Software is protected by Copyright. When you buy a book, you have a right to resell it or copy for personal use, but you do not have a right to make copies (or derivatives) and distribute them.
The GPL gives you additional rights: the right to copy and make derivative works, provided your derivatives have the same license. In *no way* does the GPL take any rights away from you. You would not otherwise be able to redistribute a copyrighted work.
Under normal copyright, you have every right to take source code that you download and modify for your personal use. The GPL only kicks in if you try and redistribute.
Click-through EULAs that say you can NOT modify for personal use, or limit what you can use a product for, or in any other manner take away your rights are entirely different from a license like the GPL which extends your rights.
Under the First Sale Doctrine, MS can't sell you an XBox and tell you what you can do with it.
Yes, the spin was remarkable. The only example of something they'd ever want to restrict would be a pay-per-view fight. And I thought to myself, "That wouldn't bother me, because after the fight is over, why would I want to watch it again".
Who would ever want to tape a live sporting event (especially a high-quality digitial version of one)? But if no one would want to tape this, why would they even need to put a restriction on this sort of thing.
Now, maybe I'm wrong and people DO want to tape pay-per-view fights. In that case, it WILL "affect how consumers watch, enjoy and record television".
So either they're only going to restrict things that people don't want to tape (why bother?), or they will affect consumer behavior.
> [data changes after validation], is that Verisign's fault?
No, but if one registers with an address like "Yellow Brick Road, Kansas" (yorkstreethardware.com), or "000 Blank St., No city, XX 00000" (dundjerski.com), or a phone number like 650-555-1212 (sunnyside.com) or 000-000-0000 (jaxx.net), one could argue that the domain should have never been issued.
Are the machines networked? You could use Etherboot to boot over the network and have no local disks (or just a floppy if you don't want to make boot EPROMs).
You didn't really say much about what the "certain task" these machines do. Do they need to save a lot of data? You could boot off a CD-ROM and use RAM disks for/var and other writeable partitions. Each time the machine is unplugged, it returns entirely to its initial state.
If you want to save a small amount of data, you could put a VFAT formatted floppy and write persistent data there.
At a forum in April at the University of Texas, Judge Royce C. Lamberth, who recently stepped down as the court's presiding judge, praised Attorney General John Ashcroft and his staff for ending abuses of the system for requesting wiretap authority.
Y'know, if Judge Jackson had NOT given interviews, the MS case might have been finalized by now. The appellate courts didn't overturn his Findings of Facts or guilty verdit. They didn't even say that his penalty was inappropriate. They merely said that his penalty *appeared* to be biased, based soley on the fact that he given interviews before the case was over.
My point about the "do it or I'll leave syndrome" is that it's universal. I see it on the Debian list. "Fix this or I'll go back to [Windows, Red Hat, etc]." I see it on the Plucker list. "Fix this or I'll use Avantgo." Emacs newbies threaten to use vi, and vi newbies threaten to use emacs.
None of these projects were started to get people to stop using the others, no matter how hard it seems the developers are working. Developers are trying to make a better product because the developers want to use them. It's nice that other people can use them and it feels good to get complimented. Some developers may even feel a bit of a debt since they've used so much of other peoples work free work. When it comes to choosing between the carrot and the stick to see your wish fulfilled, choose the carrot because the stick is meaningless. Or do it yourself.
So no, the primary motivation of Open Source developers is generally NOT to stop others from using the competition. Commercial vendors work that way, but not volunteers.
They have only themselves to blame for there lack of success.
No, read the interview. They have people like YOU to blame as well:
If there is something they don't like, instead of asking "What can I do to improve it?", a common attitude in KDE's earlier days, the attitude now rather frequently is, "Damn it, why is this [ so or not like so ]? If you do not do as I say immediately, [ place a horrible here ]."
Yours is the most common [place horrible here] that I see on all developer lists. "If you don't solve my problem, I'll use the competing product." Like that's a meaningful threat coming from someone who doesn't pay or contribute...
A man heading south on I-95 and stops at a rest area to use the facilities. While in his stall, someone in the stall next to him says "Hi, how are you?"
People don't normally talk in these situations, but what the hell. "I'm fine," he replies.
"So what are you doing?" Odd question, but whatever.
"Heading south, just like you," he replies.
"Excuse me, I'll have to call you back. Some idiot in here keeps replying to what I say to you."
