Also, who do they think pay the production costs now? This "new idea" is what happens every day on the stock market, and if there really was investor interest, the show wouldn't be on the chopping lock.
Okay, this may be totally off the wall, but this makes me wonder...
What would happen if UPN were to create a tracking stock for the Enterprise series? This would allow investors to directly show their level of interest in Enterprise vs. the rest of UPN. Hard-core fans could buy the tracking stock to demonstrate their interest and commitment...
And this wouldn't have the legal issues that direct fan funding of the series might have.
I don't know if it could work, but has this ever been considered?
Where did you get that idea from? Yes you can mix GPL and CDDL code. Sun's License FAQ basically says so.
No, the FAQ says that files under the CDDL may be used with files under other licenses, but that those licenses might prohibit combining the code.
Look at it like this. I take your GPL code and I add some CDDL code. I modify it a bit to make it all work together happily. Then I distribute the source code on my website. What are you going to do? Sue me? You can't, I gave you the source code. GPL obligation fulfilled.
It's not that simple. If you want to mix GPL code and CDDL code in the same file, you cannot distribute the combined code under the terms of the GPL, which means that the GPL does not provide you with a copyright license for this. You would need a copyright license under an alternate license (if one exists), or need to be the copyright holder of the GPL code yourself. (The copyright holder can violate the stated license with impunity since they don't rely on the license for the authority to copy.)
You cannot combine GPL and non-GPL code in the same file with impunity, because the terms of the GPL are very strict and specific. There is no dispute that including GPL and non-GPL code in the same file creates a "derived work" under copyright law, and distributing (copying) such a derived work requires the copyright authority for the GPL code, either directly or via a license.
However, the definition of "derived work" is a legal gray area, and one that would ultimately have to be decided by the courts. Unfortunately, the answer to this question would probably vary on a case-by-case basis depending on the facts of each case -- and on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis as well, based on the precedents and laws applicable in each jurisdiction.
If you want to be safe, assume everything in the gray area is a derived work. This is the FSF's interpretation, and they will defend it, so unless you're prepared to be a test case (and possibly lose), think twice before venturing into that gray area!
The idea of "user does the link" as a method to evade the GPL was considered and discussed when GPL v1 was released. The FSF has always maintained that code written to work with GPL code is derivative of that code, making the "user does the link" scenario an attempt at evading the requirements of the license. However, this is a question of law, and the FSF's opinion isn't binding. To date, nobody seems willing to test the issue in court.
However, there is at least one precedent which suggests that the FSF's interpretation of copyright law may be too inclusive, at least in some jurisdictions. (Other jurisdictions seem to have different standards, which further confuses the matter.)
If the "Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison" test is used to determine what defines a "derived work", then code which simply uses the API of a library probably wouldn't be considered "derived" from that library, any more than using the Win32 API would give Microsoft copyright powers over Win32 applications or even Wine. Mixing and matching source files might be considered derived; it probably depends on the facts of the case.
Note that this does not apply to statically-linked binary executables -- those are unquestionably creating derived works by translating the sources and then combining them into the same file. Dynamic libraries, on the other hand, are also a gray area.
It's possible that you aren't creating a derived work by simply using the GPL code from other files, but the FSF believes you are. If you aren't, then the GPL and LGPL would be equivalent in effect. The GPL becomes moot with regard to non-derived works, which are even allowed to be aggregated on the same media. The plain text of the GPL makes this clear. But don't expect the FSF to budge on their interpretati
The real reason we want open source software to be compatible with the GPL is not because we want everybody to have drunk the kool aid (okay, there are some fanatics who do want it for that reason), but for the more practical reason of wanting to be able to incorporate code from one open project not under the GPL into code from the large body of existing GPL code, either to create a new app or enhance an existing one. If Sun's license is not GPL compatible, then code from Solaris cannot be included into the Linux kernel, for example. Yes, there are a lot of kool aid fanatics, but there is a practical reason behind desiring this compatibility. (Of course, that still doesn't obligate anyone.)
This is a recurring problem, and not just with Sun's license. The original BSD and Apache licenses, the Mozilla license and many others are not GPL-compatible. OSI-certified licenses are arguably going to also be "free software" licenses as viewed by the FSF, yet the GPL still won't play nicely with others -- even those on the same side of the philosophical fence!
The design of the GPL is the problem, not the myriad OSI-certified licenses which are incompatible with the GPL. The GPL should be modified to allow GPL code to be combined with ANY free software (or at least copylefted free software) without requiring that ALL the software be distributed under the GPL itself. At one stroke, the "GPL incompatibility" problem could be solved, but only by the FSF.
I asked Richard Stallman about this once. He felt it was unnecessary to adapt the GPL to the reality of license proliferation because those other projects should just adopt the GPL instead. (This is pure hubris, of course.) However, he did admit that at least a few major licenses (like the MPL) were unlikely to go away and that it was unfortunate that GPL and MPL code cannot coexist.
He then argued that it would be inherently dangerous to modify the GPL to allow other licenses, because such a change might inadvertently open a loophole allowing proprietary software to be used with GPL software. Ignoring the fact that loopholes already exist, this is a valid concern. OSI has shown the way; particular licenses can be certified. While not foolproof, it would be much harder to sneak in a loophole in the text of a specific license (where the overall intent is probably obvious) than to craft a license designed to subvert precisely specified criteria.
Obviously, the FSF could certify free software licenses (as OSI does) and then modify the GPL to allow GPL software to be used with ANY software under an FSF-certified free software license. This places trust in the FSF to do the right thing, but so does "GPL version 2 or any later version". In fact, this very trust is the only means by which much GPL code could become more compatible with other OSS licenses.
Unfortunately, RMS dismissed this idea out of hand, mostly due to the burden of maintaining such a list and the risks of possible hidden loopholes from combining licenses.
I don't believe such a list would be very burdensome to the FSF. OSI already does all the necessary work -- the FSF could routinely wait for OSI certification before even considering a license for certification. Then the FSF's lawyers could double-check the license, but with the knowledge that others with the same goals had already examined and approved it.
Plus, there is no inherent need to certify every license -- they could just certify the high-profile ones, like old-style BSD, Apache, MPL and others where a significant codebase exists under the license.
Better yet, the certification process could provide a funding source for the FSF. For a suitably large sum of money upfront plus ongoing costs, the FSF could analyze a proposed license for certification, and work with the license author to resolve any conflicts. The FSF would keep the upfront money whether or not the license is eventually certified, and use it to fund free software development.
I can understand that. To Americans, we grant neo-Nazis freedom of speech (if grudgingly), but Nazism doesn't carry the same sort of taboo and stigma here as it does in Germany. If it did, we might feel differently about the balance of free speech.
To put it in a context that Americans can understand, imagine a video game where you find and kill the bad guys, but instead of Nazis, the bad guys are child pornographers. And suppose the game contains photorealistic simulations of the bad guys actually creating the child porn. Perhaps the plot of the game is that you catch them in the act of making child porn, and administer a little vigilante justice on the spot.
