If they can sell that to professionals and corporations, selling the same to J Random 14 year old shouldn't be a challenge.
You're comparing corporations and professionals to 14 year olds when it comes to knowledge of these systems? That's a terrible insult--to the 14 year old.
People will inevitably spray-paint it. Won't it be ruined quickly?
The University of Virginia, in the very same town, already has something similar to the free speech monument.
I'm referring to Beta Bridge. No chalk here--just paint. Beta Bridge works because it takes *effort* to post there. You have to paint a fairly large surface, and you have to guard your work all night to make sure nobody paints over it. IIRC, it's an unwritten rule that you don't paint after Sun-up. The bridge is nominally controlled by the adjacent Delta Upsilon fraternity house, and you also need to put "Thx DU" somewhere in your work.
I won't go into the history of why people are allowed to paint this bridge, or why DU controls Beta's bridge, but it's quite a colorful story and it ought to be available online somwhere.
At the time the SCSL was introduced, they were still licensing Solaris. Historicly, they weren't exactly open with their Java code either. It just so happened that Sun sells enough hardware and other services that it made sense for them to support OSI compliant licenses. Sun wanted to divide the cake and eat both pieces. They realized they couldn't do that, so they decided to eat the hardware/service piece.
So, if you want Windows source just wait. MS appears to be trying to move towards hardware with Xbox, and towards services with.Net. At some point, MS may end up being more like Sun or IBM, and then it will actually make sense for them to release source in an OSI compliant manner. Desktop operating systems will probably have to be totally commoditized first, and MSFT will have to totally shift its business model away from shrink-wrapped licensing, but stranger things have happened. Those guys aren't dumb. They realize the clock is ticking on their business no matter what.
I guess mindless bashing works better for you.
I usually don't say this, because I think it's pretentious; but I just have to say it: ad hominem.
Remember Sun's Community Source License? No? Good reason. It was just a lame attempt to respond to the Open Source threat.
The funny thing is that Shared Source, if shared-source.com is to be believed, is worse than source code licenses that MS has used in the past. I'm referring to MFC. There was no prohibition against fixing bugs in MFC and incorporating them into your code. As far as I know, there was no prohibition against telling people how to fix bugs in MFC either. In fact, one of MS's fixes for an MFC bug actually told the user to change the source and rebuild it (although there were several alternatives, and that was listed as the least preferable).
The MFC case just demonstrates that MS, like any other company, will release source to the degree that it makes sense. It just so happens that at this point in time, it doesn't make sense for MS to loosen up their source very much. Let's face it. How many of us, sitting on such a cash cow, would release source?
I'm not suggesting that MS should go OSI compliant. That would be foolish for them. However, it might be a good idea if they made sources available to anyone who wanted them, and made it legal to distribute patches. This kind of distribution doesn't hurt the bottom line of book publishers, who's "source" is naturally open to all. Distributing patches would be analogous to writing reviews. Copyright law is strong enough to protect book publishers, and it would be strong enough to protect MS too.
Can you imagine a world where al cars were unsafe at any speed because you could only buy Fords?
Sure I can, but what does that have to do with the situation on the PC? I can buy all kinds of desktop operating systems for the PC. It just so happens that I don't like any of the others very much. Notice I said *desktop*. When it comes to servers, I think *NIX rules. It just so happens that a lot of other people feel the same way.
This is true now, and it was true during the anti-trust case. The judge was full of s*** when he defined a "PC" so as to exclude Macintosh computers. How is an iMac not a "Personal Computer"? The only way it isn't is if you're trying to slam MS.
As for Netscape, they made a headlight for the model-T. Then when Ford started making their own headlights Netscape got all pissy. Nevermind that Ford's factory-made headlights are brighter.
Yes he did. He invented the $5 day (much more than the average worker made at that time) and he invented the car that was cheap enough to be driven by the factory workers who made it.
This all depends on how you define "invention". Mundie explained that, but a lot of people on Slashdot didn't want to hear it. Sure, Ford didn't hold patents on Vulcanization, the Otto cycle, or planetary gears but he put all of those things together in a unique and innovative way. "Invention" as most people see it, and as Mundie explained, is just one step on the road to successful and enjoyable products for end-users.