Section 508 applies to the Federal government and does not require access to the source code. It merely requires that the software be accessible to people with disabilities (e.g. must be usable with screen-reading software and be useable without a mouse).
You are free to decide that there moral advantage of this law does not outweigh its costs. You may also decide that the moral advantage of Union labor does not outweigh its costs and vote against legislation that requires the government to use it. This is how a Government makes its decisions. It is not "forced".
> Just as it is not allowed for a private company... the idea of the state...
They are NOT the same. That was my only reason for starting this thread in the first case.
It is a good idea that the Government pass zoning laws, which restrict the activities of private companies and individuals. It is not a good idea for an individual or company to do the same.
If you think it's wrong for the Government to help one competitor compete, then you must be opposed to section 508. In fact, whatever software the Government chooses to use will give that software an "artificial leg-up". Not only is the government the largest purchaser, they also compell citizens and businesses to interact with them. Given this, all citizens have a legitimate interest in what the government chooses.
The only difference between 508 and the DSSA are that the DSSA defines a superior product as one that includes the source code. Section 508 offers no balance either. The software MUST have it. If it is harder to use, if it crashes, if it is infinitely more expensive, and if it offers no additional features, 508-compliant software will win.
You make some distinction between technical merits and ideology. Section 508 is clearly an ideological one. The ideology in their case is that it is better to have more software with accessabiliy requirements, even though those features may not be used by anyone. By only using 508-compliant software, the producers of such software are compelled to make such features. Those features, although not necessarily used by the government, are now more widely available to the general public.
Section 508 clearly assumes that software with accessability cannot compete on purely technical merits either. Governments often use their buying power to support ideological causes.
The case against MS also is a case that Open Source (or anything else, for that matter) cannot compete against MS because they are a monopoly.
It would be nice if all software was chosen on its merits. California has proven that it is incapable of making such choices via the Oracle debacle. Rather than buying the right product at the right price, they bought the software from a company that contributed to political campaigns. Do you believe that they even evaluated PostgreSQL?
If you're going to use rhetoric like "is it free if you're forced", then expect to be called on it.
A law that applies to YOU is significantly different than a law that applies to the government. There is no Freedom of Information law that applies to you as a private individual. It would be awful. That doesn't mean that such a law that applies to the government is wrong.
It is no different than passing a law that requires the government to use Union labor. It will certainly cost more, but the People decided that, morally, it is the "right" thing to do.
If the People of California decide that, collectively, they believe in the moral advantages of Open Source, that they believe that it will make government functions more open to scrutiny (unlike the Florida County who agreed to use proprietary ballot machines that can not be accounted for beyond the word of the company), and if the People decide that government spending on Open Source will be better for the entire industry (as it will stop subsidizing monopolists and encourage development of Open Software), then they have every right to do so.
The Federal Government has new software standards (Section 508). They have imposed a burden that all new software must meet various accessability requirements. Only if there are NO alternatives can they use any other software. If one product costs $10 million dollars and the other is superior in every way including price, Section 508 requires the Government to choose the one that meets the standards.
One of the major arguments in support of this law is that it will spur all software developers to make their software accessible, and will thus spur investment in an otherwise small but useful market.
The DSSA is no different, morally, than Section 508. The Federal Government has to reject superior products for some purpose simply because they happen not to have a single feature.
PS: I don't live in California and I don't believe their version is a good well thought. I also have problems with Section 508.
Ok, you start making real and debatable points, but end with:
> Put differently: is it still `free' software if you're forced to use it?
Is it "free" software if Stallman "forces" himself to use it? It's this idea that the government can be "forced" to do something that I was arguing with in the first case. The government is not "forced" to use it because the government is the People, and if the People choose to do something (even if it's stupid), they aren't "forcing" themselves.
The FOIA laws have costs as well. Someone has to spend time answering those requests, and they can be very time consuming. But, for purely ideological reasons, the People decided that the government needs to be accountable and FOIA laws were passed.
Similarly, various states "force" themselves to use Union labor, even though it will inherently cost more. Nevertheless, the People decided that it was in their collective best interest to spend more money to build some bridges. The government was not "forced" to do so, it chose to do so.
If the DSSA is passed, California is not "forced" to use Free Software, they've chosen to.
your claim that any limitation which our government might place on itself is a good idea...