Most Americans would want to ban such a game, and hang its creators by their toenails. It wouldn't matter if no actual child had been harmed in making the game (suppose young-looking adult actors helped with the portrayal of the simulated child porn). Child pornography is universally abhorred and loathed in this country, and I think the associated taboo and stigma might be comparable to the way Germans feel about Nazis.
For an even more relevant hypothetical, imagine a website in a foreign country selling real child pornography over the web. Free speech advocates might defend the hypothetical videogame with simulated child porn, but they wouldn't lift a finger to defend a vendor of real child porn. Wouldn't we want to prevent Americans from being able to purchase that child porn if possible? Our government would certainly try -- even if it was perfectly legal in the foreign country. (Suppose a girl was legally married at 10 years old and the married couple started selling amateur porn videos on the web?)
As an American, I can't know for sure how the Germans (and French) feel about the Nazis, but I believe this analogy is apt. Americans don't give a shit about free speech rights when it comes to real child porn (and even for simulated child porn, it's controversial) -- because we feel (as a society) that it's more important to prevent such atrocities than to slavishly follow our ideals about free speech to the letter. The world isn't black and white, and like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, there are times where Americans do not consider free speech paramount after all. I am very much an advocate of free speech, but there are necessarily limits -- otherwise we invite anarchy (or worse).
Germany and France have experienced the atrocities of the Nazis in their own homelands. Americans have not. Except for WWII veterans, for most Americans, the Nazis (and Hitler especially) may represent a symbol of ultimate evil, but that doesn't mean we have the same visceral reaction to Nazis, like we do with child pornography.
As an American, and a free speech advocate, my gut instinct is to say that the anti-Nazi laws in France and Germany are bad, and that free speech is more important. But we haven't suffered from the Nazis the way France and Germany have. If the USA had suffered Nazi occupation in World War II, we would probably be equally adament about Nazi suppression, despite our free speech ideals. As such, I have to allow for that difference in experiences, and admit that perhaps the anti-Nazi laws in France and Germany are justifiable.
That being said, I don't believe France has any right to dictate to Yahoo how to operate their US website, no matter what business Yahoo may do in France. At the same time, if a foreign multinational corporation started selling child porn outside this country, I guess we'd consider their US interests fair game to pressure them to stop. So I can't really blame the French for trying, but I hope they don't succeed.
[Ugh. I feel dirty just from having to talk about child pornography so much! But it's the only way I can think of to convey the analogy to my fellow Americans. To the French and Germans, obviously Nazis aren't to be grudgingly tolerated like the KKK is here -- they're to be utterly eradicated, as we feel about child pornographers...]
Don't misinterpret that. I know the WTO's improper influence over USA laws is not comparable to occupation. My point is that American sovereignty has been impinged before -- although it wouldn't register with the general public as an occupation necessarily would. The WTO can dictate to the USA about things that we hold dear, and we're legally obliged to obey...
Although the USA (since its inception) has never experienced occupation by another nation, I suppose there's an argument to be made that Americans experienced British occupation during colonial times. Of course, we were a British colony at that time, but the American colonists definitely felt the boot of a foreign oppressor. (Even though the foreign nation was nominally their own.)
Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotton many of the lessons learned back then, remembering the sounds bites more than the substance -- and we're paying the price for it...
The US has never been occupied by another country, except that time Canada destroyed the White House, so you have absolutely no idea of what it's like to have everything you hold dear controlled by another nation.
Most people don't know that the Arabs killed that 1947 plan which would have created a Palestinian state. Just goes to show that appeasement won't work...
Well, DirecTV and TiVo have finally acknowledged the issue:
DIRECTV and TiVo are aware of the issue. The short term solution is to unplug your unit for a few minutes and re-start. A software fix will be available to fix this issue as quickly as possible.
I'm glad to hear it. I hope this update takes weeks instead of months this time. (I wonder if this statement was prompted by this Slashdot story?)
By the way, it's DirecTV that should get the blame for the poor handling of this issue, not TiVo. DirecTV is calling the shots -- while a TiVo representative made this statement, they had to negotiate with DirecTV for permission to do so. The biggest problem here is that DirecTV doesn't have a representative acting as a liaison to the TiVo community, trolling the forums for issues and proactively keeping the community informed of the progress in resolving them -- as Richard Bullwinkle used to do for TiVo. (Another problem is that DirecTV doesn't seem to believe in real beta testing, which probably would have caught this bug before it was rolled out...)
"Postmaster" is certainly a required mailbox for any SMTP server. That's an explicit requirement. However, "abuse" is not a required mailbox. RFC 2142 only requires that the "abuse" mailbox be recognized if the service exists. If you have an "abuse department" or someone designated to handle abuse complaints, that mailbox must reach them. RFC 2142 doesn't demand that any of the listed mailboxes be used -- it only exists to standardize the mailbox names so that you don't have "abuse" at one site, "tos" at another, and "complaints" at a third.
RFC-Ignorant.Org is promulgating an incorrect interpretation of RFC 2142, claiming that every domain must support an "abuse" mailbox, by interpreting even single-user domains as "organizations" and reading between the lines of multiple sections. If "abuse" truly were a required mailbox, it would be clearly spelled out in the RFCs as it it for the "postmaster" mailbox. No, it's not strictly required, especially in the case where the domain is run by a person on their own server, and no "organization" exists at all. It may be strongly recommended, but not required.
If "abuse" bounces, then the appropriate mailbox to use is "postmaster". What's the problem here?
That's not true, though. You are not legally required by statute to give your name unless a reasonable suspicion already exists. Which means by the time you're legally required to identify yourself, you can already be arrested at any time.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. "Reasonable suspicion" is not the same as "probable cause", the standard required for an arrest. For probable cause, the officer must believe that a crime was probably committed and therefore the suspect should be arrested. Merely suspecting that a crime may have taken place is insufficient to justify an arrest, but it is grounds for a "Terry Stop" to investigate whether probable cause exists in a suspicious situation. "Reasonable suspicion" is not an arrestable offense in and of itself.
No, "hybrid source code" reffers to the GPL itself.
I believe you're right about this. Ironically, he pushes the BSD license instead, which is more truly open to "hybrid" licensing since the open part can be mixed with closed code. Mostly, I think they just wanted a different term to use to describe the GPL so they could demonize "hybrid" licenses as bad. (At least Microsoft tried to demonize the GPL directly instead of masking it behind an invented term...)
He is saying that the GPL attempts to keep code "proprietary" in a sense that BSD does not. GPL code is "proprietary" to to the body of all GPL projects, and prohibited outside the body of GPL projects.
Yes, it is twisted logic, a rotten abuse of the language, and about as clear as mud. The fact that it is about the most rational and truthful thing he's said is a testament to abysmal nature of his work in general.
Far be it from me to defend Ken Brown -- he's clearly a retard with a not-so-hidden agenda -- and I agree about the abysmal nature of his work in general.
Nevertheless, there is a legitimate argument to be made that the GPL is proprietary to the GPL community. This isn't inherently a bad thing -- after all, the entire point of the GPL is to reserve its benefits for those who accept its rules. However, most GPL advocates would vehemently deny that the GPL is "proprietary" in any fashion, since RMS has been demonizing that word for 20 years now...