Oh cool! Bruce Perens. I've been waiting for... oh... wait a second. Your user # is really low. You must be the real Bruce Perens. Do you know where the imposter is? I want his autograph.
...let me just say that anybody who cheats "How Things Work" probably doesn't deserve to be at UVa in the first place. I could not take that course, because I was an EE. The course was considered both redundant and overly simplified for engineering majors.
However, I would be really surprised if even the most hung-over College of Arts and Science people couldn't at least pull a "gentleman's C" in that course. It's reputation was on par with other offerings such as "Cinema as an art form" and "History of Jazz", aka "History of Guts" if you catch my drift.
The other thing that non-Wahoos may not have picked up from the article is that there is a "single sanction" honor code at UVa. If you are convicted of cheating, you are expelled. There is no other punishment for "honor violations". The system has been criticized for inflicting its penalty disproportionatly on minorities. The flip side of that is that affirmative action programs encouraged people to enter UVa when they were not prepared. These are the people who will feel most pressured to cheat.
Of course, that was the way things stood when I graduated eight years ago. I'm sure some aspects of this are different now. OK, probably not, but one can hope.
And let me see, you're *complaining* that Stallman *only* got as far as writing[software listed]
As individual achievements they are outstanding. As a team effort under his leadership they are short of the original goal. That's what I meant to say.
OK, I'm done with this for now. Goodnight everybody.
It should be self-evident that "copyleft" is the use of copyright (the institution) to advance the cause of a community that operates according to a more socialist economic principle.
Tracing evidence could become a full time job, but interesting little tidbits come to light now and then:
Example 1. It's long. Use your browser search function for "1%" (without the quotes) and you'll see that they are seeking taxation to fund themselves. It doesn't implicate RMS directly, just his close associates.
I just dug that up in a google search looking for information about RMS in Argentina. I had seen someone on/. saying that RMS had lobbied Argentina's government for the passage of a "Free Software only" policy. A requirement that major governments use Free Software is an obvious step on the road to socializing software. The next step is that the government will be maintaining the software. At this point, many people say that it's OK because the government doesn't have to release the software, but the political reality is that they will have to release it. Just like magic, the government will hold a defacto monopoly on software development because the existance of Free Software developed by the government will drive competition from the market. This is textbook socialism, with all its attendant problems, and it is occuring with very little debate because the public at large doesn't understand what's going on.
OK, I'll bite. First, I was going for "Funny". You plainly aren't, so I'll stay in a serious mode.
Some people read what he writes, but the words go in one ear and out the other.
The implication here is that I don't understand or comprehend RMS. My contention is simply that I understand him in a way that is different from the way you understand him.
If you actually think that RMS exists only to correct people on their usage of Linux vs. GNU/Linux, then you're dead wrong.
No, that's not what I think. It was humor.
Long after all of the c00l d00dz that use linux have abandoned the idea of Free software in favor of software that brings the platform users and bastardizes it for corporate interests, RMS will still be standing there with the GPL.
Almost certainly true. I would be very surprised if RMS didn't hold his postion for the rest of his life. OTOH, what you see as "bastardiz[ing] for corporate interests" others see as progress. Because RMS operates in a world of technology, people often lose sight of the fact that he is really just another Leftist. When you peal away the mystique of computing from all this, it's really just Republicans and Democrats going at it like they always do.
And you know what? People can flame all they want, but LOOK AT THE RESULTS HE'S GOTTEN. Go to ftp.gnu.org and tell me if that isn't one of the finest collections of software anywhere, free as in beer, free as in speech, or otherwise.
He started to write a complete OS in the mid 80s. He wrote a C-compiler, and a text editor bloated with a Lisp interpreter. He hacked some *NIX tools, much of them written by others. He would be largely forgotten if the McArthur Foundation hadn't given him a grant that allowed him to devote more time to the project. Where do you think the Foundation got it's money? I'll tell you where--"evil" capitalism, that's where. Even with the grant, his system would still be nowhere without Linus. In return for this, RMS insults Linus by comparing him to Han Solo (not enough revolutionary purity in Linus).
