My mother bought a Tosh about four months ago. She came and visited me to help her configure the notebook.
When she arrived I wiped her disk and installed my Windows XP Professional (Linux would have been too much for her). So I am happily installing. GUESS what at the end of the install three of four things do NOT work. I could tweak till the cows came home NOTHING, NADA. I thought it was a buggy machine.
Then I thought, lets play this game and install the DVD. Took about an hour and volia EVERYTHING works. In others words TOSH even with the same operating system did a REAL custom build. There are drivers that only work with "their build" of Windows XP. The drivers could not be manually installed. REALLY CRAPPY...
Result? I WILL NEVER EVER again buy a TOSH. These guys make Apple look like an Open System.
Now lets do the math. Assuming you have hosting costs, Internet transfer costs would run in the order of about 1K per month, which is 12K.
So now you are left with 48K USD. You need a machine to host, so most likely you will use a providers machine (fail over, etc). That will cost you another 199 USD per month, which is 1200 USD per year.
Now you are left with 46.8K USD. Next you will probably run your own company and you need to pay health care, and other little office costs. Lets say that it runs up in the order of about 1K per month, which is 12K.
Now you are left with 34K USD where you still have to pay taxes. You will probably have to pay 5K, which means you are left over with 29K, or after all is done and said you get 2,410 USD per month.
You want to feed yourself on THAT? Come on you have got to be kidding yourself.
Being cynical, this is exactly why the dot.com's failed. NO business plan...
It is not to say that your idea is bad. But 12 USD per year is not a reasonable fee. The reasonable fee would have to be calculated....
I am not saying who should vote and who does not. I am saying it should be a pure democracy. The problem in a democracy with many people is that the single voice is drowned out. That is not good.
The way I see things is that the states should have their power back again. The states are smaller and represent the individual people better. The federal government should only deal with "higher" level issues such as defense, currency, interest rates, etc. The state and county level should deal with education, health insurance, etc, etc, etc.
I even wonder if the founding fathers would like how much powers the federal has now. Because if I remember correctly the states had more power at the founding of the United States of America. The civil war ursurped much of that power...
Well, I think the system is broken. Will people get off their butts? Not likely because they know that they cannot make a difference.
Here is the main problem. You have about 120 million people who could vote. Lets say only 50% vote. You still have 60 million who are voting. Will your vote make a difference? NOT A CHANCE. With those odds you would probably sooner win the lottery.
The main problem is that there are too many people voting. I am not saying that there should not be voting, but something has to happen to bring the power back to the people.
That is the problem of many democracies these days... That is why I am in favour of a pure democracy like Switzerland. The power needs to go back to the people. We have too many "professional" politicians.
You know what... You are in the minority... Seriously I do exactly what you do. But when I speak to other Linux users at conferences and the likes people's expression change.
They look at my tools and say, wow, cool. I say, yupe, but it costs. At that point many just say, yeah, tool X is good enough for me.
What I see is that those that are on Windows and MacOSX tend to be people who can be coaxed to cough up money. (But then again I also use Windows with Linux). People on Linux, tend not to want to pay money. Just my observation.
Ok, so why are you not using Windows or MacOSX? Because in essence that is what you are arguing. People are using LINUX and other pieces of the software because they are TOO cheap to pay for Windows. Sure some folks say it is for other reasons. AND if you are paying for Windows or MacOSX then why would you use the software in question? Because there are already pay for software variants that do that job quite well.
My point with Open Source is that it is essentially impossible to make money selling software. People want things for free and think twice or three times before laying out the money.
While you point it out, people do not in general calculate their time because it is fun for them. The only place where time is calculated is in corporate settings.
Hence while I wish the guy luck, I am skeptical about charging for an easy to use installer. If there is a need them somebody will create an installer for free....
Ok, I am going to sound like a troll here. But in Open Source essentially there is no way to make money by selling the software. Even with an easy to use installer.
Lets put it this way. If I had the ability to pay nothing or a something and the difference was an installer then I would pay nothing.
I was at OSCON last week and heard Tim OReilly talk about the three C's. (Commodization of software, User Customizable Systems, Network Enabled Collaboration) Essentially the commodization provided by Open Source will kill off software sales. An example of the REAL winners of Open Source Tim mentioned; UUNet, BIND, SendMail, and companies like Google, Amazon. All of these companies promote Open Source without actually selling the product.