I made no such claim. O'Reilly made the claim that any limitation on the government is morally equivelant to a limitation on an individual. I merely took issue with his straw man. I made no counter claim that all restrictions the government places on itself are good, and I have not even claimed that this restriction is necessarily a good one. However, if O'Reilly is correct and it is "wrong" for the government to limit its own choices, then he would be implying that all such restrictions (including Copyright, FOIA, etc) are "wrong".
It may be a lousy idea, but it's not a lousy idea because it is a restriction on the government.
I think the DSSA's biggest flaw is its absolute prohibition on non-Free software. Even the FOIA has limitations (which are all too often abused, but that's another story).
...if this is wrong, then no restriction is okay.
I did not say that either. You had said it was wrong to be "forcing technical decisions to be made in support of an ideology".
If making decisions based on this ideology is wrong, than you are implying that other decisions made on the same ideology are wrong.
Again, it may be a lousy idea, but it's not a lousy idea because it's wrong to want an transparent government.
I certainly wouldn't take the stance that if a democratic government agrees to do something, then that thing is, de facto, not morally wrong.
Judging by the outcry here over such things as the DMCA, I suspect most/.ers would agree with me on this.
I misspoke. When I said that a democracy has no concept of "force", I meant that it can not force ITSELF. The DMCA does not apply to the government but to its citizens.
Democracies obviously can force their citizens, and it is certainly true that many of those decisions to do so are not moral.
The Copyright law (title 17), however, imposes a limitation on what the government can do. Specifically, it forbids itself from Copyrighting its own works.
If the DSSA is wrong because it is "wrong to limit choice," then this section of the Copyright law is equally wrong in that it forbids the government from doing something that most individuals are allowed to do.
But let's move on, as you suggest, to a more useful question: is this law actually a good idea? I would argue that because forcing technical decisions to be made in support of an ideology (free software), instead of on technical grounds (what tool is better for the job), it is a bad idea.
Then you must be opposed to that part of the Copyright law. The ideology behind it (and the DSSA and the FOIA) are that government functions should be transparent.
No, I'm not saying all laws are "good". I'm not even saying this law is good. I'm just saying that there is no concept of "forcing" in a democracy.
While it may be wrong to force a private person to use Open Source, it does not follow that it is wrong to force a government because a government is not an individual. A (democratic) government is one in which its will is defined as the will of the People (whether that will be expressed through direct elections or elections of representatives).
It is no more morally wrong to force the Government to use Open Source than it is wrong for Richard Stallman to force himself to use Free Software.
And just because it's morally acceptable for Richard Stallman to choose only Free Software for himself does not mean that it is a "good" choice for himself. There are certainly good points and bad points. He has limited the software that he can choose for himself and may have a tougher time achieving results than he would using proprietary software. He has decided that those disadvantages do not outweigh the benefits of Free Software and he has chosen accordingly.
California is now confronted with the same dilemma. They are free to make their choice. Personally, I believe the Peruvian law offers a better balance in that it at least leaves the opportunity to use proprietary software when no other alternative is available.
Regardless of the pros or cons of this law, my original point was that the debate should be centered on the pros and cons. Talking of "forcing" the government to use Open Source is a straw man.
In a democracy, the People make their choices in an election.
If the DSSA is passed, the Government has not been forced to use Open Source by some outside force. The Government, as representative of the will of the People, has chosen to use Open Source.
Government employees can not copyright their work (done for their jobs), but contractors (like Donald Becker when he was at NASA) are not employees but independent agents and they can copyright their work. Similarly, government funded research is not owned by the government but by the researcher.
I took a course at U Oregon by respected skeptic Ray Hyman (author of Water Witching, USA).
He told us that when he was an undergrad, he got a job reading people's palms. Being an intelligent person, he at first thought it was silly and didn't believe it, but he needed the money. His employer gave him a book that described how to read palms by following a simple recipe.
He was of course leary with his first customer. He was sure he'd be accused of fraud. Nevertheless, he followed the recipe and read the guys palm. He was amazed that the customer was so enthusiastic about how accurate the reading was. This filled Ray with more confidence, and in no time he was convinced that this was working. All his customers were convinced by his readings, so he had no reason to believe they weren't accurate.
When he told a friend about how it really worked, his friend suggested that, for his next customer, he give the exact opposite reading that the book suggested. He did so, probably just as nervous as his first reading, expecting the customer to reject what he was saying. But, sure enough, the customer was impressed at how accurate the reading was. He did this again with the next few customers and soon realized it didn't really matter what he was saying. People were always able to connect his vague readings with something in their own lives.