It's fun to chip away at a pillar of the community while you don't understand that the pillars are what hold the community up.
RMS's vision of community is about subverting the institutions of US democracy in order to advance the cause of socialism. At this point, many people (especially moderators) have thought I was joking. How does that go? First they laugh...
I am firmly convinced that when history is written, RMS will be compared to Eugene Debs, or possibly Upton Sinclair. His contributions to politics are in many ways more noteworthy than his contributions to computer science. Indeed, Sinclair "aimed for the heart and hit the stomach". RMS aimed for the mouth and hit the wallet. Such is the way of socialism in the US--it just doesn't play here like it does in Europe. Thank God.
I'm probably leaving out something. Anybody wanna help? Come-on, we can replace RMS and his lawyer with a Perl script. I just started playing around with Perl this week. I bet a real guru could implement a complete RMS in one or two lines.
The OS is coming to a maturity and MS is going through a middle-aged crisis. With Win2K, there really isn't a *need* to upgrade anymore. Its stable and simple refinement is all that it needs. So now we are bound to see useless things like 3D GUIs and 3 year licenses.
The automobile is coming to a maturity and GM is going through a mddle-aged crisis. With the '32 Chevy there really isn't a *need* to go any faster. It handles reasonably well and simple refinements are all that it needs. So we are bound to see useless things like tailfins and 3 year leases.
If I'm using Windows, or another "alternative" OS like BeOS, *BSD or *LINUX, why would I want to switch?
Can anybody explain why this would be of interest to anyone other than OS/2 people looking to upgrade?
Don't get me wrong. I'm happy for the OS/2 people, and I'm glad to see diversity in the OS market. I just don't see what the advantage is over another OS. Any OS/2 fans wanna pitch it?
Many people talk about "contamination". For example, they will say things like, "if you are writing a compiler you cannot look at the source for gcc because it will contaminate you and you might later be held liable for GPL violation".
I'm inclined to believe that this is FUD on the part of the Free Software community designed to make proprietary developers overly shy about getting ideas from other people's sources and/or to convince them that they need to GPL their work if they get ideas from GPL'd works.
Unless your work can be shown to be plainly derivative of the GPL'd work, I find it hard to imagine that there could be any legitimate claim of "contamination".
As a non-programming example, let me cite the recent "The Wind Done Gone" case. This was a violation of "Gone With The Wind" copyright because it used characters and places from GWTW. However, if the author had simply written a Southern novel, or made passing reference to Tara, or even done a parody of GWTW it would have been OK. In the case of a parody, the author would have certainly read all of GWTW but the parody would be considered a separate work.
Likewise, if I read all the source for gcc, but create a totally different compiler from scratch using compiler algorithms that are generally known, and have a complete understanding of the working of the compiler as an independant work, and do not do any cut-n-paste from gcc, I don't see how any charge of "contamination" can be levied.
Also, I have never heard of "contamination" in music, film, or other intellectual persuits. Except of course that there are limits on "sampling" which is analogous to cut-n-paste.
As a side note, how do you feel about copyrights on "snippets". For example, some people have tried to pass off Duff's Device as GPL, when the original USENET correspondance made no mention of GPL.
I'm of the opinion that code less than a certain length shouldn't be copyrighted, but placed in the public domain. However, *can* such short code be copyrighted? Is there any precedent in music (such as copyrighted "riffs") or film (such as attempts to copyright a camera technique, e.g., the "Matrix" pan).
The FCC and other government institutions are always going to have a hand in anything that scatters signal at RF.
My bet is on optical line-of-sight being developed by companies like Terabeam. OK, right now it's expensive technology only practical for corporate customers. So were computers 30 years ago.
The advantage of LOS technology is that there is no shared spectrum, and therefore no legitimate need to regulate. The only people who might want to regulate it are neighborhood associations, for aesthetic reasons. However, most of them have accepted satellite dishes so a well designed optical LOS transceiver should pass also.
Regardless of who or how, the problem will be solved. One day, people will pay only the cost of the transceiver, and they will get free internet, phone, you name it. I told this to my Dad, who owns stock in the phone company and it made him a bit nervous. I told him not to sell yet, but in 20 to 30 years you might not want to be holding stock in any of the companies that sell bandwidth.