So I guess the idea with yours would be how to sell services or added value. For example, your sync software could provide a service where all packages to be installed are available. EG you could host X thousand projects that are referenced by your sync software. For a small monthly fee or one off fee I could use your service to install applications.
I think not. The current administration has too many issues on its plate. This time, I am almost willing to bet MS will be the scapegoat.
Think about it. We need ourselves a whipping boy! Oh yeah here's one, especially since they are planning to ship good old American jobs to another country, even with 50 billion in the bank....
I think a politician will be thinking mighty hard right now!!!
Want conspiracy theories... Two days ago we hear about this India thing and how they have 50 billion in the bank. Today we hear that they are not following the law... HMMMM.....
Having read multiple papers and the likes. I am thinking that the GPL while people think can be enforced is not enforceable. The LGPL is another story.
The problem that I see, especially with the SCO vs IBM case coming up, is what constitutes a derivative piece of software. I am even thinking that the viral nature of the GPL might not even be enforceable.
I think it really depends on the law and the interpretation. Interestingly enough though in the German courts it can be asked that an interpretation be defined.
English is not my best language? Next time leave the snide remarks aside!
The problem here is that what you consider as obvious is not obvious in a court of law. You consider that sockets, ports, etc as obivously not violating the GPL.
I got news for you bub! The court of law has not determined what derived is and not is. Why? Because the question to be determined what is defined to be a derivative piece of work and not.
That is the question that needs to be answered. And in the German Legal paper it raises this as a not to be underestimated issue.
Think about this in legal terms and NOT technical terms. In legal terms you have just said to me that connecting MySQL via ODBC is not a violation of the GPL. However I have created a dependency between two applications. Neither can live without the other. Ok you say it is because it is a neutral interface, which means the MySQL database could be replaced with any other database.
Ok that issue has been clarified. Now lets try another example. There is a neutral library that is integrated into the application. Oh now there is a GPL violation. Why because it has been integrated by linking. But what is linking in legal terms? It is the creation of a dependency between two different applications. The techie says, it is two different types of linking. Legally though how can a difference be made? Because in the ODBC example there is a linking as well?
We can talk about this till the cows come home.
The problems are not my communication skills, but the fact that you are seeing things as a techie and not as a lawyer. And this is what I am trying to highlight.
And what I am trying to highlight is that even though you think you are right, it might not be applicable in another court of law.
Regarding the integration of GPL'd software. Here is where the courts have not decided.
Look at it as follows. Lets say I use MySQL from ODBC. Am I violating the GPL? The courts would say no because the ODBC connection to the software is generic and could be replaced by any other software.
Ok so now we have an exception to the GPL. Lets move this discussion a bit further. Lets say there is a generic piece of software that implements functionality already available in other pieces. Now comes the question if this piece of software is GPL'd and integrated does it mean that your software is also GPL'd? Looking at the case provided by the MySQL example the answer would be NO. This means so long as the GPL software is generic in nature and could be replaced with something else the GPL cannot be enforced.
Now you may be arguing, NO, the GPL is the GPL. Ah, well then comes the question, why is the ODBC connection different from a generic interface? And if a generic interface is GPL'd then ODBC must be GPL'd. Then legally speaking the argument is that all software including anything that uses generic libraries such as Win32 is considered a derivative work.
Here is the legal dilemna! The exact definition of derivative work has not been defined and right now it is considered very loose. This means unlike what you are saying that so long as the software is generic I can integrate however I please.
The catch is that whatever is decided can become a vicous double edged sword. If you say GPL is GPL then SCO has won its case. If not then SCO looses and the GPL looses as well in certain contexts.
Want a simple analogy. Consider a car. There is a part that you add to your car. It says that if you integrate the part then all parts of the car must be exposed as well. Well a law like that would never fly. Because it would mean every owner of the car parts would have to be informed and updated. Legally speaking the courts would look at this as a ludicrous rule within a contract. Remember anything can be written in a contract, but unless it has been proven it means squat. And contracts cannot supercede the law.
Well you see here is the problem. The GPL definition of derivative work is based on an American idea of what derivative work is. That might not be the same as what a German court says.
