As others have said, the KDE wasn't started by Trolltech people. They guys that started KDE simply made the choice to use Qt, because they found it to be the best available. It is true that some KDE developers have since been hired by Trolltech, but I don't see anything wrong with that. There is no doubt that Trolltech benefits from KDE, but your conclusion: "The KDE team was formed by Trolltech to create a marketplace for a Unix/Win32 cross-platform toolkit." is just plain wrong.
If they want you to do something, send them a bill! They are the ones that should pay for it!
It's actually a relatively hot subject in Denmark right now, where the "Anti Pirate Group" wants to get a lot of peoples names based on IP's they've found on P2P networks. The ISP's in Denmark demand a court order (or whatever it is called) and to be paid to do it. Of course, the APG didn't like that much, but as the ISP's said - they are a customer, just like everyone else.
The APG is of course going to put that on the bills for the people they catch, so in the end, they'll be the ones that pay, which IMHO is the way it should be done.
But, IBM agressively supports software patents (they support getting it in EU) and they no doubt know that it's a big problem for open source (probably even the biggest). It's quite a "problem" that one of the biggest supporters of open source is also a supporter of the biggest threat to open source.
Quote from Steve Ballmer: Responding to questions about the opening-up of the.NET framework, Ballmer announced that there would certainly be a "Common Language Runtime Implementation" for Unix, but then explained that this development would be limited to a subset, which was "intended only for academic use". Ballmer rejected speculations about support for free.NET implementationens such as Mono: "We have invested so many millions in.NET, we have so many patents on.NET, which we want to cultivate."
Intellectual Property Rights licenses are available from the companies that contributed to the HAVi 1.0 specification.
The seven of the eight promoter companies (Grundig, Hitachi, Matsushita including JVC as Matsushita's group member, Philips, Sharp, Sony and Toshiba) who have co-created the HAVi Specification enable smooth and easy access to their IPR, which protects the HAVi Specification, by an open Joint-License program via Philips, as Licensor, on non-discriminatory most favourable terms and conditions.
The relevant IPR includes:
1. the HAVi Specification;
2. Essential Patents, which are deemed to be necessary for the manufacture of HAVi Products, that comply with the HAVi Specification;
3. the HAVi logo, the use of which is allowed for the promotion and sales of HAVi Products and
4. HAVi Compliance Test Suite and HAVi Test Requirements, which are prescriptions for testing certain aspects of implementation of the HAVi Specification in products.
I see some people ask: Why not just use Flash - it's an open standard?!
To that I ask: What is your definition of an open standard? When talking about open standards, it's important to have the definitions clear! I believe there exists lots of different opinions on what an open standard is!
I also believe it is important to know the difference between an open specification and an open standard! An open standard is also developed openly - an open specification isn't neccesarily. PDF is an open specification, so is Flash. In many cases, an open specification is fine though, but it is (AFAIK) exactly what many people have complained about in regards to Java.
An open standard must (IMO, though I'm not sure I can remember everything) be freely available, free to implement and developed openly.
Flash is an open specification (according to what others say) - what about SVG? Well, I believe there is some companies that have som patents that covers at least part of SVG and could claim RAND royalties. In other words, SVG isn't an open standard either...
Slashdot Mirror
By using free, open standards, they are able to choose the best tool for the job, whether that be open source or closed source.
KOffice will switch to Open Office fileformats - you can read more about it in the Kastle 2003: KOffice Developers' Meeting Report.
True but IIRC, there are various problems if you serve them as XML :(
But that doesn't mean they couldn't make their pages valid xhtml, does it?
I'm not sure I understand?
Being one of the big tech sites, you would think they were capable of making valid html :(
> There is no excuse for keeping these programs
> closed.
How do you know that?
> Did I mention the GPL?
No, but you sounded like one that thought so...sorry
Or maybe Distributed Folding - they got clients for *a lot* of platforms - even your PS2 (!), though it is really slow :(
It's not always a good idea to release the source...
Believe it or not, but the GPL is not always the optimal license either.
Try checking one of the big primes from http://mersenne.org/ - that'll take you a year or something like that on a top end machine :)
my recommendation would be to forget it. Seriously, such old machines is really not worth it.