Yes, and look what you get. Starships that can go faster than light, but there are no seatbelts in them so whenever they crash on some planet people get injured or even killed by simple impact injuries.
Then there's the holodecks. Every other episode some program goes wild and they can't control it. It seems like kill -9 wasn't maintained in Starfleet OS. A lot of good Open Source did them.
I just got through reading Mundie's comments all the way through. I found little if anything with which to disagree.
"Having multiple vendors competing to offer us the best product at the lowest price is worse than having one vendor who can sell the product to us at monopoly prices."
You are looking at things through Slashdot colored glasses. Mundie wasn't referring to monopoly vendors or even competing vendors offering products implementing the same standard. He was referring to competing vendors all trying to push slightly different standards, with no clear winner. Interoperability is a costly problem. Transferring files between Macs and PCs causes problems all the time, and that's just two platforms.
Most importantly, Mundie stood up for independant developers. There is one fault I can find here. I think reducing or eliminating the cost of MS development tools would be much more beneficial to independant developers than revealing source. I would much rather get MSVC 7.0 for the price of the CD than look at source code that belongs to MS.
And that is called competition, which is a very very bad thing.
Well, if you want to extend the analogy, it's also called a violation of the minimum wage laws. Where is the Department of Labor when we really need them?
Microsoft doesn't like the GPL because it doesn't allow them to steal others work without contributing anything back, and allowing their customers the same freedom to do with the software what they please.
<SARCASM>But "stealing" people's IP doesn't hurt them. They still have it. I know because the Napsterites told me so.</SARCASM>
Slashdot Mirror
If they can sell that to professionals and corporations, selling the same to J Random 14 year old shouldn't be a challenge.
You're comparing corporations and professionals to 14 year olds when it comes to knowledge of these systems? That's a terrible insult--to the 14 year old.
You mixed ESPN and baseball with Slashdot. Whooda thunk it? Jocks and Geeks, laughing together?!?! What will Katz have to say about this?
Here is what happens when people decide to get controversial with it.
OK, enough of this. Just do what I did. Use Google.
People will inevitably spray-paint it. Won't it be ruined quickly?
The University of Virginia, in the very same town, already has something similar to the free speech monument.
I'm referring to Beta Bridge. No chalk here--just paint. Beta Bridge works because it takes *effort* to post there. You have to paint a fairly large surface, and you have to guard your work all night to make sure nobody paints over it. IIRC, it's an unwritten rule that you don't paint after Sun-up. The bridge is nominally controlled by the adjacent Delta Upsilon fraternity house, and you also need to put "Thx DU" somewhere in your work.
I won't go into the history of why people are allowed to paint this bridge, or why DU controls Beta's bridge, but it's quite a colorful story and it ought to be available online somwhere.
how exactly is Sun threatened by Open Source
At the time the SCSL was introduced, they were still licensing Solaris. Historicly, they weren't exactly open with their Java code either. It just so happened that Sun sells enough hardware and other services that it made sense for them to support OSI compliant licenses. Sun wanted to divide the cake and eat both pieces. They realized they couldn't do that, so they decided to eat the hardware/service piece.
So, if you want Windows source just wait. MS appears to be trying to move towards hardware with Xbox, and towards services with .Net. At some point, MS may end up being more like Sun or IBM, and then it will actually make sense for them to release source in an OSI compliant manner. Desktop operating systems will probably have to be totally commoditized first, and MSFT will have to totally shift its business model away from shrink-wrapped licensing, but stranger things have happened. Those guys aren't dumb. They realize the clock is ticking on their business no matter what.
I guess mindless bashing works better for you.
I usually don't say this, because I think it's pretentious; but I just have to say it: ad hominem.
Remember Sun's Community Source License? No? Good reason. It was just a lame attempt to respond to the Open Source threat.
The funny thing is that Shared Source, if shared-source.com is to be believed, is worse than source code licenses that MS has used in the past. I'm referring to MFC. There was no prohibition against fixing bugs in MFC and incorporating them into your code. As far as I know, there was no prohibition against telling people how to fix bugs in MFC either. In fact, one of MS's fixes for an MFC bug actually told the user to change the source and rebuild it (although there were several alternatives, and that was listed as the least preferable).
