This post says nothing untrue or insulting. He states a fact, our political system is bent and broken (in reality, they all are, just in different degrees. The second point he makes is to encourage us in supporting those U.S. politicians who act as Rep. Lofgren has here... to try to preserve and strengthen our freedoms and liberties, because as he basically said, the world looks to us. As the U.S. goes, so does the rest of the world.
My first thought upon seeing this was that if Android is ported to the iPhone, it'll also run on an iPod touch, making it a very nice VoIP phone that should at least compete with the iPhone in power. do better once it's optimized and avoid AT&T voice and data plans. Of course, you can only use it in hot-spotted areas.
By the very same reasoning they use for Amazon, if anyone goes to a phone located in Rhode Island and makes a purchase of anything, it's the same as going to a brick and mortar of that shop in the state and is also subject to equivalent taxes. Even ordering by US mail out of a catalog would reason out to the same logic (providing the catalog and/or mailbox is physically located in R.I.). Amazon might even be able to use that to force R.I. to either include phone orders across the board or drop the bill/law.
Hmmm... a lot of folks here seem to be missing the point of what a "Microsoft tax" means. Yes, there is (supposedly) a choice in OS (Windows, FreeDOS, etc.) just as there is in the Maxtor analogy. But where it doesn't hold true, and why we don't refer to it as a "Maxtor tax" is because if I buy a machine with a seagate HDD, or an LCD monitor instead of a CRT, I don't still have to pay for the original Maxtor drive or CRT monitor regardless. With Windows, I MUST pay for it, even if I buy a system explicitly without it, just as the manufacturer offers it on systems with that option. THAT is why it's a "Microsoft tax". I PAY FOR IT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I WANT IT OR NOT, EVEN IF THE VENDORS OFFERS ANOTHER CHOICE. At that point, what competition is there?
M$ reaps financial benefits from me even if I don't want to support them by opting for a competitors product.
Personally, I've always seen this player-decryption as a form of double taxation. First the reason you have to PAY for a DVD purchase or rental from the original distributor is for the license/legal right to view it. Then they claim that you must also PURCHASE a "licensed" player in order to legally watch the movie you just paid for the license to legally view. So I watch my legally purchased or rented DVDs on my illegal decrypting linux player. If they want to arrest me over it, fine. As a friend of mine once told me: "If you really and morally don't believe a law is right, and you understand the consequences, then break it." He's right, people do it all the time, it's called protest.
According to this article, IBM currently has 320,000 employees. With these numbers (I'll assume 1 system per employee avg.) and their clout/connection with ISVs, this is bound to ensure more business apps ported to Linux. I'm sure as a result of this, M$'s competitors will now be chomping at the bit to port to Linux to sell to IBM plus get them to promote their wares.
to me is: OK, verify you're a SCO licensee and that you've not contributed any code to Linux. If you did, we'll take it easy on you an negotiate a huge settlement, while at the same time, thanking you for prviding evidence to our case which we, personally, can't seem to find anywhere and need to present to the court by this time next month!
If the GPL code is made Public Domain, then SCO has no lawsuits to have to defend if it's found that a considerable amount of GPL code is used in various SCO source without the required of due credit to the original developers and modified source distribution.
...Virtually none of these software developers and hobbyists had access to enterprise-scale equipment and testing facilities for Linux development. Without access to such equipment, facilities, sophisticated methods, concepts and coordinated know-how, it would be difficult or impossible for the Linux development community to create a grade of Linux adequate for enterprise use.
What I find interesting is that Microsoft's response is a rather flippant "This is standard practice in the industry." Unfortunately, M$ has been duped. They've gone and hired layers to head their legal strategy for big money, and those lawyers aren't even aware that when you're a monopoly, you're held to a HIGHER standard that the rest of the industry. What was the quote from Spiderman? "With great power comes great responsibility." It's a shame M$ chooses to follow the industry standards rather than set an example. What COWARDS!
I think the OSI/FSF communities need a new tact to deal with all this IP FUD. Very few articles in the media make it clear that the GPL DOES promote copyright laws and states it quite explicitly in their licenses. We need to get out the phylosophy that copyright does not equate to profit making. The 2 are absolutely and completely unrelated!! Yes, you can choose to profit from copyrighted material, just and you can choose not to. Again, it's completely your choice because the 2 are completely unrelated... one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. M$ and their media/legal lackeys always infer heavily that IP = $ when it's simply not true. That's why it's called INTELLECTUAL property and not MATERIAL or REAL property! It doesn't, in itself, have any inherent trinsic value.
Anyway, Bruce, RMS, the OSS community at large and all the media out there: Start clarifying that IP != manditory profits.