I think he was intentionally trying to create the impression that GPL code uses "stolen" code. It's a pretty lame argument. Any legitimate criticism of GPL code in this area is not only legitimate against closed code as well, it is a vastly bigger problem for closed code. Any GPL "theft" would be blatantly obvious and publicly visible and confirmable. It is difficult to nearly impossible to detect and confirm the use of "stolen" code in a closed project.
I agree that the FUD is all meant to imply that GPL code is particularly susceptible to "theft" of "intellectual property" (i.e. copyright infringement), but a simple reality check shows the reverse. Closed source is most likely to contain misappropriated code, because they're less likely to get caught! Open-source developers know their works are subject to public scrutiny, and are far more likely to be circumspect about such things, because they know they will get caught, sooner or later...
Everyone in the industry knows that all the Microsoft apps are broken. They are 100% unusable when it comes to commercial printing.
I think the point was that Scribus has the potential to serve as a Microsoft Publisher replacement as well as a Quark XPress replacement. While Microsoft Publisher may be unwise to use for commercial printing, it does get used by people who can't justify the investment (in both time and money) that Quark XPress requires. (Some of those people really are just printing on an inkjet or SOHO laser printer!) If Scribus could provide templates to lure people away from Microsoft Publisher, isn't that a good thing? I don't think anyone was recommending using Microsoft Publisher to send documents to a commercial printing house.
However, it's not unrealistic to expect Microsoft Publisher to be used indirectly on a job being sent to a commercial printing house. Consider a newspaper -- while the paper may be published using Quark XPress, it's quite possible that an ad submitted by the customer will be created with Microsoft Publisher. A small advertiser can't justify spending the time and money on Quark, but if they could be convinced to use Scribus instead of Publisher, that would likely be an improvement in the process...
My criticism is not minor, it is a critical blow to his argument. If the Supreme Court really did say that income tax is unconstitutional, they why would the people most familiar with those rulings, and with the best access to the court not change their behavior. If they don't have to pay the taxes, then there is no punishment waiting for them, they would just stop. Presumably, there would be no legal fees for them either (they are more than capable of defending them selves).
I don't see the "critical blow" here. I doubt Supreme Court justices are the type to engage in civil disobediance in the first place -- they probably wouldn't be confirmed if they were. And if they did, they open themselves up to possible impeachment -- who wants to lose a job with guaranteed tenure for life? Besides, these are different justices than the ones who wrote those opinions.
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that his reasoning is valid, that the 1916 and 1911 opinions, taken together, lead to a logical and necessary conclusion that most personal income taxes are actually unconstitutional. Even if the logic is inescapable, it might be novel and nonobvious, even to the justices who wrote those opinions, who may not have thought of that argument. Perhaps if the argument had been made to the Court soon after the 1916 decision, they might have found it persuasive. We'll never know.
The fact that Supreme Courty justices pay their taxes doesn't prove that the argument is invalid.
However, the current justices grew up with the income tax as a fact of life, accepted as a necessary evil. They are also astute enough to realize what the ramifications would be if nearly a century of income taxes (many trillions of dollars) were to be declared unconstitutional. There's not a snowball's chance in hell they'll bankrupt the government by invalidating the income tax now, especially retroactively.
To win the case now would require not only a compelling argument (which I'm not convinced this is), but also a means to mitigate the impact of such a decision. I just don't see it happening...
Because their government has threatened them with lengthy jail terms if they refuse. I believe I'm right, but I continue to pay my taxes. Why? Because I cannot afford to be wrong.
Therein lies the Catch-22. Nobody who can afford to make the case can afford to lose the case. So nobody makes the challenge, and eventually, it's too late for the argument to have a chance to persuade the Court. As I said before, the Court can't afford to bankrupt the government by invalidating income taxes, so they would be forced to devise a rationale (even a tortured one) to maintain the status quo.
Of course, you could pay your taxes (satisfying your legal obligation and avoiding any threat of jail time) and then make the case that the taxes should be refunded to you, based on this argument -- if you can afford to press the case. Unfortunately, it's probably too late for that in practice -- you'd probably be laughed out of court and "randomly" audited by the IRS for the rest of your life...
I find it funny that you would answer minor criticisms such as the grandparent, but not a lengthy one such as this post.
And I find it funny that you've posted twice about that post without noticing that the argument it debunked was not the argument that Loki_1929 presented! All the case law presented makes that post look like a comprehensive refutation of the argument, when in fact it's entirely nonresponsive. (The argument was about interpretation, not ratification!)
Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F2d, 200, 201 (5th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1986) in which the court described the argument that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified as being "totally without merit."
United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir.), cert denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) in which the Court affirmed Foster's conviction for tax evasion, rejecting his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified.
United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9th Cir. 1986), cert denied 479 U.S. 1036 (1987) in which the Court states: " . . . that the sixteenth amendment has been ratified . . . is conclusive upon the Courts" and upheld Stahl's conviction for failure to file and making a false statement.
Miller v. United States, 868 F2d 236, 241 (7th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) in which the Court said, "We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the Constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment . . . have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure." The Court labeled their position "patently frivolous" and levied sanctions against them.
The courts have already laughed these arguments out of court multiple times, sorry!
Nice work. You've successfully refuted an argument which wasn't even presented! It is well settled that the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, but that's not the argument the grandparent post was making. The grandparent post never suggested that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. On the contrary, it clearly assumes that the amendment is valid. The argument raised is one of interpretation, not ratification -- that the Sixteenth Amendment does not permit the government to impose the personal income taxes most of us pay, based on a reading of the 1916 and 1911 Supreme Court cases. This argument may be dubious, but it's novel. Address this argument, if you will; debunking another argument is a nonsequitur, not a response.
Personally, I doubt the argument could survive Supreme Court review today, even assuming the reasoning is correct and valid. Perhaps the argument could have swayed the Court in 1916, when income taxes were new and controversial, but now they're accepted as a necessary evil. Historical precedent would force the Court to come up with a rationale to justify the status quo, much as they did with the Eldred case, where the right answer was obvious (don't allow retroactive copyright extensions), but there were decades of previous extensions that went unchallenged. If the first retroactive extension had been challenged, the Court no doubt would have invalidated it and established a rule against retroactive extension of copyrights. Now, it's too late -- they didn't want to rock the boat that much after so many years.
The copyright argument was very persuasive, yet it failed. The Federal government relies heavily on income taxes, and has for most of the last century. The Court literally could not afford to bankrupt the government by invalidating the income tax system after all this time, no matter how persuasive the argument may be. (And I'm not convinced this is a persuasive argument.)
Still, I hope you try again to refute it. I'm curious about this argument, since I've never heard it before, and I have no idea if there's any reasonable basis for it or not. But I doubt there's much chance of success for this argument, even if we assume the reasoning is sound, because the consequences to the government would be too severe. (Anyone who volunteers to be a test case for this is a fool!)
If one person is on a mobile phone, having one side of a conversation in a language in which you are fluent, it can drive you crazy trying to work out what is going on.