The MFC case just demonstrates that MS, like any other company, will release source to the degree that it makes sense. It just so happens that at this point in time, it doesn't make sense for MS to loosen up their source very much. Let's face it. How many of us, sitting on such a cash cow, would release source?
I'm not suggesting that MS should go OSI compliant. That would be foolish for them. However, it might be a good idea if they made sources available to anyone who wanted them, and made it legal to distribute patches. This kind of distribution doesn't hurt the bottom line of book publishers, who's "source" is naturally open to all. Distributing patches would be analogous to writing reviews. Copyright law is strong enough to protect book publishers, and it would be strong enough to protect MS too.
Can you imagine a world where al cars were unsafe at any speed because you could only buy Fords?
Sure I can, but what does that have to do with the situation on the PC? I can buy all kinds of desktop operating systems for the PC. It just so happens that I don't like any of the others very much. Notice I said *desktop*. When it comes to servers, I think *NIX rules. It just so happens that a lot of other people feel the same way.
This is true now, and it was true during the anti-trust case. The judge was full of s*** when he defined a "PC" so as to exclude Macintosh computers. How is an iMac not a "Personal Computer"? The only way it isn't is if you're trying to slam MS.
As for Netscape, they made a headlight for the model-T. Then when Ford started making their own headlights Netscape got all pissy. Nevermind that Ford's factory-made headlights are brighter.
Ford didn't invent anything
Yes he did. He invented the $5 day (much more than the average worker made at that time) and he invented the car that was cheap enough to be driven by the factory workers who made it.
This all depends on how you define "invention". Mundie explained that, but a lot of people on Slashdot didn't want to hear it. Sure, Ford didn't hold patents on Vulcanization, the Otto cycle, or planetary gears but he put all of those things together in a unique and innovative way. "Invention" as most people see it, and as Mundie explained, is just one step on the road to successful and enjoyable products for end-users.
Oh cool! Bruce Perens. I've been waiting for... oh... wait a second. Your user # is really low. You must be the real Bruce Perens. Do you know where the imposter is? I want his autograph.
>>"Microsoft, it's time for you to join us."
>What they really meant to say was:
[snip]
No, what they really meant to say was "resistance is futile". The irony of the Borg icon strikes again.
That's Right.
All your gravitational forces are belong to us!
...let me just say that anybody who cheats "How Things Work" probably doesn't deserve to be at UVa in the first place. I could not take that course, because I was an EE. The course was considered both redundant and overly simplified for engineering majors.
However, I would be really surprised if even the most hung-over College of Arts and Science people couldn't at least pull a "gentleman's C" in that course. It's reputation was on par with other offerings such as "Cinema as an art form" and "History of Jazz", aka "History of Guts" if you catch my drift.
The other thing that non-Wahoos may not have picked up from the article is that there is a "single sanction" honor code at UVa. If you are convicted of cheating, you are expelled. There is no other punishment for "honor violations". The system has been criticized for inflicting its penalty disproportionatly on minorities. The flip side of that is that affirmative action programs encouraged people to enter UVa when they were not prepared. These are the people who will feel most pressured to cheat.
Of course, that was the way things stood when I graduated eight years ago. I'm sure some aspects of this are different now. OK, probably not, but one can hope.
And let me see, you're *complaining* that Stallman *only* got as far as writing[software listed]
As individual achievements they are outstanding. As a team effort under his leadership they are short of the original goal. That's what I meant to say.
OK, I'm done with this for now. Goodnight everybody.
Please cite evidence
It should be self-evident that "copyleft" is the use of copyright (the institution) to advance the cause of a community that operates according to a more socialist economic principle.
Tracing evidence could become a full time job, but interesting little tidbits come to light now and then:
Example 1. It's long. Use your browser search function for "1%" (without the quotes) and you'll see that they are seeking taxation to fund themselves. It doesn't implicate RMS directly, just his close associates.