I remember another study where students were asked to fill out a small survey. The professor then reviewed all the surveys and gave each student a customized personality profile. The students were asked the rate the profiles, and all gave them very high rankings.
The professor then asked each student to pass his profile to the student behind them (person in back passes to the front). In an instant, every student realized that they were all given identical profiles.
Re:I don't get it.
on
Linuxworld Fun
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
It's also possible that IBM will get to use SourceForge On-Site at no or low cost.
Not that I've heard anything, just idle speculation...
Slashdot Mirror
Software is protected by Copyright. When you buy a book, you have a right to resell it or copy for personal use, but you do not have a right to make copies (or derivatives) and distribute them.
The GPL gives you additional rights: the right to copy and make derivative works, provided your derivatives have the same license. In *no way* does the GPL take any rights away from you. You would not otherwise be able to redistribute a copyrighted work.
Under normal copyright, you have every right to take source code that you download and modify for your personal use. The GPL only kicks in if you try and redistribute.
Click-through EULAs that say you can NOT modify for personal use, or limit what you can use a product for, or in any other manner take away your rights are entirely different from a license like the GPL which extends your rights.
Under the First Sale Doctrine, MS can't sell you an XBox and tell you what you can do with it.
> Can you use BitKeeper to work on The GIMP? Sure.
Unless you or your company also work on CVS.
> Can you use BitKeeper to work on KDE? Sure.
Unless you or your company distribute Subversion.
Ben Collins can't use BK to work on the kernel anymore.
Your link also mentions x2x, which I use at home. At work, I use x2vnc to switch my mouse/keyboard between X and NT.
I'll try Konkhydra when they get the cut&paste buffers worked out. x2x and x2vnc handle cut&paste transparently.
Yes, the spin was remarkable. The only example of something they'd ever want to restrict would be a pay-per-view fight. And I thought to myself, "That wouldn't bother me, because after the fight is over, why would I want to watch it again".
Who would ever want to tape a live sporting event (especially a high-quality digitial version of one)? But if no one would want to tape this, why would they even need to put a restriction on this sort of thing.
Now, maybe I'm wrong and people DO want to tape pay-per-view fights. In that case, it WILL "affect how consumers watch, enjoy and record television".
So either they're only going to restrict things that people don't want to tape (why bother?), or they will affect consumer behavior.
I've been using ical since 1998.
> [data changes after validation], is that Verisign's fault?
No, but if one registers with an address like "Yellow Brick Road, Kansas" (yorkstreethardware.com), or "000 Blank St., No city, XX 00000" (dundjerski.com), or a phone number like 650-555-1212 (sunnyside.com) or 000-000-0000 (jaxx.net), one could argue that the domain should have never been issued.
You didn't really say much about what the "certain task" these machines do. Do they need to save a lot of data? You could boot off a CD-ROM and use RAM disks for /var and other writeable partitions. Each time the machine is unplugged, it returns entirely to its initial state.
If you want to save a small amount of data, you could put a VFAT formatted floppy and write persistent data there.
Y'know, if Judge Jackson had NOT given interviews, the MS case might have been finalized by now. The appellate courts didn't overturn his Findings of Facts or guilty verdit. They didn't even say that his penalty was inappropriate. They merely said that his penalty *appeared* to be biased, based soley on the fact that he given interviews before the case was over.
My point about the "do it or I'll leave syndrome" is that it's universal. I see it on the Debian list. "Fix this or I'll go back to [Windows, Red Hat, etc]." I see it on the Plucker list. "Fix this or I'll use Avantgo." Emacs newbies threaten to use vi, and vi newbies threaten to use emacs.
None of these projects were started to get people to stop using the others, no matter how hard it seems the developers are working. Developers are trying to make a better product because the developers want to use them. It's nice that other people can use them and it feels good to get complimented. Some developers may even feel a bit of a debt since they've used so much of other peoples work free work. When it comes to choosing between the carrot and the stick to see your wish fulfilled, choose the carrot because the stick is meaningless. Or do it yourself.
So no, the primary motivation of Open Source developers is generally NOT to stop others from using the competition. Commercial vendors work that way, but not volunteers.
