It is legal not because of statute law, but because the license agreement is seen by the software vendor as a contract. If you violate the terms on the license agreement, you run the risk of civil litigation for breaking the contract.
In other words, the government is not restricting your freedom of speech -- you are.
Whether or not shrink-wrap/click-wrap license agreements are legally binding, however, remains to be seen...
PS-
If you don't think they should be, there are bills out there that you should know about. Do your research and find out what you can do to stop them from becoming laws.
If you think they're OK, then don't do anything. Rest assured that the organizations that want it have plenty of resources to help make it happen.
I thought the original idea for Mozilla was to put out an open source version of Netscape. Why does stuff keep getting added to it? It's like the project has a really bad case of ADD. They can't just focus on the really important stuff. Instead, they just keep going off on tangents and trying to do everything while not finishing anything.
Mozilla needs a short list of goals. They need to focus on a strict set of features for it and get those working without bugs. Even if it has the same features as Netscape 4.74, at least it's stable, it's open source, and it's done. All the extra stuff like chat clients, skins, and gaming platforms(!!!) can wait until the basic foundation is laid. There's something wrong when Mozilla's developers are spending their time working on "cool shit" and their email client deletes mail from the POP server but doesn't bother to fetch it first (or fetches it and sends it nowhere.../dev/null perhaps?). They need to get their priorities in line.
Personally, Netscape 4.7 works fine for me. I use the browser and the email/news client. If Mozilla just had a standards compliant web browser and a simple mail/news client, it would do me just fine. Finish that part, release it, and add the "cool shit" later.
By not including two of the most used distros out there, this review has disqualified itself as being comprehensive. Now, if you're doing a security review of all Linux distros that use RPM, then this would be a good article to reference.
Debian and Slack were not included in this article, but they're more secure than the bulk of the distributions mentioned because of their focus on stability as opposed to getting product to market. As for release schedules, to say Slackware is slow is just ridiculous.
Obviously Linux isn't ready for Mom's PC just yet. And, it's no substiture for big iron or UNIX(tm), despite the fact that it compiles on most of the hardware.
However, it has made significant progress when it comes to servers for network infrastructure. Think DNS, SOCKS, HTTP, etc. These are systems that would benefit from Unix's better robustness and scalability over NT (able to run on smaller servers with better throughput), but do not need to have a high priced UNIX(tm) running things.
It may not be glamourous, but you have to start somewhere.
Most of your X crashes and security exploits are the fault of Red Hat, not Linux or X. I use Slackware. It may not be as full-featured or photogenic as Red Hat, but it's rock solid. Any time you grow a system to a great big bloated mass, whether it's open or closed, more and more bugs will pop up. It's inevitable.
As for StarOffice, it doesn't matter what their reasons were. It can only benefit the community to have it GPL'd. In essence, they've actually GIVEN StarOffice to the open developer community, rather than leased it as in the SCSL.
Don't worry so much. As long as the community and not one corporation or entity has control of the code, we can always ensure that these software products are enhanced (not grown!) to their fullest potential without restrictions.
IBM figured they were good enough to smother all competition, so they felt confident that they could bring their half-assed entry up to speed with a modular upgrade approach, after they decided whether people really wanted these newfangled "micro-computers"
And they tried to "cathedralize" their PC with the PS/2. But by then their "bazaar" PC took hold and it was too late...
You guys think this has gone on too long already? Folks, this thing is just starting. Let's look at IBM's anti-trust cases...
1st case - 1932 - IBM and Remington-Rand have a lock on the market for punch card machines and are forcing customers to buy their punch cards. The case goes to the Supreme Court and the DoJ wins in 1936 (4 years).
2nd case - 1952 - IBM is the only name in the tabulator business and is only making them available by lease. They sign a consent decree in 1956 stating they would create a used market by selling as well as leasing (4 years).
3rd case - 1969 - IBM is accused of predatory pricing of mainframe peripherals. The case goes on forever and is finally thrown out in 1982 for being irrelevant (13 years).
Let's just focus on improving free OSes like Linux, so that we can sooner dethrone Microsoft and save the US taxpayers some money.
If you're using a UNIX workstation with Motif/CDE preinstalled, is it preferable to get KDE/Qt, compile it, install it, and hope it works, or to just stick with what you've got and know will work. Remember, most applications you'll be running on your UNIX are compiled to run on CDE...
The same situation applies the other way around, of course, which may have as much an impact on why Linux people don't like Motif, aside from ugliness/freeness. Until today, Motif really wasn't accessible to Linux users, but KDE/GNOME has. To us Linux users, KDE/GNOME is like the UNIX user's CDE. It's what comes with our system, it's what most of our apps are programmed for, and it's what we know works.