Simply not true.... if you click on the "More Info" button for any of these machines, you will see the following note at the bottom of the page:
Important Customer Note Regarding Microsoft Windows: Windows software that was originally purchased with a Personal Computer (PC), and any Windows upgrades subsequently installed on that machine, cannot be transferred to another PC. Therefore, if you purchase a PC without Windows installed and wish to run Windows, you will need to purchase a new full version - not a Windows upgrade.
I read into this that they can only install this if they have a non-oem, non-upgrade, M$ original media and license of the OS. Oh, and you can bet M$' take is that they better still have the original, physical license and original reciept in order to be valid.
I also liked one of the quotes they chose for the add: "... Unix inside and Mac outside" In this context, I'd like to see Intel trying to drag Apple (or ZDnet) into court for infringing upon their "Intel Inside" generic tradmark.:)
I still believe the ONLY reason M$ approves of other OSS/free licenses but not the (L)GPL is very clear. The others (like the X11 used for zlib, BSD used for their TCP/IP stack or the MIT license used for kerberos) allow M$ to be a parasite of the open source community without requiring them to ever give back. Only the GPL actually REQUIRES them to return the EMBRACED and EXTENDED work they produce off software they've usurped from others.
I still believe they finally realize their source will be looked at soon by other parties and they're scrambling and panicing about the reaction from others when it's seen they've actually used GPL'd code in their source for years (speculation only) illegally. They're trying to discredit the GPL from a legal point of view to support their case in court when that happens.
Listen, I know the source review for Windows will be in a heavily guarded environment because M$ will want to "ensure" none of their IP or trade secrets will be released. To be honest, I think what they're REALLY concerned about is making public how much GPL'd code they actually illegally use verbatim right into their proprietary source.
I think their legally intelligent enough to see the probable inevitability of their source being subject to an external review, due to all the legal battles going on over monopolistic actions and such, and that's really the main reason their launching a FUD campaign against the practical legalities of the GPL. So that when their blatant disregard of the GPL license is finally public, they can claim the license holds no legal grounds and all actions against them opening up their source due to heavy inclusion of GPL code should be dropped.
http://nemesis.inodes.org/ and http://motion.technolust.cx/
I'm not sure if the specs overlap, but if not I guess you could probably hack them together.
I really have to question their claim that so many of their users are running Windows that there's no benefit to porting their product to any other platform whatsoever. I mean, by looking at "Freedom", I can't imagine their users, who are overwhelmingly concerned with privacy and anonimity, would all choose to run this app on a platform that consistantly flies in the face of those concerns. I'd really have to take a close look at their numbers before I swallow this tall tale.
Well, many people may not believe this, with the democrats portrayal of me as a bumbler, but I am actually quite the intellectualizer when it comes to freedom of warship. I've spoken many times, many times, of my love of Wiccan furniture. Those folks really know the sense of good old American hard work, weaving away as thay do. Not only do I support the, what did you call them?... Jahovah's Witnesses? That one of my first acts as President, with the help of former CIA head, Dad, I'll enact the the first Federal Jahovah's Witness Protection Act. And I've been supporting my friends in Utah so much that some folks think actually I'm a Moron! I'd say about the only relijun I have a problem with are the Boodists. Especially around holloween I don't think we need talk of Monsteraries. And I don't like their choice of who to support financially (though I CAN change my opinion if they can... wink). Lastly, as proof of my support of religun, it's a known fact that as Governor of the great state of Florida... huh? what's that? Oh yeah, I mean Texas, that I've sent more people to meet their maker than any other Governor.
Is it just me, or has anyone else figured out that this tact falls directly along M$' usual MO. Notice how everything on this topic was always hush-hush because it would damage M$' view in the marketplace that it might feel threatened by Linux, and thereby an appearant weakness. But it's allowance of this "leak" happens to come directly on the heels of a *nix industry-wide push to create a free office suite for, not just Linux, but Solaris, HP-UX and AIX as well, fully compatible with M$'s proprietary office formats. Boys and girls... can you say FUD?
Well.... I've just read the first 50 or so comments. There was alot of talk about the different JFS' put there for linux; IBM's ext3, xfs, Reiser and possibly AdvFS.
The nice thing is that, at least in the case of IBM's JFS and ext3, they're GPL'd!! What that means it that, basically, it doesn't matter who's is better. In the long run the best parts of each can be merged into a single, best of breed FS out there. Remember, with GPL/OSS, we're not so much competing against each other as we are helping each other with the "best practices" of software development for whatever projects are being worked on.
What we DO end up competing with collectively, is CLOSED SOURCE code development. Folks like our friends in Redmond (and eslewhere) can't begin to achieve this breadth of brain-storming and collaboration. Not only can they not (legally) use what's we've produced under GPL without "contributing to the cause" (even if it's just acknowledging open source's development superiority by using a product of it's dev. model), it's also something I don't think their marketing folks want to support. Remember, it's the exact antithesis of their business model. And we all know in Redmond, marketing will always prevail over technical aptitude and common sense.
