First of all "Linuxworld" is anything but. They should be required to change their name to "MicrosoftFUDsterPretendingToRepresentLinux." This would at least clue readers into the fact that they're anti-Linux.
LinuxWorld is just trolling and spreading FUD with their "just too big, why bother, you can't win, give up, don't try, it'll never work, it can't happen, you're just wasting your time, resistance is futile" rhetoric
Their words are as dog farts. They are not to be considered!
You raise some good points but I think the "dwindling mindshare" and "marketshare" is a reach.
It is true that if you open source a product so that anyone can download it and try it out you remove barriers which will probably increase your market penetration. But a free trial of proprietary code can do much the same, giving people the chance to test drive before committing to a monetary investment.
Don't get me wrong. I prefer the open source business model. It feels friendlier and makes me feel that the product is going to be there for me unlike some proprietary products that went away after the company that produced them went out of business or just lost interest in supporting them any longer. But I don't look at the proprietary business model with distain either. Give me choices and I'll choose what works for me.
"The music company accuses Amergence of negligence, unfair business practices and breaching the terms of its license agreement by delivering software that "did not perform as warranted."
These are bogus claims. I'm not sure what they mean by "did not perform as warranted" unless they were told no one would find out about the hidden files.
I think the real problem here is that Sony agreed to do something unethical and paid the price. Now instead of admitting that THEY (Sony) made a mistake they're in denial.
I think that the fact that OSS gets bug fixes so much faster than closed source is proof.
Many eyes doesn't apply to the development but it does apply to bugs being found and reported.
"If I'm trying to break into some code, and I can read the source code to determine how the author protected it, I'll have an easier job (note: "easier", not "easy") because I can home in on the algorithm the author used."
You fail to mention that you will have a harder time finding a bug because the code has been so well reviewed by an entire community. That fact should not be ignored.
"God demands faith. God does not provide proof, because proof kills faith. If you see something that you think is proof of God's existence, you're wrong. He's ineffable. That means you can't effing figure him out."
This is, of course, your belief system talking. Who really knows? If there is a God (and I hope that there is) one can not really know anything about him from reading any book or listening to any story handed down though the veil of time.
Unless God speaks to me directly I can't be sure what he thinks or wants. (And even if he does it may mean that I'm just crazy.) All we have are many, many books that other people claim are from God. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't but just because one of those books says that God demands faith doesn't make it so.
The point isn't really to stop the infringement because it is doubtful that there really is any and if there were and Microsoft showed us it would probably be trivial to recode so there wasn't any infringement.
Microsoft wants a couple of things. They want Linux to stop being free as in beer and free as in speech.
Ultimately they want Linux to go away.
If you look at Microsoft's history in regards to partners you may notice that to partner with Microsoft is often the kiss of death. They are known for stabbing partners in the back.
Be sure that they paid well to partner with the distributions that have signed up. Novell got over 300 million dollars. It only cost them their good standing in the OSS community. I don't know the specifics of the other deals but Microsoft is paying out big to try to make this happen. You can bet that regardless of what the astro-turfers try to say this IS a big deal and we SHOULD NOT relax and think everything is fine.
I believe that Microsoft is setting the stage for its next act. I hope IBM and other large corporations who claim to support the OSS movement are watching and planning.
If Microsoft succeeds the playing field will continue to be tilted in their favor for the foreseeable future. If they fail the playing field will become level again where true innovation and competition can thrive to the benefit of all.
"Bush could have a live press conference where he bites the heads off kittens, and nobody would care."
Hey bud, if we fail in our efforts to bite their heads off they'll follow us home!
"A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes, or worse yet new companies arise because you just removed any barrier to entry that might have existed."
Isn't being able to "use those changes" the whole point of every verison of GPL? Your statements don't make any sense to me.
"And please, lets not bring up Novell/MS again... This is non-news. Lets not get worked up into a frenzy over it."