From what I gathered the term derivative work is more loose than what Americans consider derivative since general consensus in German courts have deemed it pretty loose. This means that in Germany a developer could integrate GPL software if the GPL software is generic.
Think of it as follows. Lets say a GPL piece of software provides financial calculations in the form of library. It is a generic piece of software that could be replaced by a piece of closed source. But the closed source costs money. Therefore even though GPL should apply, it does not. Why because using the reasoning of MySQL the interface is generic. If however the GPL says, nope it is specific and therefore GPL applies, then so would every OS call.
The key is, which has not been determined is what do you consider to be a derivative piece of software? The german courts have thus far said it is a pretty loose definition and hence in theory I could actually use GPL'd software in my application, so long as the GPL software is generic.
See the dilemna now? That is what the papers were raising...
While one could say, it only applies to money back, the paper from what I saw put it into a broader context.
For example lets say somebody gives you a free car. So you take that free car and you realize it is a piece of crap. Because the car is free does not free you from AGB. What it means is that somebody who gets caught with a problematic car can ask to be compensated for the problems it caused.
Now about the gross negligence, well that is what I saw the AGB was aimed at. Right now that aspect of software is not enforced, like it is in other fields. This means if it gets enforced in GPL, which the closed source people would love, I am thinking it has the boomerang effect of directly affecting the closed source people.
The AGB does not allow you to cop out like software has and has not been enforced...
Ok So I decided to read the X pages in German legal speak. (Was bored;) )
What did it say? Basically it did ask who was liable and who was not liable? From what I gathered, their reasoning is that just because the GPL exists it cannot bypass general AGB rights. AGB rights are general business conditions. Basically AGB says that if you sell me something buggy I have a right to bitch.
Ok first sure GPL has to deal with the AGB, but what about EULA's? Granted the article does not harp on this it could be the precursor. I really wonder if the supporters of this paper realized that.
Next because of the AGB conditions people who distribute the software may be liable. Likewise people who originally added something, but did not sell. In general this is part of the German AGB that exists for everybody. But again, if the German AGB really applied for software the MS and co have some serious dodo coming their way.
Did the article raise FUD? Not really. It just said things as it was. Again, I want to stress if the GPL is held to the AGB then it will be only a couple steps further for EULA. And then the lawsuits will fly because generally GPL people have no money. EULA companies do.
What I also found interesting is inspection of the GPL viral aspect. The article stated that the GPL was worded for the American Legal system, which means it does not necessarily apply to the German legal system. And the viral nature is something that is entirely vague with respect to German Law.
Consider the following. A programmer works for a company. The programmer creates a piece of software. Who owns the software? Is it the programmer or is it the company? The GPL and the German law on owner of the code conflicts here.
Also the GPL viral nature has limits. For example it is postulated that if you develop a larger piece of work and incorporate a GPL piece of work that maybe you do not need to GPL your work. The test is whether or not your application depends on that piece of software.
For example lets say that you write a database app. If you rely on MySQL using ODBC then you do not need to GPL your software. Granted this is a duh case. But the hint here is dependency. And what makes this especially dicey is the fact that software world lives in a derived world. Remember when using API's you are creating a derivative piece of work from a legal point of view.
I think it can be entirely summed up as, "THE GPL HAS NOT BEEN LEGALLY TESTED". However, what concerns me is that if the GPL is tested then so will other licenses. And that may result in things happening that maybe people did not want to happen...
When you buy a single MSDN universal, you have a single license for one developer and NOT five developers.
And when you made the comment about 70K Linux admin. Could you please add in the time that you need to administer your own network? Because otherwise it is not a fair calculation.
Ok I agree with mostly what you are saying. But maybe if politics were run like a business, just maybe we would not be in the mess that we are now!
To me running a country is the job of doing the most with the least of my money! Social programs? Yes, but not like how Europe and Canada abuse them. Universal medicare? Yes, but not like in Germany where people can go to the "kur". The basics will suffice. In a business those decisions would simply not be made...
First many have commented on the differences between a republic and a democratic system.
BUT on the issue that the population is largerly "ignorant", I HEAR SO OFTEN.