Slashdot Mirror
This post says nothing untrue or insulting. He states a fact, our political system is bent and broken (in reality, they all are, just in different degrees. The second point he makes is to encourage us in supporting those U.S. politicians who act as Rep. Lofgren has here... to try to preserve and strengthen our freedoms and liberties, because as he basically said, the world looks to us. As the U.S. goes, so does the rest of the world.
I thought the exact same thing. Here's the excerpt: http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1385
My first thought upon seeing this was that if Android is ported to the iPhone, it'll also run on an iPod touch, making it a very nice VoIP phone that should at least compete with the iPhone in power. do better once it's optimized and avoid AT&T voice and data plans. Of course, you can only use it in hot-spotted areas.
By the very same reasoning they use for Amazon, if anyone goes to a phone located in Rhode Island and makes a purchase of anything, it's the same as going to a brick and mortar of that shop in the state and is also subject to equivalent taxes. Even ordering by US mail out of a catalog would reason out to the same logic (providing the catalog and/or mailbox is physically located in R.I.). Amazon might even be able to use that to force R.I. to either include phone orders across the board or drop the bill/law.
As well as countless others, as M$ tries to rewite history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VocalTec_Internet_Pho ne
Hmmm... a lot of folks here seem to be missing the point of what a "Microsoft tax" means. Yes, there is (supposedly) a choice in OS (Windows, FreeDOS, etc.) just as there is in the Maxtor analogy. But where it doesn't hold true, and why we don't refer to it as a "Maxtor tax" is because if I buy a machine with a seagate HDD, or an LCD monitor instead of a CRT, I don't still have to pay for the original Maxtor drive or CRT monitor regardless. With Windows, I MUST pay for it, even if I buy a system explicitly without it, just as the manufacturer offers it on systems with that option. THAT is why it's a "Microsoft tax". I PAY FOR IT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I WANT IT OR NOT, EVEN IF THE VENDORS OFFERS ANOTHER CHOICE. At that point, what competition is there?
M$ reaps financial benefits from me even if I don't want to support them by opting for a competitors product.
Personally, I've always seen this player-decryption as a form of double taxation. First the reason you have to PAY for a DVD purchase or rental from the original distributor is for the license/legal right to view it. Then they claim that you must also PURCHASE a "licensed" player in order to legally watch the movie you just paid for the license to legally view. So I watch my legally purchased or rented DVDs on my illegal decrypting linux player. If they want to arrest me over it, fine. As a friend of mine once told me: "If you really and morally don't believe a law is right, and you understand the consequences, then break it." He's right, people do it all the time, it's called protest.
According to this article, IBM currently has 320,000 employees. With these numbers (I'll assume 1 system per employee avg.) and their clout/connection with ISVs, this is bound to ensure more business apps ported to Linux. I'm sure as a result of this, M$'s competitors will now be chomping at the bit to port to Linux to sell to IBM plus get them to promote their wares.
to me is: OK, verify you're a SCO licensee and that you've not contributed any code to Linux. If you did, we'll take it easy on you an negotiate a huge settlement, while at the same time, thanking you for prviding evidence to our case which we, personally, can't seem to find anywhere and need to present to the court by this time next month!
If the GPL code is made Public Domain, then SCO has no lawsuits to have to defend if it's found that a considerable amount of GPL code is used in various SCO source without the required of due credit to the original developers and modified source distribution.
it was posted the other day here.
What I find interesting is that Microsoft's response is a rather flippant "This is standard practice in the industry." Unfortunately, M$ has been duped. They've gone and hired layers to head their legal strategy for big money, and those lawyers aren't even aware that when you're a monopoly, you're held to a HIGHER standard that the rest of the industry. What was the quote from Spiderman? "With great power comes great responsibility." It's a shame M$ chooses to follow the industry standards rather than set an example. What COWARDS!
I think the OSI/FSF communities need a new tact to deal with all this IP FUD. Very few articles in the media make it clear that the GPL DOES promote copyright laws and states it quite explicitly in their licenses. We need to get out the phylosophy that copyright does not equate to profit making. The 2 are absolutely and completely unrelated!! Yes, you can choose to profit from copyrighted material, just and you can choose not to. Again, it's completely your choice because the 2 are completely unrelated... one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. M$ and their media/legal lackeys always infer heavily that IP = $ when it's simply not true. That's why it's called INTELLECTUAL property and not MATERIAL or REAL property! It doesn't, in itself, have any inherent trinsic value.
Anyway, Bruce, RMS, the OSS community at large and all the media out there: Start clarifying that IP != manditory profits.
