2.3 Commitment to Allocate Appropriate Resources to Support Development and Testing of Corel Products on.NET Framework and Windows Platform. Corel agrees that it shall allocate Resources to support the development, testing, and marketing of the versions of Products that target the.NET Framework and/or Windows Platform, as described in this Section, that are at least as great as the Resources that Corel allocates to the versions of Products that do not include Material Support for the.NET Framework and/or Windows Platform.
Esentially, they have to double manpower on projects in order to release a non.NET supported application.
Yea, so all it needs is to have a link somewhere in the docs that says you can download the source at 'x.y.com/source'. I betcha if you look, the URL is in there somewhere..;-P
But if you get down that low, a driver interacts with the OS in no more of a way then an app integrates with the OS and the standard C library. If I call syslog, or klog, do I now need to GPL my software? Definitions of these things can be blurry, so I understand the confusion, but in the end, it's all the same. Just becouse something interacts with something doesn;t mean it's part of the application or system. Seems simple enough.. Cars require tires, but are tires part of the car? Heck no..;-P Does a 'tire adapter' make the tire part of the car? Once again, hell no..
All they have to do to comply with the GPL is point the users to a location where the source is available, and ensure it is indeed available. And yes, they can do that without permission.
But Bruce.. My question here would be, *WHAT'S WRONG* with what they're doing? Aren't drivers no more then loadable libraries? Why are peoples pants in a knot about it?
Basically, why are you concerned with what they are doing? They're not stealing the drivers and claiming them for their own. They're simply providing a way for them to run somewhere else. People don;t get in an uproar when someone ports vi to windows, or anything else to an alternate environment.
I guess I don;t get what the concern is all about. The fact that Sun is using Linux kernel things for their own OS, doesn't that merely reenforce the quality of the code?
Exactly. And as long as they distribute the tool, not the drivers, they're all set. Even if they distribute the drivers, all they need do is, include the original driver source..;-P
I'm interpeting this as a tool that takes a driver, and allows it to run under Solaris. How could this *possibly* break the GPL? Dynamically loaded drivers are peices of software, NOT part of the kernel. I can't imagine how someone could think that this, at least as descibed, breaks the GPL.
I already agree they should. Not questions there. I also think several other protocols out there should die. They're not about to. I seem to remember the same argument being used for HTML a while back. What happens? I was extended all to hell, and it's still here. So will WAP I think. Hopefully, I'm wrong. In the meantime, I'm hedging my bets..;-P
Many people here seem to be confusing a big issue here. This post is regarding the entire of the WAP situation. WML, which is what one would use to provide content for the WAP gateways, is one of the *SMALLEST* parts of the article. The WAP protocol is what he's talking about. WML is the display mechanism that you can spit out. WAP is the raw protocol in and of itself. WAP = IP.. WML = HTML.. The gateway converts WAP requests to HTTP. Apps could, theoretically, spit out WML direct to the phone, instead of going thru the HTTP 'gateway'.
The WAP protocol and WML are two different beasts. You speaking WML, which spits out content for a WAP gateway. The WAP protocol is the actual protocol being used BY the phones..
This guys gonna get his rear kicked one of these days. I mean, I like the idea, but the very *LOOK* of the beast with the Palm sticking out just screams "Please, KICK MY A**!!".;-P Of course, as you peddle as fast as you can to get away, you hit a rock, fly through the air, and begin to cry as all of the wonderfull toys come smashing to a pile of smashed plastic and broken circuit boards. And just then, the guys who say you earlier catch up..;-P
Unfortionatly, what they are looking for is cheap, experienced, freshoutacollege-but-an-expert, competent individuals. Unfortionatly, no matter what I do, I *cannot* make a buncha negative numbers add up to one no matter *WHAT* I do.. Hrm, maybee that imaginary number thing..;-P
Unfortionatly, it's not the usage of their hardware that's the issue. It's the posting of the specs of the protocol used by the hardware for software use. This is *NOT* a 'clean room' implementation, either. The actual hardware was used to do it.
And unfortionatly, they *HAVE* to defend it in order to continue to own the product and IP surrounding it. If the protocol IP is lost, then anyone can make identical, competing products, based on their specs.
Unfortionatly, I'd say that, in it's current state, it's practically unusable as a 'production' level game platform. The graphics are there, and damned nice, but it takes alot more then the engine to make a MMORPG.
But they didn't make IE run better becouse of API lvl things. They gave it away for free, and shipped it with the OS. Hence, the whole idea of using a 'better' interface just isn't there. Same API. There wasn't bad faith from the API lvl. I can do everything IE does with my apps.