"No sir I am not ignorant, but my neighbor is. And my neighbor should not be put into the position of thinking about an issue". THAT is absolute BS! People when they know that their decision counts will make their decision count. The problem why there is the "ignorance" now is because people know that their vote does NOT matter. And people do not vote! It is that simple....
Now about not needing a system where everything is decided by the masses. Boy I am glad that you point this out. Because you are saying, "No sir I am not interested in democracy. I am more interested in facisim!" Because after all facisim is a system where only one or a few see the light and the others see a reflection of the light. OR "Yes sir I understand the issues, but my neighbor does not!"
And there is the problem! Sorry, but party leaders should actually talk to the arbitary people. What you recommend is the problem that we have today. There are lobbies that advise the advisors who then think that is how reality works. These "advisors" do not go out to meet the people. They expect the people to listen to them. Which in turn is the problem YET AGAIN, because it is elitism.
Also consider that the business world does not work this way. If you look at the REALLY good CEO's that consistently make money they do it because they listen to their customer. Tele2 (Profitable European AT&T) CEO and the IKEA CEO make it a point every year to take out time and work the "floors". In the case of the Tele2 CEO he will for a number of days work the customer support hotline. In the case of IKEA the CEO will sell you a new chair. Why? Because advisors cannot tell you everything. Advisors are people who advise you on the general lie of the situation.
Now in the case of politicians, who are their customers? The population! So to best serve the population it is absolutely vital to listen to your population. Not have some advisor state, "Well 40% of the people think X is ok and 50% of the people think Y is ok."
I live in Switzerland that has a real democracy where the people make the decisions. The politicians do the leg work and attempt to best advise the people. I am firmly convinced that this is the best way to manage a modern economy!
It does not surprise that the European Parliament is taking this attitude! We keep harping on the Americans and how they let certain laws through. The reality is that politics is not about democracy, but about people keeping themselves in power.
This is reaching almost epic proportions because the politicians think those demonstrating and calling themselves anarchists are in the minimum. I am thinking more and more, are they really in the minimum? Is the talk of anarchists not just another comment to discount opinion that does not fit into the overall scheme of things.
To give you an example consider the following. Bill Gates can have dinner with Tony Blair. Gehard Schroeder can have dinner with Juergen Schremp. When was the last time either of them had dinner with Joe and Jane from the street? Of course I mean not during voting season. This is the problem. The elite are serving the elite!
And it is getting worse everday! Open Source does not fit into the scheme of things, because Open Source is not about being elite! See there's our problem! When was the last time Tony Blair had dinner with Linus, RMS or Eric Raymond? When was the last time any politician met with any Open Source person?
One thing that this legal commentary explains is why IBM is so hush hush. Did you notice when reading the article that a large number of the arguments hinge on how the individual parties interact with the public?
I really wonder if IBM knows this and as such is keeping quiet. To show the image of the "good quiety" student.
In all seriousness? Plenty of people. That is why most middle to high end GSM phones have tri-band. Do not underestimate the number of business travellers who travel regularly from Europe to North America and back again...
I know you received the rating of flamebait. But somehow I have to agree with you. From the various commentaries that he has made I get the REAL feeling that he is actually enjoying this.
HE REALLY goes out of his way to point out that GNU does not have the problems that the LINUX kernel does. Well he is going to be REALLY surprised because SCO has made comments that they might go after the BSD's as well.
Is RMS right? I think not. If it was not LINUX, then it would have been FreeBSD, and if not that then [Fill in OS here]. Why? Because Linux has the momentum and it pisses SCO off. Essentially this is what it is about. SCO thinks they own UNIX and they are pissed that they are going to go bankrupt!
He in a way is as dangerous as SCO because he is not exactly proping up Linux or IBM! And that makes me more nervous that anything else. Because at this point in time we need to come together and focus and eradicate this problem. Not talk about how GNU will never die, BLAH, BLAH... But at least we have ESR!
Slashdot Mirror
My mother bought a Tosh about four months ago. She came and visited me to help her configure the notebook.
When she arrived I wiped her disk and installed my Windows XP Professional (Linux would have been too much for her). So I am happily installing. GUESS what at the end of the install three of four things do NOT work. I could tweak till the cows came home NOTHING, NADA. I thought it was a buggy machine.