This suggests an interesting experiment -- would it be equally annoying if two people had a face-to-face conversation -- but one of them spoke in a language you're fluent in, while the other spoke in another language incomprehensible to you? That might be a good control test to determine whether the problem is the mobile phone or only "hearing" half of the conversation...
If you'll notice, your regular landline phone supplies feedback of your voice through the earpiece. In the telephone industry this is called sidetone. I've never figured out why cell phones don't do that as well. Without the expected sidetone feedback, people tend to talk louder since they are not getting the feedback that they are accustomed to.
Good point. This is probably a big part of the problem. If I had mod points, I'd mod you up...
The comparsion you made are close-source NeWS and open-source X11. But now we have two to compare, one is java, source-opened, and one is C#, source-closed.
Java's source is available, but it's not "open source", which is the whole point of the debate. While C# source code isn't available, that's really not the point. X11 was appealing because it was open source -- free software in every sense. C# won't gain traction that way, but via Microsoft's usual bag of dirty tricks. My point was to address the impact Sun's behavior has on these products with serious competition. The exact nature of that competition isn't relevant.
In another point of view, to the comparsion you made, NeWS and X11 are application level programs. Now we have, Java, as a programming language.
NeWS, X11, Java and C# are all "application-level" programs by virtue of the fact that they all run in user space, outside the kernel. At the same time, they're not applications at all -- you don't launch one, use it, then exit. All of these are platforms which only exist to enable applications to be run on top of the platform. They have no intrinsic usage value of their own without having applications designed to run on those platforms. Whether or not the platform is a programming language with a runtime system (as NeWS, Java and C# are) or an API with a runtime system (as X11 is) doesn't particularly matter. (Yes, part of the NeWS platform is a programming language -- specifically, their extended dialect of PostScript.)
As for standardization, Sun and JCP do have standards for Java, and test suites to verify them. Unfortunately, those test suites aren't free for anyone to just download and use. As for international standards bodies, maybe someday we'll see an international Java standard, maybe we won't. Again, it's irrelevant to this topic.
Yes, it's possible to have alternate Java implementations. That's a good thing. But having the Sun reference implementation available as a true open-source project would be a much better thing, and just might make the difference between Java defending its dominance or possibly losing out to C# in the long run due to Microsoft's "embrace and extend" practice...
OK, should you find that there is a/are mistake(s) in my reply, please answer it as soon as possible.
Sorry to be blunt here but I really get annoyed at people who just don't look at the market and think their little part of the world is right.
You're not looking at the big picture here. Yes, Java has an enormous lead over C#, a huge installed base, etc. Microsoft is a late entry into the game with C#, and they still have quite a bit of catching up to do. However, that's something they're quite good at.
Remember the marketshare Netscape once enjoyed? What do they have now? You've lulled yourself into a false sense of security by looking at the lead Java enjoys today and assuming nothing will change. Well, things change -- you're making an unwarranted assumption.
For you to say that MS and C# will have to win if Java isn't OSSed then I'm sorry but its this sort of small minded view on the market that helps MS get to the position it is in.
While you were raving about Java's strength in Enterprise and Mobile markets, you said nothing about the Desktop market. Which is probably because Java doesn't really have a lock on this market right now. Microsoft already has a monopoly on the desktop, and they can and will leverage it to "embrace and extend" new markets. It's what they do.
I said that the "writing is on the wall" -- that it appears to be a likely, predictable outcome that C# will, over time, dominate over Java, unless something changes. Just as it was a likely, predictable outcome that X11 would dominate over NeWS. If Sun had made NeWS as free as X11, it probably would dominate Unix GUIs today -- it was technologically superior.
I've never programmed in C#, but I know people who use both C# and Java, and I've heard enough about it to know that it is very similar to Java. Whereas NeWS was a fundamentally superior technology to X11 (in the late 80s), Java does not appear to have any intrinsic advantage. To the contrary, much of what I've heard suggests that C# may actually be slightly better technology. The advantage Java has is its entrenched marketshare and broad base of support, which C# is currently eroding.
You see Java's current market strength as a sign of invincibility. I see it as a reflection of relative maturity and as a window of opportunity. Java is currently stronger than C#, but Microsoft will do everything in their power to lure Java developers to use C# instead. If you don't think this is possible, perhaps you should take a closer look at Microsoft's history. The government isn't likely to impede them after the slap on the wrist they gave Microsoft after winning their case. Microsoft has the clear potential to lure away Java's current marketshare, and unless something changes, it seems likely to happen, eventually.
The true "small minded view on the market" is the childish notion that the dominant market leader cannot lose. It's happened before and it can happen again. Nobody is safe, ever. (Not even Microsoft is safe -- 20 years from now, they may be irrelevant in the industry, for all we know.)
The JCP is IMO the strongest OSS tool on the market, the standard is open, implementations can be open and there is a validation mechanism to make sure everything fits.
The JCP was a great step, and it's a definite improvement over the previous situation. However, there's a wide chasm between "implementations can be open" and having the implementation everyone wants (Sun's reference implementation) freely available for everyone to use, modify and redistribute. It means the the truly open Java implementations must constantly play catch-up, which is non-trivial for Java's enormous API. Worse yet, Sun's implementation will continue to be the preferred Java implementation for a long time to come, and people won't likely know or care if any particular Java code works on the open implementation, as long as it works on Sun's.
You've provided no credible arguments as to why Sun would be safe from Microsoft's campaign against Java. Current market strength is a reflection of wh
You can't be serious, the value of DB2 probably far exceeds the value of the entire company Sun. Not to mention the fact that the database software is a major reason for buying IBM hardware and services in the first place. Think Dell selling cheapo wintel Xeon servers with free bonus Open DB2. What company would give away an asset worth billions and billions of dollars to their competitors?
I'm quite serious, though I'd be somewhat surprised if IBM would actually suggest it. Perhaps DB2 is worth billions to IBM, but it's hardly their only source of income. IBM could survive just fine without it. Meanwhile, Microsoft has $50 billion in cash reserves. IBM has an enormous investment in Linux and Java, and really, really doesn't want Microsoft to be pulling all the strings. In the short term, the potential loss of DB2 income might be a disincentive, but in the long term, it might be a brilliant, visionary strategic move -- if it helps to level the playing field and prevent Microsoft from establishing the hegemony they've always envisioned.
I stopped reading at "while the world settles on C# instead of Java, as with X11 and NeWS?" Please tell me how this analogy works when C# isn't open like X11 was; at all. In fact java is way more open than C#. What a terrible analogy to base your whole argument on.
The reason why X11 clobbered NeWS was because it was free and open. C# could end up clobbering Java also -- because of Microsoft's monopoly, embrace and extend tactics, network effects, etc. I never said the situations were comparable in all aspects.
The point was this -- in both cases, Sun had a competitive product, which by all rights should be the more appealing alternative. But Sun's control deathgrip on NeWS killed it, just as their grip on Java is damaging it, and may ultimately kill it.
The strength of Sun's competition comes from different sources in these examples, but that's irrelevant. Both situations share one key point in common -- Sun could have made both NeWS and Java much more appealing by making them completely free and open, yet refused to do so.