Last time I downloaded the latest Netscape for Linux(2 days ago) the dynMotif binary was included. Of course, it still doesn't run smoothly with Lesstif.
For the majority of apps we see for Linux, this is a moot point, since most have moved on to other toolkits (including Mozilla). However, people who are interested in developing cross-platform apps (i.e. stuff that runs on Linux, *BSD, and UNIX(R)) will have more of an incentive to use Motif, since it is an industry standard. This will also open up the possibility of easier ports of enterprise-level applications to free OSes.
Yes. 'Open' has been redefined. It now means 'owned by a community of zealots who will drive you out of the market if you don't give it away entirely.'
Well, if you can make that business model work, then it's all the better for us consumers.
As long as the Open Motif license contains restrictions, there will be a demand for Lesstif. It may be reduced as more people migrate to the "official" product, but GPL-purists will still use Lesstif.
Perhaps as the Open Motif license matures, we'll see a merging of the two projects. It seems a waste to have two groups working seperately on the same thing.
You're right, it does have that provision that makes it non-free. However, this provision does not really hurt the free software community. If you're only using free software and developing for free OSes then you can ignore this restriction.
Most OSes that this restriction applies to already have their own implementation of Motif (even Win2K) so not much will change for them, either. They'll still have to pay the big royalties to TOG like they've been doing.
Of course, the restriction does not apply to applications developed using Motif, even those linked to its libraries. The license specifically states that. So portability of your applications won't be affected either.
The rest of the license is very similar to the IBM Public License, which they used as a model, and does fit the Open Source Definition. If the restriction was removed, it would still not be GPL-compatible because IPL-covered code cannot be merged into the GPL or vice-versa. As a result, Open Motif and Lesstif cannot merge. There may be a loophole somewhere concerning the linked applications clause, but I'm only brainstorming on that one.
Granted, it's not a perfect license, but it's pretty good for a start. It's not nearly as restrictive as the SCSL.
They distribute it with Internix. They don't have a say in its distribution or "free/open-ness" policies, though. The GPL protects it from any Microsoftization.
What about MWM? Is that getting opened up along with the toolkit? It may not be pretty to many people, but it sure is lean. I'd love to see this window manager become GNOME compliant. I've tried running Lesstif's MWM on GNOME with little luck. So far, IceWM (with my MWM theme -- available on icewm.themes.org) makes for a nice substitute for the time being.
I realize the Xt library is falling out of favor on the free OSes (Linux, *BSD), but it's still alive and well on UNIX(R) systems with CDE. Perhaps we'll see more mainstream development for those systems.
As for Lesstif, I think it's great news for that project. While Open Motif may have a semi-restrictive license (haven't reviewed it yet), Lesstif will be GPL. That means demand for Lesstif will definitely not go away, but now they'll have the real Motif code to work from to fix those compatibility problems that still exist. Lesstif has come a long way, but it's still got a way to go. I'll keep saying that until I can run netscape-dynMotif without any warning boxes popping up.
I'd like to thank Microsoft for bringing this issue to our attention. I would've never known there was a link to an unencumbered Kerberos specification without their help.
Well, if Windows wasn't so error-prone, we wouldn't get used to seeing dialog boxes. I've noticed that in Windows I tend to click OK without reading, but when I'm running GNOME, I actually read what the box has to say. I assume this is because I'm just used to them coming up in Windows, while in GNOME they're somewhat of a novelty.
Also, for web browsers, many times it's easy to disable dialog boxes you don't really need... like those telling you you're about to visit a secure site. By reducing the usual number of dialog boxes that pop up, you take more notice of the ones that do.
You're absolutely right. The fact that MS such a huge market share in this technology is what makes them attractive to people who write viruses. We all extol the virtues of Linux being virus free, but wait and see what happens once Linux gains a critical mass in the desktop market. This is one step in the growth of Linux I'm not looking forward to...
Something else to note is that these very "innovations" are what's making it possible to create these viruses. If they weren't so quick to feature-bloat their software without checking their security, these viruses wouldn't be so easy to code. VBScript comes standard with IE5. Our workplace was largely unaffected due to the fact that most of our internet-enabled PCs are running IE4... well, that, and we use Lotus Notes on Domino for email instead of Outlook.
+++
Re:Before I Try Oracle, A Fix Request Please!!
on
Why Not MySQL?
·
· Score: 1
field of expertise?
Last I heard, Oracle wasn't in the FTP server business, or the server hardware business...
They probably contract that stuff from someone else. Granted, they should get it fixed, but it may not be their fault...
+++
I'm a free software advocate, but I use Oracle
on
Why Not MySQL?