Then I thought, lets play this game and install the DVD. Took about an hour and volia EVERYTHING works. In others words TOSH even with the same operating system did a REAL custom build. There are drivers that only work with "their build" of Windows XP. The drivers could not be manually installed. REALLY CRAPPY...
Result? I WILL NEVER EVER again buy a TOSH. These guys make Apple look like an Open System.
The original poster did talk about setting up business....
5000 people at 12 USD per year is ONLY 60,000.
Now lets do the math. Assuming you have hosting costs, Internet transfer costs would run in the order of about 1K per month, which is 12K.
So now you are left with 48K USD. You need a machine to host, so most likely you will use a providers machine (fail over, etc). That will cost you another 199 USD per month, which is 1200 USD per year.
Now you are left with 46.8K USD. Next you will probably run your own company and you need to pay health care, and other little office costs. Lets say that it runs up in the order of about 1K per month, which is 12K.
Now you are left with 34K USD where you still have to pay taxes. You will probably have to pay 5K, which means you are left over with 29K, or after all is done and said you get 2,410 USD per month.
You want to feed yourself on THAT? Come on you have got to be kidding yourself.
Being cynical, this is exactly why the dot.com's failed. NO business plan...
It is not to say that your idea is bad. But 12 USD per year is not a reasonable fee. The reasonable fee would have to be calculated....
I am not saying who should vote and who does not. I am saying it should be a pure democracy. The problem in a democracy with many people is that the single voice is drowned out. That is not good.
The way I see things is that the states should have their power back again. The states are smaller and represent the individual people better. The federal government should only deal with "higher" level issues such as defense, currency, interest rates, etc. The state and county level should deal with education, health insurance, etc, etc, etc.
I even wonder if the founding fathers would like how much powers the federal has now. Because if I remember correctly the states had more power at the founding of the United States of America. The civil war ursurped much of that power...
Well, I think the system is broken. Will people get off their butts? Not likely because they know that they cannot make a difference.
Here is the main problem. You have about 120 million people who could vote. Lets say only 50% vote. You still have 60 million who are voting. Will your vote make a difference? NOT A CHANCE. With those odds you would probably sooner win the lottery.
The main problem is that there are too many people voting. I am not saying that there should not be voting, but something has to happen to bring the power back to the people.
That is the problem of many democracies these days... That is why I am in favour of a pure democracy like Switzerland. The power needs to go back to the people. We have too many "professional" politicians.
You know what... You are in the minority... Seriously I do exactly what you do. But when I speak to other Linux users at conferences and the likes people's expression change.
They look at my tools and say, wow, cool. I say, yupe, but it costs. At that point many just say, yeah, tool X is good enough for me.
What I see is that those that are on Windows and MacOSX tend to be people who can be coaxed to cough up money. (But then again I also use Windows with Linux). People on Linux, tend not to want to pay money. Just my observation.
Playing devils advocate here....
Ok, so why are you not using Windows or MacOSX? Because in essence that is what you are arguing. People are using LINUX and other pieces of the software because they are TOO cheap to pay for Windows. Sure some folks say it is for other reasons. AND if you are paying for Windows or MacOSX then why would you use the software in question? Because there are already pay for software variants that do that job quite well.
My point with Open Source is that it is essentially impossible to make money selling software. People want things for free and think twice or three times before laying out the money.
While you point it out, people do not in general calculate their time because it is fun for them. The only place where time is calculated is in corporate settings.
Hence while I wish the guy luck, I am skeptical about charging for an easy to use installer. If there is a need them somebody will create an installer for free....
Ok, I am going to sound like a troll here. But in Open Source essentially there is no way to make money by selling the software. Even with an easy to use installer.
Lets put it this way. If I had the ability to pay nothing or a something and the difference was an installer then I would pay nothing.
I was at OSCON last week and heard Tim OReilly talk about the three C's. (Commodization of software, User Customizable Systems, Network Enabled Collaboration) Essentially the commodization provided by Open Source will kill off software sales. An example of the REAL winners of Open Source Tim mentioned; UUNet, BIND, SendMail, and companies like Google, Amazon. All of these companies promote Open Source without actually selling the product.
So I guess the idea with yours would be how to sell services or added value. For example, your sync software could provide a service where all packages to be installed are available. EG you could host X thousand projects that are referenced by your sync software. For a small monthly fee or one off fee I could use your service to install applications.
