definition in terms of phase transitions: most phase transitions don't give rise to new states of matter, and one state of matter may be transformed into another one without a phase transition (as you yourself observe).
Important as this result may be, it does not seem to meet the criteria for a "new state of matter". In fact, the objects in which these interactions take place seem to be simply in the solid state, and the objects (polaritons) composing the new state are not made of matter. So, you have a new state, and it's a state that exists inside a solid object, but it's not a "new state of matter".
If and only if the GPLv2 code contains the "or any later version" clause -- which most of the kernel code doesn't.
Says who? Code under the GPLv2 can be linked with a lot of other code; all that matters is that the licenses are compatible. I have seen no indication that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible.
If they aren't, the kernel developers can always add a clause to the GPLv3 to make the two compatible, while retaining the patent provisions for new code.
Without Linus's support, switching to v3 would be impossible (because he owns so much of the code).
Without Linus's support, switching to v3 would be impossible since he runs the project, that's all.
So where's the OS X port? No, I know it's there. I mean the native one?
Gtk+ is moving to Cairo, and the native OS X port based on Cairo. The more apps use that, the faster it will be done and the better it will work.
Being able to skin GTK+ to look like native Windows, for example, isn't what I want -- I want it to actually use whatever skin Windows is using at the moment, to the extent that I can change that.
So why are you using Firefox then? Firefox isn't a native Windows app.
We're not talking about migrating Firefox from a native Windows app to a cross-platform app, we're talking about what cross-platform toolkit Firefox should use. Right now, Firefox is maintaining its own toolkit and mostly worrying about Windows. That's great for Windows users, but it sucks for everybody else.
In any case, it's pretty clear that neither the Firefox nor the OpenOffice developers are going to dump their own internal attempts at cross-platform toolkits. Most likely, this will simply get fixed by replacing both apps with one of the Gnome-based alternatives that already exists.
What if the GPL were changed requiring any distributor to give ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS to the user?
Presumably, distributors would simply choose not to distribute under the new license. And they can always choose not to distribute the software at all, just like people can choose not to sell or buy new versions of Microsoft software that may come under new licensing terms.
Could a user legally force a developer who released software under a prior GPL version, with the future version clause included, to pay such a sum?
First, the developer can change the license and just strike the "or later" clause for future releases if he likes since he owns the code.
Second, the standard clause says "or later", which means that you can continue to distribute under the old version.
One more thing: it's not like Microsoft and Novell are trapped by this deal. If Microsoft doesn't like the terms of the GPLv3, Microsoft can simply stop distributing coupons. Whether that constitutes a breach of contract with Novell and whether Microsoft still has to pay Novell is for those two companies to work out between them.
If Linus was still staunchly for it (which all signs point to that he doesn't like it), he'd have to strip out GPLv2 code and rewrite it with GPLv3 code.
AFAIK, GPLv3 and GPLv2 code can be linked, so nothing needs to be stripped. If they can't track down the author for some old piece of code, they can just leave it under GPLv2.
So, they could probably put a large chunk of the existing code under GPLv3 plus all new code, making the kernel effectively GPLv3 in its entirety (of course, you're free to use the GPLv2 bits under the GPLv2).
As discussed above, Novell has little / no option except to distribute under the 3.0 GPL, but doing so subjects their partner to very harsh terms which are explicity intended to fuck them over. That is a text-book worthy demonstration of abusive languge in a contract.
Novell got a license for the current version of Linux and related software under the GPLv2. Nobody is taking that away from them. Novell has no justification to demand that they get future versions under the same license.
Microsoft signed a contract with Novell; if they can't fulfill it because external conditions have changed, then that's a problem between those two companies only. The fact that future versions of Linux may be under the GPLv3 and that that screws Novell's business model is nobody's problem but theirs. That's no different from when Microsoft forces me to upgrade or cancels a product that my business has been depending on.
If there is any "intent" here that matters at all, it's the intent of the GPLv2 authors. They have made their intent clear: many of them believe that even the current Microsoft/Novell deal violates the terms of the GPLv2 and notified Novell before Novell even signed their deal. All they are doing now is clarifying the language. If anything, Novell should be worried that even their current distribution falls under GPLv3-like terms because they clearly and deliberately are violating the intent of the GPLv2.
IAJALS
Well, now we know where it's coming from.
Mr. Bungi, you need to realize that in the English language, there is such a thing as context. The word "own" can refer to several things, including constitutionally protected private property, intellectual authorship, and even homosexual rape.
Perhaps Sun will release Solaris under the GPLv3, but it will still be a Sun-run project. Just look at Java and Java evolution for how "well" that works.
I'm not a lawyer, but I still don't see how this makes MS a distributor.
They don't have to be a "distributor" under the GPLv3; what matters is that Novell is.
Furthermore, intent matters under the law. If Microsoft and SuSE are using coupons in a way to knowingly evade the intent of the GPLv2, a court may well find that they are a distributor.
It seems to me that the voucher is like a gift card - Once I give you the gift card, any transactions are between you and the vendor and I have nothing to do with them.
That may not be true either. If you knowingly give someone a gift card specifically for illegal drugs or pirated movies, you may well be held accountable for that as well.
Sounds like close to what I'd do, except Gtk+ is probably not such a good idea (not for cross-platform, anyway).
I think Gtk+ is perfect for this kind of cross-platform work: it already runs well on Windows, there are some big software packages that run on Windows using Gtk+, and its architecture (Cairo, etc.) makes it easy to port to new platforms.
is a testament not to lawyers greed but to legislative bloat.
You are aware that the majority of legislators are, in fact, lawyers?
I have no idea what IBM's stance on patent reform is, and apparently neither do you.
Whatever their stance may be, you're only going to convince them to do more if you understand why they're getting patents in the first place, and you can't understand that by simply jumping to conclusions based on one or two factoids.
Presumably, if the "Journal of Applied Optoelectronics" just puts its stuff on the web and stops having Wiley (or whoever) print it, it's just as reputable, since it has the same editorial board, right?
The quality of a journal is largely determined by its reputation and history, not the specific makeup of its editorial board. A journal that has traditionally published important papers will attract a good editorial board and good submissions. And journals are identified by their names, which are owned by their publishers. If the editorial board leaves, the publisher will just replace them with another top quality editorial board. Basically, it's the brand name that matters, and the brand name that guarantees quality.
Really, very few academics have any financial interest in the current system of copyrights and copyright restrictions, and probably the great majority of them hate that copyrights make it so hard and expensive for other to see their work. And people are making a real effort to change it. It just can't be done overnight.
And why are we feeling sorry for people like Michael Dell, again? Lest we forget, this man became a multi billionaire largely due to the "blackmail" contracts he signed with Microsoft.
Dell is rich because they are selling good products in a competitive market. Gates is rich because he managed to establish an illegal monopoly and continues monopolistic practices.
And this isn't about "feeling sorry" for Dell, it's about the fact that he is trying to offer alternative products that people want to buy, and Microsoft is trying to prevent him from doing that. The people we feel sorry for are the end users who don't get to make a choice based on quality and technology.
MS signed a contract saying that they'd offer discounts IF they didn't sell competing products. There is nothing evil about this.
If you have 90% of the market, that kind of behavior is pretty much the definition of "evil" in a free market system.