I don't think the Novell/Microsoft deal is a non-issue. If taken in context it clearly shows one of the strategies Microsoft is taking in an effort to destroy its competition.
Microsoft floated a balloon with the SCO litigation. I have no doubt that if investigated it would come out that Microsoft encouraged SCO and helped fund the lawsuit.
Let's look at the strategy for a second. 1. Offer a license for IP that is never specified. 2. If people don't pay protection money sue. Again without specificity. 3. Never enumerate your claims in a way that allows the Open Source community to challenge those claims or modify the offending code.
Let's look at the Microsoft Strategy now: 1. Offer a cross licensing deal for IP that is never specified. 2. If people don't pay the protection money then??? 3. Never enumerate your claims in a way that allows the Open Source community to challenge those claims or modify the offending code.
Point number three is telling. Microsoft is not interested in having the code fixed if there are legitimate claims. They want Open Source and Linux in particular to die. Once again they seek to DESTROY their competition.
These patent covenants that they are seeking is a very BIG deal.
If they don't believe that their product violates any of Microsoft's patents then why did they enter into this arrangement?
The only reason I can think of is if Microsoft paid them some big bucks like they did with Novell. If this is true then Microsoft appears to be willing to pay through the nose for a FUD campaign.
"When will the USDOJ step in and put a stop to this? Probably never."
Well probably not until a Democratic president fires all of the Federal prosecutors and replaces them with prosecutors that are not quite so "corporate friendly." If the Democrats aren't already too corrupt.
Novell is also paying Microsoft and I think that the point is that Microsoft is claiming that Linux contains their IP. They want to make people believe that if they use free versions of Linux they could be sued.
If they can instill enough fear into corporate users they can force the users to only use versions of Linux for which Microsoft receives money. Despicable really.
It looks like to me that Microsoft is trying to achieve the perception of legitimacy. The more companies they can get pay protection money, the more it gives the perception that there may be some real IP for which companies need to pay.
Let's hope that we get the GPL 3 right and put an end to this nonsense.
I though that ideas could not be patented? Are they saying they have the ability to do this already? If they can't do it, isn't it just an idea?
It's pretty easy to come up with ideas but much harder to implement an ideal into something that is real.
It wouldn't mean that the genes will propagate by passing their genetic material on. That would be like saying "If both your parents were sterile you probably will be too."
But if farmer's crops are destroyed because they unknowingly plant seeds that won't sprout they will be under pressure to buy seeds each year that they know will. At some point I can see where all seeds planted have the t-gene because farmers won't be able to gamble that the seeds they harvest themselves will grow so they by the seed that is available. The t-gene strain.
Although plants who take on the gene will not produce offspring they can infect other plants through pollination. So if you're a farmer using unaltered seed and your neighbor is using the t-gene strain the chances are likely that some of his pollen will make some of your next year's crop seed worthless.
You'll have a smaller crop because some of your last year plants produced seeds infected with the t-gene and those seeds won't germinate. More farmer's will be forced to buy seed and if they choose the t-gene type the problem grows.
Personally I think farmers need a class action suit for damages. If their product infects my product in a negitve way why would I not be able to recover my losses?
"the terminator approach provides an excellent method to protect against transference of novel traits to other crops and plant species."
Well unless the "terminator gene" itself gets transferred, in which case we could lose all ability to maintain a viable seed supply. Massive famine could result. But hey Corporate profits are a stake and I'm sure THEY are willing to take that risk.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess "unlimited" isn't what it use to be.
as a legitimate reason to go out and get falling down drunk! It's party time!!
"What would you say if told you that there are people out there that want to make sharing your media between devices over a home network illegal?"
I would say that I'd like to get all these guys together in a garage on Valintines day to "work out the details."
LinuxWorld is not known for being objective.
First of all "Linuxworld" is anything but. They should be required to change their name to "MicrosoftFUDsterPretendingToRepresentLinux." This would at least clue readers into the fact that they're anti-Linux.