I think not. The current administration has too many issues on its plate. This time, I am almost willing to bet MS will be the scapegoat.
Think about it. We need ourselves a whipping boy! Oh yeah here's one, especially since they are planning to ship good old American jobs to another country, even with 50 billion in the bank....
I think a politician will be thinking mighty hard right now!!!
Want conspiracy theories... Two days ago we hear about this India thing and how they have 50 billion in the bank. Today we hear that they are not following the law... HMMMM.....
Having read multiple papers and the likes. I am thinking that the GPL while people think can be enforced is not enforceable. The LGPL is another story.
The problem that I see, especially with the SCO vs IBM case coming up, is what constitutes a derivative piece of software. I am even thinking that the viral nature of the GPL might not even be enforceable.
I think it really depends on the law and the interpretation. Interestingly enough though in the German courts it can be asked that an interpretation be defined.
English is not my best language? Next time leave the snide remarks aside!
The problem here is that what you consider as obvious is not obvious in a court of law. You consider that sockets, ports, etc as obivously not violating the GPL.
I got news for you bub! The court of law has not determined what derived is and not is. Why? Because the question to be determined what is defined to be a derivative piece of work and not.
That is the question that needs to be answered. And in the German Legal paper it raises this as a not to be underestimated issue.
Think about this in legal terms and NOT technical terms. In legal terms you have just said to me that connecting MySQL via ODBC is not a violation of the GPL. However I have created a dependency between two applications. Neither can live without the other. Ok you say it is because it is a neutral interface, which means the MySQL database could be replaced with any other database.
Ok that issue has been clarified. Now lets try another example. There is a neutral library that is integrated into the application. Oh now there is a GPL violation. Why because it has been integrated by linking. But what is linking in legal terms? It is the creation of a dependency between two different applications. The techie says, it is two different types of linking. Legally though how can a difference be made? Because in the ODBC example there is a linking as well?
We can talk about this till the cows come home.
The problems are not my communication skills, but the fact that you are seeing things as a techie and not as a lawyer. And this is what I am trying to highlight.
And what I am trying to highlight is that even though you think you are right, it might not be applicable in another court of law.
Regarding the integration of GPL'd software. Here is where the courts have not decided.
Look at it as follows. Lets say I use MySQL from ODBC. Am I violating the GPL? The courts would say no because the ODBC connection to the software is generic and could be replaced by any other software.
Ok so now we have an exception to the GPL. Lets move this discussion a bit further. Lets say there is a generic piece of software that implements functionality already available in other pieces. Now comes the question if this piece of software is GPL'd and integrated does it mean that your software is also GPL'd? Looking at the case provided by the MySQL example the answer would be NO. This means so long as the GPL software is generic in nature and could be replaced with something else the GPL cannot be enforced.
Now you may be arguing, NO, the GPL is the GPL. Ah, well then comes the question, why is the ODBC connection different from a generic interface? And if a generic interface is GPL'd then ODBC must be GPL'd. Then legally speaking the argument is that all software including anything that uses generic libraries such as Win32 is considered a derivative work.
Here is the legal dilemna! The exact definition of derivative work has not been defined and right now it is considered very loose. This means unlike what you are saying that so long as the software is generic I can integrate however I please.
The catch is that whatever is decided can become a vicous double edged sword. If you say GPL is GPL then SCO has won its case. If not then SCO looses and the GPL looses as well in certain contexts.
Want a simple analogy. Consider a car. There is a part that you add to your car. It says that if you integrate the part then all parts of the car must be exposed as well. Well a law like that would never fly. Because it would mean every owner of the car parts would have to be informed and updated. Legally speaking the courts would look at this as a ludicrous rule within a contract. Remember anything can be written in a contract, but unless it has been proven it means squat. And contracts cannot supercede the law.
Well you see here is the problem. The GPL definition of derivative work is based on an American idea of what derivative work is. That might not be the same as what a German court says.
From what I gathered the term derivative work is more loose than what Americans consider derivative since general consensus in German courts have deemed it pretty loose. This means that in Germany a developer could integrate GPL software if the GPL software is generic.