If Sun had learned their lesson from NeWS, they would have turned Java free by now. They haven't learned, which was my entire point. By focusing on the vast (and irrelevant) difference between X11 and C#, you missed the point, which was about the great similarity between NeWS and Java, Sun's behavior with regard to maintain control, and the impact that behavior can have.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, who do they think pay the production costs now? This "new idea" is what happens every day on the stock market, and if there really was investor interest, the show wouldn't be on the chopping lock.
Okay, this may be totally off the wall, but this makes me wonder...
What would happen if UPN were to create a tracking stock for the Enterprise series? This would allow investors to directly show their level of interest in Enterprise vs. the rest of UPN. Hard-core fans could buy the tracking stock to demonstrate their interest and commitment...
And this wouldn't have the legal issues that direct fan funding of the series might have.
I don't know if it could work, but has this ever been considered?
ObDisclaimer: IANAL
Where did you get that idea from? Yes you can mix GPL and CDDL code. Sun's License FAQ basically says so.
No, the FAQ says that files under the CDDL may be used with files under other licenses, but that those licenses might prohibit combining the code.
Look at it like this. I take your GPL code and I add some CDDL code. I modify it a bit to make it all work together happily. Then I distribute the source code on my website. What are you going to do? Sue me? You can't, I gave you the source code. GPL obligation fulfilled.
It's not that simple. If you want to mix GPL code and CDDL code in the same file, you cannot distribute the combined code under the terms of the GPL, which means that the GPL does not provide you with a copyright license for this. You would need a copyright license under an alternate license (if one exists), or need to be the copyright holder of the GPL code yourself. (The copyright holder can violate the stated license with impunity since they don't rely on the license for the authority to copy.)
You cannot combine GPL and non-GPL code in the same file with impunity, because the terms of the GPL are very strict and specific. There is no dispute that including GPL and non-GPL code in the same file creates a "derived work" under copyright law, and distributing (copying) such a derived work requires the copyright authority for the GPL code, either directly or via a license.
However, the definition of "derived work" is a legal gray area, and one that would ultimately have to be decided by the courts. Unfortunately, the answer to this question would probably vary on a case-by-case basis depending on the facts of each case -- and on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis as well, based on the precedents and laws applicable in each jurisdiction.
If you want to be safe, assume everything in the gray area is a derived work. This is the FSF's interpretation, and they will defend it, so unless you're prepared to be a test case (and possibly lose), think twice before venturing into that gray area!
The idea of "user does the link" as a method to evade the GPL was considered and discussed when GPL v1 was released. The FSF has always maintained that code written to work with GPL code is derivative of that code, making the "user does the link" scenario an attempt at evading the requirements of the license. However, this is a question of law, and the FSF's opinion isn't binding. To date, nobody seems willing to test the issue in court.
However, there is at least one precedent which suggests that the FSF's interpretation of copyright law may be too inclusive, at least in some jurisdictions. (Other jurisdictions seem to have different standards, which further confuses the matter.)
If the "Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison" test is used to determine what defines a "derived work", then code which simply uses the API of a library probably wouldn't be considered "derived" from that library, any more than using the Win32 API would give Microsoft copyright powers over Win32 applications or even Wine. Mixing and matching source files might be considered derived; it probably depends on the facts of the case.
Note that this does not apply to statically-linked binary executables -- those are unquestionably creating derived works by translating the sources and then combining them into the same file. Dynamic libraries, on the other hand, are also a gray area.
It's possible that you aren't creating a derived work by simply using the GPL code from other files, but the FSF believes you are. If you aren't, then the GPL and LGPL would be equivalent in effect. The GPL becomes moot with regard to non-derived works, which are even allowed to be aggregated on the same media. The plain text of the GPL makes this clear. But don't expect the FSF to budge on their interpretati
The real reason we want open source software to be compatible with the GPL is not because we want everybody to have drunk the kool aid (okay, there are some fanatics who do want it for that reason), but for the more practical reason of wanting to be able to incorporate code from one open project not under the GPL into code from the large body of existing GPL code, either to create a new app or enhance an existing one. If Sun's license is not GPL compatible, then code from Solaris cannot be included into the Linux kernel, for example. Yes, there are a lot of kool aid fanatics, but there is a practical reason behind desiring this compatibility. (Of course, that still doesn't obligate anyone.)
This is a recurring problem, and not just with Sun's license. The original BSD and Apache licenses, the Mozilla license and many others are not GPL-compatible. OSI-certified licenses are arguably going to also be "free software" licenses as viewed by the FSF, yet the GPL still won't play nicely with others -- even those on the same side of the philosophical fence!
The design of the GPL is the problem, not the myriad OSI-certified licenses which are incompatible with the GPL. The GPL should be modified to allow GPL code to be combined with ANY free software (or at least copylefted free software) without requiring that ALL the software be distributed under the GPL itself. At one stroke, the "GPL incompatibility" problem could be solved, but only by the FSF.
I asked Richard Stallman about this once. He felt it was unnecessary to adapt the GPL to the reality of license proliferation because those other projects should just adopt the GPL instead. (This is pure hubris, of course.) However, he did admit that at least a few major licenses (like the MPL) were unlikely to go away and that it was unfortunate that GPL and MPL code cannot coexist.
He then argued that it would be inherently dangerous to modify the GPL to allow other licenses, because such a change might inadvertently open a loophole allowing proprietary software to be used with GPL software. Ignoring the fact that loopholes already exist, this is a valid concern. OSI has shown the way; particular licenses can be certified. While not foolproof, it would be much harder to sneak in a loophole in the text of a specific license (where the overall intent is probably obvious) than to craft a license designed to subvert precisely specified criteria.
Obviously, the FSF could certify free software licenses (as OSI does) and then modify the GPL to allow GPL software to be used with ANY software under an FSF-certified free software license. This places trust in the FSF to do the right thing, but so does "GPL version 2 or any later version". In fact, this very trust is the only means by which much GPL code could become more compatible with other OSS licenses.
Unfortunately, RMS dismissed this idea out of hand, mostly due to the burden of maintaining such a list and the risks of possible hidden loopholes from combining licenses.
I don't believe such a list would be very burdensome to the FSF. OSI already does all the necessary work -- the FSF could routinely wait for OSI certification before even considering a license for certification. Then the FSF's lawyers could double-check the license, but with the knowledge that others with the same goals had already examined and approved it.
Plus, there is no inherent need to certify every license -- they could just certify the high-profile ones, like old-style BSD, Apache, MPL and others where a significant codebase exists under the license.
Better yet, the certification process could provide a funding source for the FSF. For a suitably large sum of money upfront plus ongoing costs, the FSF could analyze a proposed license for certification, and work with the license author to resolve any conflicts. The FSF would keep the upfront money whether or not the license is eventually certified, and use it to fund free software development.
Companies (like Sun)
It's all about context.
I can understand that. To Americans, we grant neo-Nazis freedom of speech (if grudgingly), but Nazism doesn't carry the same sort of taboo and stigma here as it does in Germany. If it did, we might feel differently about the balance of free speech.