As others have said, the KDE wasn't started by Trolltech people. They guys that started KDE simply made the choice to use Qt, because they found it to be the best available. It is true that some KDE developers have since been hired by Trolltech, but I don't see anything wrong with that. There is no doubt that Trolltech benefits from KDE, but your conclusion: "The KDE team was formed by Trolltech to create a marketplace for a Unix/Win32 cross-platform toolkit." is just plain wrong.
Calm Systems
If they don't provide more than 1Ghz systems, then you should check out Calm Systems. They make similar systems and also provides P4 based systems.
If they want you to do something, send them a bill! They are the ones that should pay for it!
It's actually a relatively hot subject in Denmark right now, where the "Anti Pirate Group" wants to get a lot of peoples names based on IP's they've found on P2P networks. The ISP's in Denmark demand a court order (or whatever it is called) and to be paid to do it. Of course, the APG didn't like that much, but as the ISP's said - they are a customer, just like everyone else.
The APG is of course going to put that on the bills for the people they catch, so in the end, they'll be the ones that pay, which IMHO is the way it should be done.
Well, that rules that out, but there are more open source software than just that ;)
Do IBM distribute it themselves?
Could you post a link to more info about that?
But, IBM agressively supports software patents (they support getting it in EU) and they no doubt know that it's a big problem for open source (probably even the biggest). It's quite a "problem" that one of the biggest supporters of open source is also a supporter of the biggest threat to open source.
Well, actually yes I believe I can: IBM!
;)
And the reason is software patents, so maybe I should have said that instead, but I thought I would provoke a little
Seriously, I see software patents as a much bigger threat to open source, than SCO will ever be and IBM is the company with most software patents...
Can be found here.
Just deploy source only! :p
Quote from Steve Ballmer: Responding to questions about the opening-up of the .NET framework, Ballmer announced that there would certainly be a "Common Language Runtime Implementation" for Unix, but then explained that this development would be limited to a subset, which was "intended only for academic use". Ballmer rejected speculations about support for free .NET implementationens such as Mono: "We have invested so many millions in .NET, we have so many patents on .NET, which we want to cultivate."
You can find it here
And what about this: .Net patent could stifle standards effort
Patents will never be a problem for Mono? Not sure I believe that...
Ouch! That's quite a lot :(
I bet something like jabber could be used for this instead...
Licensing Information...
Intellectual Property Rights licenses are available from the companies that contributed to the HAVi 1.0 specification.
The seven of the eight promoter companies (Grundig, Hitachi, Matsushita including JVC as Matsushita's group member, Philips, Sharp, Sony and Toshiba) who have co-created the HAVi Specification enable smooth and easy access to their IPR, which protects the HAVi Specification, by an open Joint-License program via Philips, as Licensor, on non-discriminatory most favourable terms and conditions.
The relevant IPR includes:
1. the HAVi Specification;
2. Essential Patents, which are deemed to be necessary for the manufacture of HAVi Products, that comply with the HAVi Specification;
3. the HAVi logo, the use of which is allowed for the promotion and sales of HAVi Products and
4. HAVi Compliance Test Suite and HAVi Test Requirements, which are prescriptions for testing certain aspects of implementation of the HAVi Specification in products.
A really "nice and patented" standard :(
I see some people ask: Why not just use Flash - it's an open standard?!
To that I ask: What is your definition of an open standard? When talking about open standards, it's important to have the definitions clear! I believe there exists lots of different opinions on what an open standard is!
I also believe it is important to know the difference between an open specification and an open standard! An open standard is also developed openly - an open specification isn't neccesarily. PDF is an open specification, so is Flash. In many cases, an open specification is fine though, but it is (AFAIK) exactly what many people have complained about in regards to Java.
An open standard must (IMO, though I'm not sure I can remember everything) be freely available, free to implement and developed openly.
Flash is an open specification (according to what others say) - what about SVG? Well, I believe there is some companies that have som patents that covers at least part of SVG and could claim RAND royalties. In other words, SVG isn't an open standard either...