I just dug that up in a google search looking for information about RMS in Argentina. I had seen someone on /. saying that RMS had lobbied Argentina's government for the passage of a "Free Software only" policy. A requirement that major governments use Free Software is an obvious step on the road to socializing software. The next step is that the government will be maintaining the software. At this point, many people say that it's OK because the government doesn't have to release the software, but the political reality is that they will have to release it. Just like magic, the government will hold a defacto monopoly on software development because the existance of Free Software developed by the government will drive competition from the market. This is textbook socialism, with all its attendant problems, and it is occuring with very little debate because the public at large doesn't understand what's going on.
OK, I'll bite. First, I was going for "Funny". You plainly aren't, so I'll stay in a serious mode.
Some people read what he writes, but the words go in one ear and out the other.
The implication here is that I don't understand or comprehend RMS. My contention is simply that I understand him in a way that is different from the way you understand him.
If you actually think that RMS exists only to correct people on their usage of Linux vs. GNU/Linux, then you're dead wrong.
No, that's not what I think. It was humor.
Long after all of the c00l d00dz that use linux have abandoned the idea of Free software in favor of software that brings the platform users and bastardizes it for corporate interests, RMS will still be standing there with the GPL.
Almost certainly true. I would be very surprised if RMS didn't hold his postion for the rest of his life. OTOH, what you see as "bastardiz[ing] for corporate interests" others see as progress. Because RMS operates in a world of technology, people often lose sight of the fact that he is really just another Leftist. When you peal away the mystique of computing from all this, it's really just Republicans and Democrats going at it like they always do.
And you know what? People can flame all they want, but LOOK AT THE RESULTS HE'S GOTTEN. Go to ftp.gnu.org and tell me if that isn't one of the finest collections of software anywhere, free as in beer, free as in speech, or otherwise.
He started to write a complete OS in the mid 80s. He wrote a C-compiler, and a text editor bloated with a Lisp interpreter. He hacked some *NIX tools, much of them written by others. He would be largely forgotten if the McArthur Foundation hadn't given him a grant that allowed him to devote more time to the project. Where do you think the Foundation got it's money? I'll tell you where--"evil" capitalism, that's where. Even with the grant, his system would still be nowhere without Linus. In return for this, RMS insults Linus by comparing him to Han Solo (not enough revolutionary purity in Linus).
It's fun to chip away at a pillar of the community while you don't understand that the pillars are what hold the community up.
RMS's vision of community is about subverting the institutions of US democracy in order to advance the cause of socialism. At this point, many people (especially moderators) have thought I was joking. How does that go? First they laugh...
I am firmly convinced that when history is written, RMS will be compared to Eugene Debs, or possibly Upton Sinclair. His contributions to politics are in many ways more noteworthy than his contributions to computer science. Indeed, Sinclair "aimed for the heart and hit the stomach". RMS aimed for the mouth and hit the wallet. Such is the way of socialism in the US--it just doesn't play here like it does in Europe. Thank God.
perl -e 's/Open Source/Free Software/gi' -p -i.bak *.html
perl -e 's/Linux/GNU\/Linux/gi' -p -i.bak *.html
I'm probably leaving out something. Anybody wanna help? Come-on, we can replace RMS and his lawyer with a Perl script. I just started playing around with Perl this week. I bet a real guru could implement a complete RMS in one or two lines.
The OS is coming to a maturity and MS is going through a middle-aged crisis. With Win2K, there really isn't a *need* to upgrade anymore. Its stable and simple refinement is all that it needs. So now we are bound to see useless things like 3D GUIs and 3 year licenses.
The automobile is coming to a maturity and GM is going through a mddle-aged crisis. With the '32 Chevy there really isn't a *need* to go any faster. It handles reasonably well and simple refinements are all that it needs. So we are bound to see useless things like tailfins and 3 year leases.
...according to the price sheet eCS Standard is $279.00.
If I'm using Windows, or another "alternative" OS like BeOS, *BSD or *LINUX, why would I want to switch?
Can anybody explain why this would be of interest to anyone other than OS/2 people looking to upgrade?
Don't get me wrong. I'm happy for the OS/2 people, and I'm glad to see diversity in the OS market. I just don't see what the advantage is over another OS. Any OS/2 fans wanna pitch it?