To put it in a context that Americans can understand, imagine a video game where you find and kill the bad guys, but instead of Nazis, the bad guys are child pornographers. And suppose the game contains photorealistic simulations of the bad guys actually creating the child porn. Perhaps the plot of the game is that you catch them in the act of making child porn, and administer a little vigilante justice on the spot.
Most Americans would want to ban such a game, and hang its creators by their toenails. It wouldn't matter if no actual child had been harmed in making the game (suppose young-looking adult actors helped with the portrayal of the simulated child porn). Child pornography is universally abhorred and loathed in this country, and I think the associated taboo and stigma might be comparable to the way Germans feel about Nazis.
For an even more relevant hypothetical, imagine a website in a foreign country selling real child pornography over the web. Free speech advocates might defend the hypothetical videogame with simulated child porn, but they wouldn't lift a finger to defend a vendor of real child porn. Wouldn't we want to prevent Americans from being able to purchase that child porn if possible? Our government would certainly try -- even if it was perfectly legal in the foreign country. (Suppose a girl was legally married at 10 years old and the married couple started selling amateur porn videos on the web?)
As an American, I can't know for sure how the Germans (and French) feel about the Nazis, but I believe this analogy is apt. Americans don't give a shit about free speech rights when it comes to real child porn (and even for simulated child porn, it's controversial) -- because we feel (as a society) that it's more important to prevent such atrocities than to slavishly follow our ideals about free speech to the letter. The world isn't black and white, and like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, there are times where Americans do not consider free speech paramount after all. I am very much an advocate of free speech, but there are necessarily limits -- otherwise we invite anarchy (or worse).
Germany and France have experienced the atrocities of the Nazis in their own homelands. Americans have not. Except for WWII veterans, for most Americans, the Nazis (and Hitler especially) may represent a symbol of ultimate evil, but that doesn't mean we have the same visceral reaction to Nazis, like we do with child pornography.
As an American, and a free speech advocate, my gut instinct is to say that the anti-Nazi laws in France and Germany are bad, and that free speech is more important. But we haven't suffered from the Nazis the way France and Germany have. If the USA had suffered Nazi occupation in World War II, we would probably be equally adament about Nazi suppression, despite our free speech ideals. As such, I have to allow for that difference in experiences, and admit that perhaps the anti-Nazi laws in France and Germany are justifiable.
That being said, I don't believe France has any right to dictate to Yahoo how to operate their US website, no matter what business Yahoo may do in France. At the same time, if a foreign multinational corporation started selling child porn outside this country, I guess we'd consider their US interests fair game to pressure them to stop. So I can't really blame the French for trying, but I hope they don't succeed.
[Ugh. I feel dirty just from having to talk about child pornography so much! But it's the only way I can think of to convey the analogy to my fellow Americans. To the French and Germans, obviously Nazis aren't to be grudgingly tolerated like the KKK is here -- they're to be utterly eradicated, as we feel about child pornographers...]
Don't misinterpret that. I know the WTO's improper influence over USA laws is not comparable to occupation. My point is that American sovereignty has been impinged before -- although it wouldn't register with the general public as an occupation necessarily would. The WTO can dictate to the USA about things that we hold dear, and we're legally obliged to obey...
Although the USA (since its inception) has never experienced occupation by another nation, I suppose there's an argument to be made that Americans experienced British occupation during colonial times. Of course, we were a British colony at that time, but the American colonists definitely felt the boot of a foreign oppressor. (Even though the foreign nation was nominally their own.)
Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotton many of the lessons learned back then, remembering the sounds bites more than the substance -- and we're paying the price for it...
The US has never been occupied by another country, except that time Canada destroyed the White House, so you have absolutely no idea of what it's like to have everything you hold dear controlled by another nation.
Maybe not another nation, but what about the WTO?
Most people don't know that the Arabs killed that 1947 plan which would have created a Palestinian state. Just goes to show that appeasement won't work...
By the way, it's DirecTV that should get the blame for the poor handling of this issue, not TiVo. DirecTV is calling the shots -- while a TiVo representative made this statement, they had to negotiate with DirecTV for permission to do so. The biggest problem here is that DirecTV doesn't have a representative acting as a liaison to the TiVo community, trolling the forums for issues and proactively keeping the community informed of the progress in resolving them -- as Richard Bullwinkle used to do for TiVo. (Another problem is that DirecTV doesn't seem to believe in real beta testing, which probably would have caught this bug before it was rolled out...)
"Postmaster" is certainly a required mailbox for any SMTP server. That's an explicit requirement. However, "abuse" is not a required mailbox. RFC 2142 only requires that the "abuse" mailbox be recognized if the service exists. If you have an "abuse department" or someone designated to handle abuse complaints, that mailbox must reach them. RFC 2142 doesn't demand that any of the listed mailboxes be used -- it only exists to standardize the mailbox names so that you don't have "abuse" at one site, "tos" at another, and "complaints" at a third.
RFC-Ignorant.Org is promulgating an incorrect interpretation of RFC 2142, claiming that every domain must support an "abuse" mailbox, by interpreting even single-user domains as "organizations" and reading between the lines of multiple sections. If "abuse" truly were a required mailbox, it would be clearly spelled out in the RFCs as it it for the "postmaster" mailbox. No, it's not strictly required, especially in the case where the domain is run by a person on their own server, and no "organization" exists at all. It may be strongly recommended, but not required.
If "abuse" bounces, then the appropriate mailbox to use is "postmaster". What's the problem here?
Bloomberg has a pretty detailed article about this, for those looking for more detail than the commonly-used Reuter's article contains...
[ObDisclaimer: IANAL.]
That's not true, though. You are not legally required by statute to give your name unless a reasonable suspicion already exists. Which means by the time you're legally required to identify yourself, you can already be arrested at any time.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. "Reasonable suspicion" is not the same as "probable cause", the standard required for an arrest. For probable cause, the officer must believe that a crime was probably committed and therefore the suspect should be arrested. Merely suspecting that a crime may have taken place is insufficient to justify an arrest, but it is grounds for a "Terry Stop" to investigate whether probable cause exists in a suspicious situation. "Reasonable suspicion" is not an arrestable offense in and of itself.
No, "hybrid source code" reffers to the GPL itself.
I believe you're right about this. Ironically, he pushes the BSD license instead, which is more truly open to "hybrid" licensing since the open part can be mixed with closed code. Mostly, I think they just wanted a different term to use to describe the GPL so they could demonize "hybrid" licenses as bad. (At least Microsoft tried to demonize the GPL directly instead of masking it behind an invented term...)
He is saying that the GPL attempts to keep code "proprietary" in a sense that BSD does not. GPL code is "proprietary" to to the body of all GPL projects, and prohibited outside the body of GPL projects.
Yes, it is twisted logic, a rotten abuse of the language, and about as clear as mud. The fact that it is about the most rational and truthful thing he's said is a testament to abysmal nature of his work in general.
Far be it from me to defend Ken Brown -- he's clearly a retard with a not-so-hidden agenda -- and I agree about the abysmal nature of his work in general.