LinuxWorld is just trolling and spreading FUD with their "just too big, why bother, you can't win, give up, don't try, it'll never work, it can't happen, you're just wasting your time, resistance is futile" rhetoric
Their words are as dog farts. They are not to be considered!
Many eyes does not apply to looking at the GUI. It applies to many people looking at the code. And yes it means that SOMEONE found a bug.
Many eyes looking increases the chance that SOMEONE will find a bug and report it. Once reported it will get fixed.
That's one of the reasons that OSS bugs get found by SOMEONE and fixed at a much faster rate than proprietary software bugs.
You raise some good points but I think the "dwindling mindshare" and "marketshare" is a reach.
It is true that if you open source a product so that anyone can download it and try it out you remove barriers which will probably increase your market penetration. But a free trial of proprietary code can do much the same, giving people the chance to test drive before committing to a monetary investment.
Don't get me wrong. I prefer the open source business model. It feels friendlier and makes me feel that the product is going to be there for me unlike some proprietary products that went away after the company that produced them went out of business or just lost interest in supporting them any longer. But I don't look at the proprietary business model with distain either. Give me choices and I'll choose what works for me.
"The music company accuses Amergence of negligence, unfair business practices and breaching the terms of its license agreement by delivering software that "did not perform as warranted."
These are bogus claims. I'm not sure what they mean by "did not perform as warranted" unless they were told no one would find out about the hidden files.
I think the real problem here is that Sony agreed to do something unethical and paid the price. Now instead of admitting that THEY (Sony) made a mistake they're in denial.
Bug fixes happen MUCH faster in OSS code. The million eyes thing is the reason.
I think that the fact that OSS gets bug fixes so much faster than closed source is proof. Many eyes doesn't apply to the development but it does apply to bugs being found and reported.
"If I'm trying to break into some code, and I can read the source code to determine how the author protected it, I'll have an easier job (note: "easier", not "easy") because I can home in on the algorithm the author used." You fail to mention that you will have a harder time finding a bug because the code has been so well reviewed by an entire community. That fact should not be ignored.
"God demands faith. God does not provide proof, because proof kills faith. If you see something that you think is proof of God's existence, you're wrong. He's ineffable. That means you can't effing figure him out."
This is, of course, your belief system talking. Who really knows? If there is a God (and I hope that there is) one can not really know anything about him from reading any book or listening to any story handed down though the veil of time.
Unless God speaks to me directly I can't be sure what he thinks or wants. (And even if he does it may mean that I'm just crazy.) All we have are many, many books that other people claim are from God. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't but just because one of those books says that God demands faith doesn't make it so.
If we don't get green house gases under control we may be able to use what we learn about terraforming mars here on Earth!
The point isn't really to stop the infringement because it is doubtful that there really is any and if there were and Microsoft showed us it would probably be trivial to recode so there wasn't any infringement.
Microsoft wants a couple of things. They want Linux to stop being free as in beer and free as in speech.
Ultimately they want Linux to go away.
If you look at Microsoft's history in regards to partners you may notice that to partner with Microsoft is often the kiss of death. They are known for stabbing partners in the back.
Be sure that they paid well to partner with the distributions that have signed up. Novell got over 300 million dollars. It only cost them their good standing in the OSS community. I don't know the specifics of the other deals but Microsoft is paying out big to try to make this happen. You can bet that regardless of what the astro-turfers try to say this IS a big deal and we SHOULD NOT relax and think everything is fine.
I believe that Microsoft is setting the stage for its next act. I hope IBM and other large corporations who claim to support the OSS movement are watching and planning.
If Microsoft succeeds the playing field will continue to be tilted in their favor for the foreseeable future. If they fail the playing field will become level again where true innovation and competition can thrive to the benefit of all.
"Bush could have a live press conference where he bites the heads off kittens, and nobody would care." Hey bud, if we fail in our efforts to bite their heads off they'll follow us home!