Many people talk about "contamination". For example, they will say things like, "if you are writing a compiler you cannot look at the source for gcc because it will contaminate you and you might later be held liable for GPL violation".
I'm inclined to believe that this is FUD on the part of the Free Software community designed to make proprietary developers overly shy about getting ideas from other people's sources and/or to convince them that they need to GPL their work if they get ideas from GPL'd works.
Unless your work can be shown to be plainly derivative of the GPL'd work, I find it hard to imagine that there could be any legitimate claim of "contamination".
As a non-programming example, let me cite the recent "The Wind Done Gone" case. This was a violation of "Gone With The Wind" copyright because it used characters and places from GWTW. However, if the author had simply written a Southern novel, or made passing reference to Tara, or even done a parody of GWTW it would have been OK. In the case of a parody, the author would have certainly read all of GWTW but the parody would be considered a separate work.
Likewise, if I read all the source for gcc, but create a totally different compiler from scratch using compiler algorithms that are generally known, and have a complete understanding of the working of the compiler as an independant work, and do not do any cut-n-paste from gcc, I don't see how any charge of "contamination" can be levied.
Also, I have never heard of "contamination" in music, film, or other intellectual persuits. Except of course that there are limits on "sampling" which is analogous to cut-n-paste.
As a side note, how do you feel about copyrights on "snippets". For example, some people have tried to pass off Duff's Device as GPL, when the original USENET correspondance made no mention of GPL.
I'm of the opinion that code less than a certain length shouldn't be copyrighted, but placed in the public domain. However, *can* such short code be copyrighted? Is there any precedent in music (such as copyrighted "riffs") or film (such as attempts to copyright a camera technique, e.g., the "Matrix" pan).
How about reporting news without inserting redundant pokes at certain software simply for the shock/sarcasm/controversy value?
Umm... because then the audience wouldn't eat it up?
The FCC and other government institutions are always going to have a hand in anything that scatters signal at RF.
My bet is on optical line-of-sight being developed by companies like Terabeam. OK, right now it's expensive technology only practical for corporate customers. So were computers 30 years ago.
The advantage of LOS technology is that there is no shared spectrum, and therefore no legitimate need to regulate. The only people who might want to regulate it are neighborhood associations, for aesthetic reasons. However, most of them have accepted satellite dishes so a well designed optical LOS transceiver should pass also.
Regardless of who or how, the problem will be solved. One day, people will pay only the cost of the transceiver, and they will get free internet, phone, you name it. I told this to my Dad, who owns stock in the phone company and it made him a bit nervous. I told him not to sell yet, but in 20 to 30 years you might not want to be holding stock in any of the companies that sell bandwidth.
Yes, and look what you get. Starships that can go faster than light, but there are no seatbelts in them so whenever they crash on some planet people get injured or even killed by simple impact injuries.
Then there's the holodecks. Every other episode some program goes wild and they can't control it. It seems like kill -9 wasn't maintained in Starfleet OS. A lot of good Open Source did them.
I just got through reading Mundie's comments all the way through. I found little if anything with which to disagree.
"Having multiple vendors competing to offer us the best product at the lowest price is worse than having one vendor who can sell the product to us at monopoly prices."
You are looking at things through Slashdot colored glasses. Mundie wasn't referring to monopoly vendors or even competing vendors offering products implementing the same standard. He was referring to competing vendors all trying to push slightly different standards, with no clear winner. Interoperability is a costly problem. Transferring files between Macs and PCs causes problems all the time, and that's just two platforms.
Most importantly, Mundie stood up for independant developers. There is one fault I can find here. I think reducing or eliminating the cost of MS development tools would be much more beneficial to independant developers than revealing source. I would much rather get MSVC 7.0 for the price of the CD than look at source code that belongs to MS.
And that is called competition, which is a very very bad thing.
Well, if you want to extend the analogy, it's also called a violation of the minimum wage laws. Where is the Department of Labor when we really need them?
Microsoft doesn't like the GPL because it doesn't allow them to steal others work without contributing anything back, and allowing their customers the same freedom to do with the software what they please.
<SARCASM>But "stealing" people's IP doesn't hurt them. They still have it. I know because the Napsterites told me so.</SARCASM>