Think of it as follows. Lets say a GPL piece of software provides financial calculations in the form of library. It is a generic piece of software that could be replaced by a piece of closed source. But the closed source costs money. Therefore even though GPL should apply, it does not. Why because using the reasoning of MySQL the interface is generic. If however the GPL says, nope it is specific and therefore GPL applies, then so would every OS call.
The key is, which has not been determined is what do you consider to be a derivative piece of software? The german courts have thus far said it is a pretty loose definition and hence in theory I could actually use GPL'd software in my application, so long as the GPL software is generic.
See the dilemna now? That is what the papers were raising...
While one could say, it only applies to money back, the paper from what I saw put it into a broader context.
For example lets say somebody gives you a free car. So you take that free car and you realize it is a piece of crap. Because the car is free does not free you from AGB. What it means is that somebody who gets caught with a problematic car can ask to be compensated for the problems it caused.
Now about the gross negligence, well that is what I saw the AGB was aimed at. Right now that aspect of software is not enforced, like it is in other fields. This means if it gets enforced in GPL, which the closed source people would love, I am thinking it has the boomerang effect of directly affecting the closed source people.
The AGB does not allow you to cop out like software has and has not been enforced...
Ok So I decided to read the X pages in German legal speak. (Was bored ;) )
What did it say? Basically it did ask who was liable and who was not liable? From what I gathered, their reasoning is that just because the GPL exists it cannot bypass general AGB rights. AGB rights are general business conditions. Basically AGB says that if you sell me something buggy I have a right to bitch.
Ok first sure GPL has to deal with the AGB, but what about EULA's? Granted the article does not harp on this it could be the precursor. I really wonder if the supporters of this paper realized that.
Next because of the AGB conditions people who distribute the software may be liable. Likewise people who originally added something, but did not sell. In general this is part of the German AGB that exists for everybody. But again, if the German AGB really applied for software the MS and co have some serious dodo coming their way.
Did the article raise FUD? Not really. It just said things as it was. Again, I want to stress if the GPL is held to the AGB then it will be only a couple steps further for EULA. And then the lawsuits will fly because generally GPL people have no money. EULA companies do.
What I also found interesting is inspection of the GPL viral aspect. The article stated that the GPL was worded for the American Legal system, which means it does not necessarily apply to the German legal system. And the viral nature is something that is entirely vague with respect to German Law.
Consider the following. A programmer works for a company. The programmer creates a piece of software. Who owns the software? Is it the programmer or is it the company? The GPL and the German law on owner of the code conflicts here.
Also the GPL viral nature has limits. For example it is postulated that if you develop a larger piece of work and incorporate a GPL piece of work that maybe you do not need to GPL your work. The test is whether or not your application depends on that piece of software.
For example lets say that you write a database app. If you rely on MySQL using ODBC then you do not need to GPL your software. Granted this is a duh case. But the hint here is dependency. And what makes this especially dicey is the fact that software world lives in a derived world. Remember when using API's you are creating a derivative piece of work from a legal point of view.
I think it can be entirely summed up as, "THE GPL HAS NOT BEEN LEGALLY TESTED". However, what concerns me is that if the GPL is tested then so will other licenses. And that may result in things happening that maybe people did not want to happen...
No I think he is saying that he can use the software for up to five developers.
d s/ EULA_MSDN_Jan03.pdf
I think your point might be correct if you mean the following:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/downloa
Point 2.1: One developer can make multiple copies so long as the single developer is the only one using those multiple copies.
Point 4.4: I think the original parent might have been running in a production environment the server software, which is a definite no-no.
Huh? I think you are talking BS...
o /q a.asp#licensing
o /l icense.asp
o /q a.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/prodinf
and
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/prodinf
and
http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/prodinf
When you buy a single MSDN universal, you have a single license for one developer and NOT five developers.
And when you made the comment about 70K Linux admin. Could you please add in the time that you need to administer your own network? Because otherwise it is not a fair calculation.
I did not know that Denmark had the ability to do referendums. But then again Denmark is not that much of a mess as the rest of the EU?
I am a German and love Germany, but man oh man am I glad I live in Switzerland. Even Austria was better. France and Germany are in so much of a mess!
Ok I agree with mostly what you are saying. But maybe if politics were run like a business, just maybe we would not be in the mess that we are now!