No, read the interview. They have people like YOU to blame as well:
Yours is the most common [place horrible here] that I see on all developer lists. "If you don't solve my problem, I'll use the competing product." Like that's a meaningful threat coming from someone who doesn't pay or contribute...Paraphrased from rec.humor.funny:
A man heading south on I-95 and stops at a rest area to use the facilities. While in his stall, someone in the stall next to him says "Hi, how are you?"
People don't normally talk in these situations, but what the hell. "I'm fine," he replies.
"So what are you doing?" Odd question, but whatever.
"Heading south, just like you," he replies.
"Excuse me, I'll have to call you back. Some idiot in here keeps replying to what I say to you."
Section 508 applies to the Federal government and does not require access to the source code. It merely requires that the software be accessible to people with disabilities (e.g. must be usable with screen-reading software and be useable without a mouse).
... the idea of the state ...
You are free to decide that there moral advantage of this law does not outweigh its costs. You may also decide that the moral advantage of Union labor does not outweigh its costs and vote against legislation that requires the government to use it. This is how a Government makes its decisions. It is not "forced".
> Just as it is not allowed for a private company
They are NOT the same. That was my only reason for starting this thread in the first case.
It is a good idea that the Government pass zoning laws, which restrict the activities of private companies and individuals. It is not a good idea for an individual or company to do the same.
If you think it's wrong for the Government to help one competitor compete, then you must be opposed to section 508. In fact, whatever software the Government chooses to use will give that software an "artificial leg-up". Not only is the government the largest purchaser, they also compell citizens and businesses to interact with them. Given this, all citizens have a legitimate interest in what the government chooses.
The only difference between 508 and the DSSA are that the DSSA defines a superior product as one that includes the source code. Section 508 offers no balance either. The software MUST have it. If it is harder to use, if it crashes, if it is infinitely more expensive, and if it offers no additional features, 508-compliant software will win.
You make some distinction between technical merits and ideology. Section 508 is clearly an ideological one. The ideology in their case is that it is better to have more software with accessabiliy requirements, even though those features may not be used by anyone. By only using 508-compliant software, the producers of such software are compelled to make such features. Those features, although not necessarily used by the government, are now more widely available to the general public.
Section 508 clearly assumes that software with accessability cannot compete on purely technical merits either. Governments often use their buying power to support ideological causes.
The case against MS also is a case that Open Source (or anything else, for that matter) cannot compete against MS because they are a monopoly.
It would be nice if all software was chosen on its merits. California has proven that it is incapable of making such choices via the Oracle debacle. Rather than buying the right product at the right price, they bought the software from a company that contributed to political campaigns. Do you believe that they even evaluated PostgreSQL?
A law that applies to YOU is significantly different than a law that applies to the government. There is no Freedom of Information law that applies to you as a private individual. It would be awful. That doesn't mean that such a law that applies to the government is wrong.
It is no different than passing a law that requires the government to use Union labor. It will certainly cost more, but the People decided that, morally, it is the "right" thing to do.
If the People of California decide that, collectively, they believe in the moral advantages of Open Source, that they believe that it will make government functions more open to scrutiny (unlike the Florida County who agreed to use proprietary ballot machines that can not be accounted for beyond the word of the company), and if the People decide that government spending on Open Source will be better for the entire industry (as it will stop subsidizing monopolists and encourage development of Open Software), then they have every right to do so.
The Federal Government has new software standards (Section 508). They have imposed a burden that all new software must meet various accessability requirements. Only if there are NO alternatives can they use any other software. If one product costs $10 million dollars and the other is superior in every way including price, Section 508 requires the Government to choose the one that meets the standards.
One of the major arguments in support of this law is that it will spur all software developers to make their software accessible, and will thus spur investment in an otherwise small but useful market.
The DSSA is no different, morally, than Section 508. The Federal Government has to reject superior products for some purpose simply because they happen not to have a single feature.
PS: I don't live in California and I don't believe their version is a good well thought. I also have problems with Section 508.
Ok, you start making real and debatable points, but end with:
> Put differently: is it still `free' software if you're forced to use it?
Is it "free" software if Stallman "forces" himself to use it? It's this idea that the government can be "forced" to do something that I was arguing with in the first case. The government is not "forced" to use it because the government is the People, and if the People choose to do something (even if it's stupid), they aren't "forcing" themselves.
The FOIA laws have costs as well. Someone has to spend time answering those requests, and they can be very time consuming. But, for purely ideological reasons, the People decided that the government needs to be accountable and FOIA laws were passed.