"A company can't put time and money into helping a project when a competitor can then just use those changes, or worse yet new companies arise because you just removed any barrier to entry that might have existed." Isn't being able to "use those changes" the whole point of every verison of GPL? Your statements don't make any sense to me.
"And please, lets not bring up Novell/MS again... This is non-news. Lets not get worked up into a frenzy over it."
I don't think the Novell/Microsoft deal is a non-issue. If taken in context it clearly shows one of the strategies Microsoft is taking in an effort to destroy its competition.
Microsoft floated a balloon with the SCO litigation. I have no doubt that if investigated it would come out that Microsoft encouraged SCO and helped fund the lawsuit.
Let's look at the strategy for a second.
1. Offer a license for IP that is never specified.
2. If people don't pay protection money sue. Again without specificity.
3. Never enumerate your claims in a way that allows the Open Source community to challenge those claims or modify the offending code.
Let's look at the Microsoft Strategy now:
1. Offer a cross licensing deal for IP that is never specified.
2. If people don't pay the protection money then???
3. Never enumerate your claims in a way that allows the Open Source community to challenge those claims or modify the offending code.
Point number three is telling. Microsoft is not interested in having the code fixed if there are legitimate claims. They want Open Source and Linux in particular to die. Once again they seek to DESTROY their competition.
These patent covenants that they are seeking is a very BIG deal.
If they don't believe that their product violates any of Microsoft's patents then why did they enter into this arrangement?
The only reason I can think of is if Microsoft paid them some big bucks like they did with Novell. If this is true then Microsoft appears to be willing to pay through the nose for a FUD campaign.
"When will the USDOJ step in and put a stop to this? Probably never."
Well probably not until a Democratic president fires all of the Federal prosecutors and replaces them with prosecutors that are not quite so "corporate friendly." If the Democrats aren't already too corrupt.
Novell is also paying Microsoft and I think that the point is that Microsoft is claiming that Linux contains their IP. They want to make people believe that if they use free versions of Linux they could be sued.
If they can instill enough fear into corporate users they can force the users to only use versions of Linux for which Microsoft receives money. Despicable really.
It looks like to me that Microsoft is trying to achieve the perception of legitimacy. The more companies they can get pay protection money, the more it gives the perception that there may be some real IP for which companies need to pay.
Let's hope that we get the GPL 3 right and put an end to this nonsense.
I though that ideas could not be patented? Are they saying they have the ability to do this already? If they can't do it, isn't it just an idea? It's pretty easy to come up with ideas but much harder to implement an ideal into something that is real.
It wouldn't mean that the genes will propagate by passing their genetic material on. That would be like saying "If both your parents were sterile you probably will be too."
But if farmer's crops are destroyed because they unknowingly plant seeds that won't sprout they will be under pressure to buy seeds each year that they know will. At some point I can see where all seeds planted have the t-gene because farmers won't be able to gamble that the seeds they harvest themselves will grow so they by the seed that is available. The t-gene strain.
Once all other strains are gone they're gone.
Although plants who take on the gene will not produce offspring they can infect other plants through pollination. So if you're a farmer using unaltered seed and your neighbor is using the t-gene strain the chances are likely that some of his pollen will make some of your next year's crop seed worthless. You'll have a smaller crop because some of your last year plants produced seeds infected with the t-gene and those seeds won't germinate. More farmer's will be forced to buy seed and if they choose the t-gene type the problem grows. Personally I think farmers need a class action suit for damages. If their product infects my product in a negitve way why would I not be able to recover my losses?
"the terminator approach provides an excellent method to protect against transference of novel traits to other crops and plant species."
Well unless the "terminator gene" itself gets transferred, in which case we could lose all ability to maintain a viable seed supply. Massive famine could result. But hey Corporate profits are a stake and I'm sure THEY are willing to take that risk.