To me running a country is the job of doing the most with the least of my money! Social programs? Yes, but not like how Europe and Canada abuse them. Universal medicare? Yes, but not like in Germany where people can go to the "kur". The basics will suffice. In a business those decisions would simply not be made...
First many have commented on the differences between a republic and a democratic system.
BUT on the issue that the population is largerly "ignorant", I HEAR SO OFTEN.
"No sir I am not ignorant, but my neighbor is. And my neighbor should not be put into the position of thinking about an issue". THAT is absolute BS! People when they know that their decision counts will make their decision count. The problem why there is the "ignorance" now is because people know that their vote does NOT matter. And people do not vote! It is that simple....
Now about not needing a system where everything is decided by the masses. Boy I am glad that you point this out. Because you are saying, "No sir I am not interested in democracy. I am more interested in facisim!" Because after all facisim is a system where only one or a few see the light and the others see a reflection of the light. OR "Yes sir I understand the issues, but my neighbor does not!"
Think hard about what you are saying!
And there is the problem! Sorry, but party leaders should actually talk to the arbitary people. What you recommend is the problem that we have today. There are lobbies that advise the advisors who then think that is how reality works. These "advisors" do not go out to meet the people. They expect the people to listen to them. Which in turn is the problem YET AGAIN, because it is elitism.
Also consider that the business world does not work this way. If you look at the REALLY good CEO's that consistently make money they do it because they listen to their customer. Tele2 (Profitable European AT&T) CEO and the IKEA CEO make it a point every year to take out time and work the "floors". In the case of the Tele2 CEO he will for a number of days work the customer support hotline. In the case of IKEA the CEO will sell you a new chair. Why? Because advisors cannot tell you everything. Advisors are people who advise you on the general lie of the situation.
Now in the case of politicians, who are their customers? The population! So to best serve the population it is absolutely vital to listen to your population. Not have some advisor state, "Well 40% of the people think X is ok and 50% of the people think Y is ok."
I live in Switzerland that has a real democracy where the people make the decisions. The politicians do the leg work and attempt to best advise the people. I am firmly convinced that this is the best way to manage a modern economy!
It does not surprise that the European Parliament is taking this attitude! We keep harping on the
Americans and how they let certain laws through. The reality is that politics is not about democracy, but about people keeping themselves in power.
This is reaching almost epic proportions because the politicians think those demonstrating and calling themselves anarchists are in the minimum. I am thinking more and more, are they really in the minimum? Is the talk of anarchists not just another comment to discount opinion that does not fit into the overall scheme of things.
To give you an example consider the following. Bill Gates can have dinner with Tony Blair. Gehard Schroeder can have dinner with Juergen Schremp. When was the last time either of them had dinner with Joe and Jane from the street? Of course I mean not during voting season. This is the problem. The elite are serving the elite!
And it is getting worse everday! Open Source does not fit into the scheme of things, because Open Source is not about being elite! See there's our problem! When was the last time Tony Blair had dinner with Linus, RMS or Eric Raymond? When was the last time any politician met with any Open Source person?
One thing that this legal commentary explains is why IBM is so hush hush. Did you notice when reading the article that a large number of the arguments hinge on how the individual parties interact with the public?
I really wonder if IBM knows this and as such is keeping quiet. To show the image of the "good quiety" student.
In all seriousness? Plenty of people. That is why most middle to high end GSM phones have tri-band. Do not underestimate the number of business travellers who travel regularly from Europe to North America and back again...
I know you received the rating of flamebait. But somehow I have to agree with you. From the various commentaries that he has made I get the REAL feeling that he is actually enjoying this.
HE REALLY goes out of his way to point out that GNU does not have the problems that the LINUX kernel does. Well he is going to be REALLY surprised because SCO has made comments that they might go after the BSD's as well.
Is RMS right? I think not. If it was not LINUX, then it would have been FreeBSD, and if not that then [Fill in OS here]. Why? Because Linux has the momentum and it pisses SCO off. Essentially this is what it is about. SCO thinks they own UNIX and they are pissed that they are going to go bankrupt!
He in a way is as dangerous as SCO because he is not exactly proping up Linux or IBM! And that makes me more nervous that anything else. Because at this point in time we need to come together and focus and eradicate this problem. Not talk about how GNU will never die, BLAH, BLAH... But at least we have ESR!