Similarly, various states "force" themselves to use Union labor, even though it will inherently cost more. Nevertheless, the People decided that it was in their collective best interest to spend more money to build some bridges. The government was not "forced" to do so, it chose to do so.
If the DSSA is passed, California is not "forced" to use Free Software, they've chosen to.
It may be a lousy idea, but it's not a lousy idea because it is a restriction on the government.
I think the DSSA's biggest flaw is its absolute prohibition on non-Free software. Even the FOIA has limitations (which are all too often abused, but that's another story).
I did not say that either. You had said it was wrong to be "forcing technical decisions to be made in support of an ideology".If making decisions based on this ideology is wrong, than you are implying that other decisions made on the same ideology are wrong.
Again, it may be a lousy idea, but it's not a lousy idea because it's wrong to want an transparent government.
Democracies obviously can force their citizens, and it is certainly true that many of those decisions to do so are not moral.
The Copyright law (title 17), however, imposes a limitation on what the government can do. Specifically, it forbids itself from Copyrighting its own works.
If the DSSA is wrong because it is "wrong to limit choice," then this section of the Copyright law is equally wrong in that it forbids the government from doing something that most individuals are allowed to do.
Then you must be opposed to that part of the Copyright law. The ideology behind it (and the DSSA and the FOIA) are that government functions should be transparent.No, I'm not saying all laws are "good". I'm not even saying this law is good. I'm just saying that there is no concept of "forcing" in a democracy.
While it may be wrong to force a private person to use Open Source, it does not follow that it is wrong to force a government because a government is not an individual. A (democratic) government is one in which its will is defined as the will of the People (whether that will be expressed through direct elections or elections of representatives).
It is no more morally wrong to force the Government to use Open Source than it is wrong for Richard Stallman to force himself to use Free Software.
And just because it's morally acceptable for Richard Stallman to choose only Free Software for himself does not mean that it is a "good" choice for himself. There are certainly good points and bad points. He has limited the software that he can choose for himself and may have a tougher time achieving results than he would using proprietary software. He has decided that those disadvantages do not outweigh the benefits of Free Software and he has chosen accordingly.
California is now confronted with the same dilemma. They are free to make their choice. Personally, I believe the Peruvian law offers a better balance in that it at least leaves the opportunity to use proprietary software when no other alternative is available.
Regardless of the pros or cons of this law, my original point was that the debate should be centered on the pros and cons. Talking of "forcing" the government to use Open Source is a straw man.
In a democracy, the People make their choices in an election.
If the DSSA is passed, the Government has not been forced to use Open Source by some outside force. The Government, as representative of the will of the People, has chosen to use Open Source.
> Who appointed Microsoft as the regulatory agency for the computer industry anyway?
Bill Gates.
> why FreeDOS?
Fits on a floppy?
Government employees can not copyright their work (done for their jobs), but contractors (like Donald Becker when he was at NASA) are not employees but independent agents and they can copyright their work. Similarly, government funded research is not owned by the government but by the researcher.
He told us that when he was an undergrad, he got a job reading people's palms. Being an intelligent person, he at first thought it was silly and didn't believe it, but he needed the money. His employer gave him a book that described how to read palms by following a simple recipe.
He was of course leary with his first customer. He was sure he'd be accused of fraud. Nevertheless, he followed the recipe and read the guys palm. He was amazed that the customer was so enthusiastic about how accurate the reading was. This filled Ray with more confidence, and in no time he was convinced that this was working. All his customers were convinced by his readings, so he had no reason to believe they weren't accurate.
When he told a friend about how it really worked, his friend suggested that, for his next customer, he give the exact opposite reading that the book suggested. He did so, probably just as nervous as his first reading, expecting the customer to reject what he was saying. But, sure enough, the customer was impressed at how accurate the reading was. He did this again with the next few customers and soon realized it didn't really matter what he was saying. People were always able to connect his vague readings with something in their own lives.
I remember another study where students were asked to fill out a small survey. The professor then reviewed all the surveys and gave each student a customized personality profile. The students were asked the rate the profiles, and all gave them very high rankings.
The professor then asked each student to pass his profile to the student behind them (person in back passes to the front). In an instant, every student realized that they were all given identical profiles.
It's also possible that IBM will get to use SourceForge On-Site at no or low cost.
Not that I've heard anything, just idle speculation...