Nevertheless, there is a legitimate argument to be made that the GPL is proprietary to the GPL community. This isn't inherently a bad thing -- after all, the entire point of the GPL is to reserve its benefits for those who accept its rules. However, most GPL advocates would vehemently deny that the GPL is "proprietary" in any fashion, since RMS has been demonizing that word for 20 years now...
I think he was intentionally trying to create the impression that GPL code uses "stolen" code. It's a pretty lame argument. Any legitimate criticism of GPL code in this area is not only legitimate against closed code as well, it is a vastly bigger problem for closed code. Any GPL "theft" would be blatantly obvious and publicly visible and confirmable. It is difficult to nearly impossible to detect and confirm the use of "stolen" code in a closed project.
I agree that the FUD is all meant to imply that GPL code is particularly susceptible to "theft" of "intellectual property" (i.e. copyright infringement), but a simple reality check shows the reverse. Closed source is most likely to contain misappropriated code, because they're less likely to get caught! Open-source developers know their works are subject to public scrutiny, and are far more likely to be circumspect about such things, because they know they will get caught, sooner or later...
Everyone in the industry knows that all the Microsoft apps are broken. They are 100% unusable when it comes to commercial printing.
I think the point was that Scribus has the potential to serve as a Microsoft Publisher replacement as well as a Quark XPress replacement. While Microsoft Publisher may be unwise to use for commercial printing, it does get used by people who can't justify the investment (in both time and money) that Quark XPress requires. (Some of those people really are just printing on an inkjet or SOHO laser printer!) If Scribus could provide templates to lure people away from Microsoft Publisher, isn't that a good thing? I don't think anyone was recommending using Microsoft Publisher to send documents to a commercial printing house.
However, it's not unrealistic to expect Microsoft Publisher to be used indirectly on a job being sent to a commercial printing house. Consider a newspaper -- while the paper may be published using Quark XPress, it's quite possible that an ad submitted by the customer will be created with Microsoft Publisher. A small advertiser can't justify spending the time and money on Quark, but if they could be convinced to use Scribus instead of Publisher, that would likely be an improvement in the process...
My criticism is not minor, it is a critical blow to his argument. If the Supreme Court really did say that income tax is unconstitutional, they why would the people most familiar with those rulings, and with the best access to the court not change their behavior. If they don't have to pay the taxes, then there is no punishment waiting for them, they would just stop. Presumably, there would be no legal fees for them either (they are more than capable of defending them selves).
I don't see the "critical blow" here. I doubt Supreme Court justices are the type to engage in civil disobediance in the first place -- they probably wouldn't be confirmed if they were. And if they did, they open themselves up to possible impeachment -- who wants to lose a job with guaranteed tenure for life? Besides, these are different justices than the ones who wrote those opinions.
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that his reasoning is valid, that the 1916 and 1911 opinions, taken together, lead to a logical and necessary conclusion that most personal income taxes are actually unconstitutional. Even if the logic is inescapable, it might be novel and nonobvious, even to the justices who wrote those opinions, who may not have thought of that argument. Perhaps if the argument had been made to the Court soon after the 1916 decision, they might have found it persuasive. We'll never know.
The fact that Supreme Courty justices pay their taxes doesn't prove that the argument is invalid.
However, the current justices grew up with the income tax as a fact of life, accepted as a necessary evil. They are also astute enough to realize what the ramifications would be if nearly a century of income taxes (many trillions of dollars) were to be declared unconstitutional. There's not a snowball's chance in hell they'll bankrupt the government by invalidating the income tax now, especially retroactively.
To win the case now would require not only a compelling argument (which I'm not convinced this is), but also a means to mitigate the impact of such a decision. I just don't see it happening...
Because their government has threatened them with lengthy jail terms if they refuse. I believe I'm right, but I continue to pay my taxes. Why? Because I cannot afford to be wrong.
Therein lies the Catch-22. Nobody who can afford to make the case can afford to lose the case. So nobody makes the challenge, and eventually, it's too late for the argument to have a chance to persuade the Court. As I said before, the Court can't afford to bankrupt the government by invalidating income taxes, so they would be forced to devise a rationale (even a tortured one) to maintain the status quo.
Of course, you could pay your taxes (satisfying your legal obligation and avoiding any threat of jail time) and then make the case that the taxes should be refunded to you, based on this argument -- if you can afford to press the case. Unfortunately, it's probably too late for that in practice -- you'd probably be laughed out of court and "randomly" audited by the IRS for the rest of your life...
I find it funny that you would answer minor criticisms such as the grandparent, but not a lengthy one such as this post.
And I find it funny that you've posted twice about that post without noticing that the argument it debunked was not the argument that Loki_1929 presented! All the case law presented makes that post look like a comprehensive refutation of the argument, when in fact it's entirely nonresponsive. (The argument was about interpretation, not ratification!)
Nice work. You've successfully refuted an argument which wasn't even presented! It is well settled that the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, but that's not the argument the grandparent post was making. The grandparent post never suggested that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. On the contrary, it clearly assumes that the amendment is valid. The argument raised is one of interpretation, not ratification -- that the Sixteenth Amendment does not permit the government to impose the personal income taxes most of us pay, based on a reading of the 1916 and 1911 Supreme Court cases. This argument may be dubious, but it's novel. Address this argument, if you will; debunking another argument is a nonsequitur, not a response.
Personally, I doubt the argument could survive Supreme Court review today, even assuming the reasoning is correct and valid. Perhaps the argument could have swayed the Court in 1916, when income taxes were new and controversial, but now they're accepted as a necessary evil. Historical precedent would force the Court to come up with a rationale to justify the status quo, much as they did with the Eldred case, where the right answer was obvious (don't allow retroactive copyright extensions), but there were decades of previous extensions that went unchallenged. If the first retroactive extension had been challenged, the Court no doubt would have invalidated it and established a rule against retroactive extension of copyrights. Now, it's too late -- they didn't want to rock the boat that much after so many years.
The copyright argument was very persuasive, yet it failed. The Federal government relies heavily on income taxes, and has for most of the last century. The Court literally could not afford to bankrupt the government by invalidating the income tax system after all this time, no matter how persuasive the argument may be. (And I'm not convinced this is a persuasive argument.)
Still, I hope you try again to refute it. I'm curious about this argument, since I've never heard it before, and I have no idea if there's any reasonable basis for it or not. But I doubt there's much chance of success for this argument, even if we assume the reasoning is sound, because the consequences to the government would be too severe. (Anyone who volunteers to be a test case for this is a fool!)
If one person is on a mobile phone, having one side of a conversation in a language in which you are fluent, it can drive you crazy trying to work out what is going on.
This suggests an interesting experiment -- would it be equally annoying if two people had a face-to-face conversation -- but one of them spoke in a language you're fluent in, while the other spoke in another language incomprehensible to you? That might be a good control test to determine whether the problem is the mobile phone or only "hearing" half of the conversation...
If you'll notice, your regular landline phone supplies feedback of your voice through the earpiece. In the telephone industry this is called sidetone. I've never figured out why cell phones don't do that as well. Without the expected sidetone feedback, people tend to talk louder since they are not getting the feedback that they are accustomed to.
Good point. This is probably a big part of the problem. If I had mod points, I'd mod you up...
