I want to believe that these inconveniences would drive MIS departments worldwide to migrate toward non-proprietary solutions for their enterprises. Your friendly IT director may not care about the high cost of Windows-- that's the accounting department's problem--- Wasted time and effort are another story, right?
I offer a more cynical prediction. Aforementioned friendly IT director will love the new licensing scheme because it provides a good excuse for restricting what hardware they need to support.
"No, I can't give you more RAM, a faster modem, or a 3-button mouse. The copy of Windows we licensed for you only works with your current configuration."
Darian
~O~
Won't be open to Net/OpenBSD?
on
Java 2 For BSD
·
· Score: 1
The original poster suggested that this implementation might be available on other BSD variants in the future. I don't think this is going to be the case. I wasn't able to track down the licensing info, but I see no indication in the press release that this is the least bit open source. Is this an "official" Java implementation with code licenced from Sun? If so, I wouldn't expect a port to Net/OpenBSD any time soon.
Remember, we still have a GPLed Java implementation in the form of kaffe. It isn't quite Java 2 yet... but if you want Java on a less-than-mainstream platform, it may be you best bet.
Regarding "internal" versions of GPLed software...
Can a company that makes changes to GPLed software actually prevent their own employees from redistributing the changes? As users of the software aren't they guaranteed certain rights by the GPL? Specifically, section 6 of the terms for redistribution says...
Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. YOU MAY NOT IMPOSE ANY FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON THE RECIPIENTS' EXCERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREIN. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
The caps are my own emphasis.
To put it another way... Is distribution within an organization somehow exempt from this clause in the GPL? Could my boss ask me to sign an NDA over changes I make to GPLed software that we only use in-house?
Sophie Germain: Self-educated math geek that got flak on all sides for being a female and a non-aristocrat 18th century France. For years, she could only share her research through correspondence using a false identity.
Michelangelo Buonarroti: Renaissance art geek that produced brilliant work in every media he touched. Among other inspired hacks, he re-invented the horrendously difficult art of sculpting in marble that had been lost since antiquity.
Gregor Mendel: Bio-geek/hacker/monk that pioneered in the study of genetics by painstakingly breeding pea plants and forging his results. He also figured out how to cross ill-tempered honey bees that produced lots of honey with docile but non-productive bees to produce ill-tempered, non-productive bees.
I also second the votes for Nikola Tesla, Alan Turing, Ada Lovelace, and Marie Curie.
Slashdot Mirror
I want to believe that these inconveniences would drive MIS departments worldwide to migrate toward non-proprietary solutions for their enterprises. Your friendly IT director may not care about the high cost of Windows-- that's the accounting department's problem--- Wasted time and effort are another story, right?
I offer a more cynical prediction. Aforementioned friendly IT director will love the new licensing scheme because it provides a good excuse for restricting what hardware they need to support.
"No, I can't give you more RAM, a faster modem, or a 3-button mouse. The copy of Windows we licensed for you only works with your current configuration."
Darian
~O~
Remember, we still have a GPLed Java implementation in the form of kaffe. It isn't quite Java 2 yet... but if you want Java on a less-than-mainstream platform, it may be you best bet.
Darian
~O~
Can a company that makes changes to GPLed software actually prevent their own employees from redistributing the changes? As users of the software aren't they guaranteed certain rights by the GPL? Specifically, section 6 of the terms for redistribution says...
Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. YOU MAY NOT IMPOSE ANY FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON THE RECIPIENTS' EXCERCISE OF THE RIGHTS GRANTED HEREIN. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
The caps are my own emphasis.
To put it another way... Is distribution within an organization somehow exempt from this clause in the GPL? Could my boss ask me to sign an NDA over changes I make to GPLed software that we only use in-house?
Darian
~O~
I also second the votes for Nikola Tesla, Alan Turing, Ada Lovelace, and Marie Curie.
Darian
~O~