I read into this that they can only install this if they have a non-oem, non-upgrade, M$ original media and license of the OS. Oh, and you can bet M$' take is that they better still have the original, physical license and original reciept in order to be valid.
I also liked one of the quotes they chose for the add: "... Unix inside and Mac outside" In this context, I'd like to see Intel trying to drag Apple (or ZDnet) into court for infringing upon their "Intel Inside" generic tradmark. :)
I still believe the ONLY reason M$ approves of other OSS/free licenses but not the (L)GPL is very clear. The others (like the X11 used for zlib, BSD used for their TCP/IP stack or the MIT license used for kerberos) allow M$ to be a parasite of the open source community without requiring them to ever give back. Only the GPL actually REQUIRES them to return the EMBRACED and EXTENDED work they produce off software they've usurped from others.
I still believe they finally realize their source will be looked at soon by other parties and they're scrambling and panicing about the reaction from others when it's seen they've actually used GPL'd code in their source for years (speculation only) illegally. They're trying to discredit the GPL from a legal point of view to support their case in court when that happens.
Listen, I know the source review for Windows will be in a heavily guarded environment because M$ will want to "ensure" none of their IP or trade secrets will be released. To be honest, I think what they're REALLY concerned about is making public how much GPL'd code they actually illegally use verbatim right into their proprietary source.
I think their legally intelligent enough to see the probable inevitability of their source being subject to an external review, due to all the legal battles going on over monopolistic actions and such, and that's really the main reason their launching a FUD campaign against the practical legalities of the GPL. So that when their blatant disregard of the GPL license is finally public, they can claim the license holds no legal grounds and all actions against them opening up their source due to heavy inclusion of GPL code should be dropped.
http://nemesis.inodes.org/ and http://motion.technolust.cx/ I'm not sure if the specs overlap, but if not I guess you could probably hack them together.
I really have to question their claim that so many of their users are running Windows that there's no benefit to porting their product to any other platform whatsoever. I mean, by looking at "Freedom", I can't imagine their users, who are overwhelmingly concerned with privacy and anonimity, would all choose to run this app on a platform that consistantly flies in the face of those concerns. I'd really have to take a close look at their numbers before I swallow this tall tale.
Well, many people may not believe this, with the democrats portrayal of me as a bumbler, but I am actually quite the intellectualizer when it comes to freedom of warship. I've spoken many times, many times, of my love of Wiccan furniture. Those folks really know the sense of good old American hard work, weaving away as thay do. Not only do I support the, what did you call them?... Jahovah's Witnesses? That one of my first acts as President, with the help of former CIA head, Dad, I'll enact the the first Federal Jahovah's Witness Protection Act. And I've been supporting my friends in Utah so much that some folks think actually I'm a Moron! I'd say about the only relijun I have a problem with are the Boodists. Especially around holloween I don't think we need talk of Monsteraries. And I don't like their choice of who to support financially (though I CAN change my opinion if they can... wink). Lastly, as proof of my support of religun, it's a known fact that as Governor of the great state of Florida... huh? what's that? Oh yeah, I mean Texas, that I've sent more people to meet their maker than any other Governor.
Is it just me, or has anyone else figured out that this tact falls directly along M$' usual MO. Notice how everything on this topic was always hush-hush because it would damage M$' view in the marketplace that it might feel threatened by Linux, and thereby an appearant weakness. But it's allowance of this "leak" happens to come directly on the heels of a *nix industry-wide push to create a free office suite for, not just Linux, but Solaris, HP-UX and AIX as well, fully compatible with M$'s proprietary office formats. Boys and girls... can you say FUD?
I just tried going to the PR link, and all there was was a page with a single line of text saying the atricle has been removed. Whassup?
Well.... I've just read the first 50 or so comments. There was alot of talk about the different JFS' put there for linux; IBM's ext3, xfs, Reiser and possibly AdvFS.
The nice thing is that, at least in the case of IBM's JFS and ext3, they're GPL'd!! What that means it that, basically, it doesn't matter who's is better. In the long run the best parts of each can be merged into a single, best of breed FS out there. Remember, with GPL/OSS, we're not so much competing against each other as we are helping each other with the "best practices" of software development for whatever projects are being worked on.
What we DO end up competing with collectively, is CLOSED SOURCE code development. Folks like our friends in Redmond (and eslewhere) can't begin to achieve this breadth of brain-storming and collaboration. Not only can they not (legally) use what's we've produced under GPL without "contributing to the cause" (even if it's just acknowledging open source's development superiority by using a product of it's dev. model), it's also something I don't think their marketing folks want to support. Remember, it's the exact antithesis of their business model. And we all know in Redmond, marketing will always prevail over technical aptitude and common sense.