·
· Score: 1
I am a firm believer in free/open software. I think both from a practical (ESR "open") and philosophical (RMS "free") standpoint it has its merits. Linux and Apache (and BSD, Perl, sendmail, etc.) have attained their level of quality and success largely because of their being open. I'd never reccomend a closed product as a small to mid-range server OS or web/mail/DNS server largely due to security considerations. Commercial Unix is probably still appropriate for higher-end servers (especially those with proprietary architectures), but Linux is making inroads in that direction. On the client side, open software is growing quickly as an acceptable platform as well.
So, why do I think Oracle is the best choice for an RDBMS? Oracle may be proprietary, but it hasn't fallen into the kind of rut that MS has in terms of quality. This is largely because it has lots of competition (Sybase, Informix, etc). Oracle has been developed and refined over many many years to the quality product it is now. Plus, it's documented to the point where it's almost a standard, with books on administration and PL/SQL programming published by just about every computer publishing house there is (including even open-source advocate O'Reilly).
Open source database servers like MySQL simply aren't old enough to be at the level that Oracle is now. This is not to say that it shouldn't be used by anybody. Applications where data integrity isn't critical (like this very forum) were made to run MySQL, and I think they should from a philosophical perspective. However, I'm certainly not going to put my workplace's warehouse management server on it. I admit I haven't tried PostgreSQL, but I have the feeling it's not quite Oracle, either, though I understand it's better then MySQL.
I guess what I mean to say is, if you are building a serious system that will affect lots of people's lives (not just noodling with something at home), put quality and practicality above philosophical or theoretical considerations. Open software is better in theory, and many times it is better in practice... but not all the time.
I keep saying I'll switch from Red Hat to Debian as soon as Debian finishes its updated distribution. However, It looks like the packages on RH 6.2 are about on par with the versions on Debian 2.2, and RH 6.2 is now full release.
Any idea when Debian 2.2 is suppoed to be final? It's been frozen for months...
Leave it up to the LA Times to print such opinionated, one-sided drivel. They're reputation for bending over to corporate interests continues. Look elsewhere for journalistic integrity...
Slashdot Mirror
It is legal not because of statute law, but because the license agreement is seen by the software vendor as a contract. If you violate the terms on the license agreement, you run the risk of civil litigation for breaking the contract.
In other words, the government is not restricting your freedom of speech -- you are.
Whether or not shrink-wrap/click-wrap license agreements are legally binding, however, remains to be seen...
PS-
If you don't think they should be, there are bills out there that you should know about. Do your research and find out what you can do to stop them from becoming laws.
If you think they're OK, then don't do anything. Rest assured that the organizations that want it have plenty of resources to help make it happen.
+++
Mozilla needs a short list of goals. They need to focus on a strict set of features for it and get those working without bugs. Even if it has the same features as Netscape 4.74, at least it's stable, it's open source, and it's done. All the extra stuff like chat clients, skins, and gaming platforms(!!!) can wait until the basic foundation is laid. There's something wrong when Mozilla's developers are spending their time working on "cool shit" and their email client deletes mail from the POP server but doesn't bother to fetch it first (or fetches it and sends it nowhere...
Personally, Netscape 4.7 works fine for me. I use the browser and the email/news client. If Mozilla just had a standards compliant web browser and a simple mail/news client, it would do me just fine. Finish that part, release it, and add the "cool shit" later.
Mozilla is not dead. It just needs some Aderall.
+++
Debian and Slack were not included in this article, but they're more secure than the bulk of the distributions mentioned because of their focus on stability as opposed to getting product to market. As for release schedules, to say Slackware is slow is just ridiculous.
+++
However, it has made significant progress when it comes to servers for network infrastructure. Think DNS, SOCKS, HTTP, etc. These are systems that would benefit from Unix's better robustness and scalability over NT (able to run on smaller servers with better throughput), but do not need to have a high priced UNIX(tm) running things.
It may not be glamourous, but you have to start somewhere.
+++
As for StarOffice, it doesn't matter what their reasons were. It can only benefit the community to have it GPL'd. In essence, they've actually GIVEN StarOffice to the open developer community, rather than leased it as in the SCSL.
Don't worry so much. As long as the community and not one corporation or entity has control of the code, we can always ensure that these software products are enhanced (not grown!) to their fullest potential without restrictions.
+++
And they tried to "cathedralize" their PC with the PS/2. But by then their "bazaar" PC took hold and it was too late...
+++
1st case - 1932 - IBM and Remington-Rand have a lock on the market for punch card machines and are forcing customers to buy their punch cards. The case goes to the Supreme Court and the DoJ wins in 1936 (4 years).
2nd case - 1952 - IBM is the only name in the tabulator business and is only making them available by lease. They sign a consent decree in 1956 stating they would create a used market by selling as well as leasing (4 years).
3rd case - 1969 - IBM is accused of predatory pricing of mainframe peripherals. The case goes on forever and is finally thrown out in 1982 for being irrelevant (13 years).