The comparsion you made are close-source NeWS and open-source X11. But now we have two to compare, one is java, source-opened, and one is C#, source-closed.
Java's source is available, but it's not "open source", which is the whole point of the debate. While C# source code isn't available, that's really not the point. X11 was appealing because it was open source -- free software in every sense. C# won't gain traction that way, but via Microsoft's usual bag of dirty tricks. My point was to address the impact Sun's behavior has on these products with serious competition. The exact nature of that competition isn't relevant.
In another point of view, to the comparsion you made, NeWS and X11 are application level programs. Now we have, Java, as a programming language.
NeWS, X11, Java and C# are all "application-level" programs by virtue of the fact that they all run in user space, outside the kernel. At the same time, they're not applications at all -- you don't launch one, use it, then exit. All of these are platforms which only exist to enable applications to be run on top of the platform. They have no intrinsic usage value of their own without having applications designed to run on those platforms. Whether or not the platform is a programming language with a runtime system (as NeWS, Java and C# are) or an API with a runtime system (as X11 is) doesn't particularly matter. (Yes, part of the NeWS platform is a programming language -- specifically, their extended dialect of PostScript.)
As for standardization, Sun and JCP do have standards for Java, and test suites to verify them. Unfortunately, those test suites aren't free for anyone to just download and use. As for international standards bodies, maybe someday we'll see an international Java standard, maybe we won't. Again, it's irrelevant to this topic.
Yes, it's possible to have alternate Java implementations. That's a good thing. But having the Sun reference implementation available as a true open-source project would be a much better thing, and just might make the difference between Java defending its dominance or possibly losing out to C# in the long run due to Microsoft's "embrace and extend" practice...
OK, should you find that there is a/are mistake(s) in my reply, please answer it as soon as possible.
Sorry, didn't see the responses right away!
The parent post should have been moderated up.
Sorry to be blunt here but I really get annoyed at people who just don't look at the market and think their little part of the world is right.
You're not looking at the big picture here. Yes, Java has an enormous lead over C#, a huge installed base, etc. Microsoft is a late entry into the game with C#, and they still have quite a bit of catching up to do. However, that's something they're quite good at.
Remember the marketshare Netscape once enjoyed? What do they have now? You've lulled yourself into a false sense of security by looking at the lead Java enjoys today and assuming nothing will change. Well, things change -- you're making an unwarranted assumption.
For you to say that MS and C# will have to win if Java isn't OSSed then I'm sorry but its this sort of small minded view on the market that helps MS get to the position it is in.
While you were raving about Java's strength in Enterprise and Mobile markets, you said nothing about the Desktop market. Which is probably because Java doesn't really have a lock on this market right now. Microsoft already has a monopoly on the desktop, and they can and will leverage it to "embrace and extend" new markets. It's what they do.
I said that the "writing is on the wall" -- that it appears to be a likely, predictable outcome that C# will, over time, dominate over Java, unless something changes. Just as it was a likely, predictable outcome that X11 would dominate over NeWS. If Sun had made NeWS as free as X11, it probably would dominate Unix GUIs today -- it was technologically superior.
I've never programmed in C#, but I know people who use both C# and Java, and I've heard enough about it to know that it is very similar to Java. Whereas NeWS was a fundamentally superior technology to X11 (in the late 80s), Java does not appear to have any intrinsic advantage. To the contrary, much of what I've heard suggests that C# may actually be slightly better technology. The advantage Java has is its entrenched marketshare and broad base of support, which C# is currently eroding.
You see Java's current market strength as a sign of invincibility. I see it as a reflection of relative maturity and as a window of opportunity. Java is currently stronger than C#, but Microsoft will do everything in their power to lure Java developers to use C# instead. If you don't think this is possible, perhaps you should take a closer look at Microsoft's history. The government isn't likely to impede them after the slap on the wrist they gave Microsoft after winning their case. Microsoft has the clear potential to lure away Java's current marketshare, and unless something changes, it seems likely to happen, eventually.
The true "small minded view on the market" is the childish notion that the dominant market leader cannot lose. It's happened before and it can happen again. Nobody is safe, ever. (Not even Microsoft is safe -- 20 years from now, they may be irrelevant in the industry, for all we know.)
The JCP is IMO the strongest OSS tool on the market, the standard is open, implementations can be open and there is a validation mechanism to make sure everything fits.
The JCP was a great step, and it's a definite improvement over the previous situation. However, there's a wide chasm between "implementations can be open" and having the implementation everyone wants (Sun's reference implementation) freely available for everyone to use, modify and redistribute. It means the the truly open Java implementations must constantly play catch-up, which is non-trivial for Java's enormous API. Worse yet, Sun's implementation will continue to be the preferred Java implementation for a long time to come, and people won't likely know or care if any particular Java code works on the open implementation, as long as it works on Sun's.
You've provided no credible arguments as to why Sun would be safe from Microsoft's campaign against Java. Current market strength is a reflection of wh
You can't be serious, the value of DB2 probably far exceeds the value of the entire company Sun. Not to mention the fact that the database software is a major reason for buying IBM hardware and services in the first place. Think Dell selling cheapo wintel Xeon servers with free bonus Open DB2. What company would give away an asset worth billions and billions of dollars to their competitors?
I'm quite serious, though I'd be somewhat surprised if IBM would actually suggest it. Perhaps DB2 is worth billions to IBM, but it's hardly their only source of income. IBM could survive just fine without it. Meanwhile, Microsoft has $50 billion in cash reserves. IBM has an enormous investment in Linux and Java, and really, really doesn't want Microsoft to be pulling all the strings. In the short term, the potential loss of DB2 income might be a disincentive, but in the long term, it might be a brilliant, visionary strategic move -- if it helps to level the playing field and prevent Microsoft from establishing the hegemony they've always envisioned.
I stopped reading at "while the world settles on C# instead of Java, as with X11 and NeWS?" Please tell me how this analogy works when C# isn't open like X11 was; at all. In fact java is way more open than C#. What a terrible analogy to base your whole argument on.
The reason why X11 clobbered NeWS was because it was free and open. C# could end up clobbering Java also -- because of Microsoft's monopoly, embrace and extend tactics, network effects, etc. I never said the situations were comparable in all aspects.
The point was this -- in both cases, Sun had a competitive product, which by all rights should be the more appealing alternative. But Sun's control deathgrip on NeWS killed it, just as their grip on Java is damaging it, and may ultimately kill it.
The strength of Sun's competition comes from different sources in these examples, but that's irrelevant. Both situations share one key point in common -- Sun could have made both NeWS and Java much more appealing by making them completely free and open, yet refused to do so.
If Sun had learned their lesson from NeWS, they would have turned Java free by now. They haven't learned, which was my entire point. By focusing on the vast (and irrelevant) difference between X11 and C#, you missed the point, which was about the great similarity between NeWS and Java, Sun's behavior with regard to maintain control, and the impact that behavior can have.
The Chevy Nova (no-go in Spanish) taught them all :)
Yes, it's a great cautionary tale, supposedly repeated in many marketing textbooks. Too bad it isn't true.