Let's just focus on improving free OSes like Linux, so that we can sooner dethrone Microsoft and save the US taxpayers some money.
+++
If you're using a UNIX workstation with Motif/CDE preinstalled, is it preferable to get KDE/Qt, compile it, install it, and hope it works, or to just stick with what you've got and know will work. Remember, most applications you'll be running on your UNIX are compiled to run on CDE...
The same situation applies the other way around, of course, which may have as much an impact on why Linux people don't like Motif, aside from ugliness/freeness. Until today, Motif really wasn't accessible to Linux users, but KDE/GNOME has. To us Linux users, KDE/GNOME is like the UNIX user's CDE. It's what comes with our system, it's what most of our apps are programmed for, and it's what we know works.
+++
Sorry for any confusion...
+++
For the majority of apps we see for Linux, this is a moot point, since most have moved on to other toolkits (including Mozilla). However, people who are interested in developing cross-platform apps (i.e. stuff that runs on Linux, *BSD, and UNIX(R)) will have more of an incentive to use Motif, since it is an industry standard. This will also open up the possibility of easier ports of enterprise-level applications to free OSes.
+++
Well, if you can make that business model work, then it's all the better for us consumers.
+++
Perhaps as the Open Motif license matures, we'll see a merging of the two projects. It seems a waste to have two groups working seperately on the same thing.
+++
Most OSes that this restriction applies to already have their own implementation of Motif (even Win2K) so not much will change for them, either. They'll still have to pay the big royalties to TOG like they've been doing.
Of course, the restriction does not apply to applications developed using Motif, even those linked to its libraries. The license specifically states that. So portability of your applications won't be affected either.
The rest of the license is very similar to the IBM Public License, which they used as a model, and does fit the Open Source Definition. If the restriction was removed, it would still not be GPL-compatible because IPL-covered code cannot be merged into the GPL or vice-versa. As a result, Open Motif and Lesstif cannot merge. There may be a loophole somewhere concerning the linked applications clause, but I'm only brainstorming on that one.
Granted, it's not a perfect license, but it's pretty good for a start. It's not nearly as restrictive as the SCSL.
+++
+++
+++
As for Lesstif, I think it's great news for that project. While Open Motif may have a semi-restrictive license (haven't reviewed it yet), Lesstif will be GPL. That means demand for Lesstif will definitely not go away, but now they'll have the real Motif code to work from to fix those compatibility problems that still exist. Lesstif has come a long way, but it's still got a way to go. I'll keep saying that until I can run netscape-dynMotif without any warning boxes popping up.
Geez, I'm still reeling from this one...
+++
+++
Also, for web browsers, many times it's easy to disable dialog boxes you don't really need... like those telling you you're about to visit a secure site. By reducing the usual number of dialog boxes that pop up, you take more notice of the ones that do.
+++
Something else to note is that these very "innovations" are what's making it possible to create these viruses. If they weren't so quick to feature-bloat their software without checking their security, these viruses wouldn't be so easy to code. VBScript comes standard with IE5. Our workplace was largely unaffected due to the fact that most of our internet-enabled PCs are running IE4... well, that, and we use Lotus Notes on Domino for email instead of Outlook.
+++
Last I heard, Oracle wasn't in the FTP server business, or the server hardware business...
They probably contract that stuff from someone else. Granted, they should get it fixed, but it may not be their fault...
+++
So, why do I think Oracle is the best choice for an RDBMS? Oracle may be proprietary, but it hasn't fallen into the kind of rut that MS has in terms of quality. This is largely because it has lots of competition (Sybase, Informix, etc). Oracle has been developed and refined over many many years to the quality product it is now. Plus, it's documented to the point where it's almost a standard, with books on administration and PL/SQL programming published by just about every computer publishing house there is (including even open-source advocate O'Reilly).
Open source database servers like MySQL simply aren't old enough to be at the level that Oracle is now. This is not to say that it shouldn't be used by anybody. Applications where data integrity isn't critical (like this very forum) were made to run MySQL, and I think they should from a philosophical perspective. However, I'm certainly not going to put my workplace's warehouse management server on it. I admit I haven't tried PostgreSQL, but I have the feeling it's not quite Oracle, either, though I understand it's better then MySQL.
I guess what I mean to say is, if you are building a serious system that will affect lots of people's lives (not just noodling with something at home), put quality and practicality above philosophical or theoretical considerations. Open software is better in theory, and many times it is better in practice... but not all the time.
+++
If you don't like it, just get rid of it. I don't see what the big fuss is about.
+++
Any idea when Debian 2.2 is suppoed to be final? It's been frozen for months...
+++
+++
Leave it up to the LA Times to print such opinionated, one-sided drivel. They're reputation for bending over to corporate interests continues. Look elsewhere for journalistic integrity...
+++