But is lack of apps the contributing factor in this? This particular article was about a study that basically disputed the number of apps available for Win32. My question is, does this matter? Did Microsoft 'lockin' these apps? Heck no. Someone else wrote them. Did they have a choice? Well, they *DID*, but was the deciding factor based on Microsoft locking in the PC market? Probrably was, but did Microsoft do this, or did it simply 'happen'? Why did the Beta tape go obsolete? Was it marketing, or that the market will only support one standard?
The article does make several points that are indeed valid, in that the judge made a big deal about some thing he didn't have to, and didn;t about some thing he should have..
The first thing addressed, or not, in the above article is that, yes, indeed, the judge *IS* making up a new meaning for a monopoly. In the past *NOTHING* of any value could simply be copied billions and billions of times at little cost. I can mass mail an application to a million people, at the total cost of 19.95. Heck, run a little banner ad proggy, and it's *FREE*. *NEVER* in *HISTORY* has a situation like this been present. No one could ever argue that Microsoft has not stopped people from developing alternate operating systems. They haven't. What they have done is ensure a closed and private 'public' standard.
Think about someone having a patent on the internal cumbustion engine. I'm sure someone had a patent at one point in time that applied. Now, along comes the car. Suddenly, you're forced to only buy the patents owners gas. And by the way, you'll need to buy a new engine for your car every few years, so you can run the new gas. Certainly, in no way has this patent holder stopped anyone from coming up with a new means of power. But if they can manage to get enough people using it, you *DO* have a monopoly.
Personally, I do not like Microsoft. I don't like their company, or how it treats its customers. Sure, they have some good apps. And yes, they've done some damned good buisness deals, and been sucessfull as hell. But at some point, it has to stop. At some point, it has to be said that you've simply made *to* much money, and you've locked in to good of a nestbed.
Anything that ends up being used widely in the public needs to be open eventually. It's in the general good of the public. In the past, things moved slower. No one could lock the public in, becouse of the length of time it would take. Microsoft locked over 90% of the OS market into place within a few short years, becouse of the success of the PC.
Whoever came up with the tarred road had a damned good idea. What if he was still recieving money for the idea? What if it cost the government millions of dollars, paying for the use of the idea? It's certainly in the good of the public to have these roads. It's also in the good of the public to have a well defined, standardized computing environment.
I'm blathering, I'll shadap and read some other opinions now..
Unfortionatly, your app doesn;t rely on the windows OS..;-P I can simply recompile for nearly any compiler out there..;-P
That's french for a standard API. Win32 doesn't have one..
I do, however, agree with your point. It's not the number of apps. It if I can open that neato word document that my grammy just emailed me from prison. Interoprability is the key, not app count.
This is really nice. This basically gives a 'QA' release of stable, etc, before it's really stable. woody is like a full fledged development environment, aka, things change at anyone whim. Once ready, things go into a 'QA' stage. This is a very good and tried and proven method for testing of software for stable release.
A typical bar code reader functions exactly like you say. *UNFORTIONATLY*, they decided that want to play games with it. It selectivly garbles the data, and you *MUST* use it on a Windows system using a custom keyboard 'driver'.
Re:/. sucks worse every day. [NOT A TROLL]
on
Gen Con 2000 Report
·
· Score: 3
It's just as interesting to some as reports on LinuxWorld or any other major convention. It's news for *NERDS*, not computer geeks..;-P Granted, it's usually hand and hand, so..;-P
I do as well. Unfortionatly (Or fortunenatly), most of the players I used to play with don;t like to play any more. Mostly becouse they *KNOW* if we start playing again, the fact that we call it Crack; the Addiction will come to bear once again..;-P
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, but there are stipulations to this:
.NET Framework and Windows Platform. Corel agrees that it shall allocate Resources to support the development, testing, and marketing of the versions of Products that target the .NET Framework and/or Windows Platform, as described in this Section, that are at least as great as the Resources that Corel allocates to the versions of Products that do not include Material Support for the .NET Framework and/or Windows Platform.
.NET supported application.
2.3 Commitment to Allocate Appropriate Resources to Support Development and Testing of Corel Products on
Esentially, they have to double manpower on projects in order to release a non
Yea, so all it needs is to have a link somewhere in the docs that says you can download the source at 'x.y.com/source'. I betcha if you look, the URL is in there somewhere.. ;-P
They didn't modify the source at all. It's simply compiled to a binary, and the binary is wrapped.. ;-P
But if you get down that low, a driver interacts with the OS in no more of a way then an app integrates with the OS and the standard C library. If I call syslog, or klog, do I now need to GPL my software? Definitions of these things can be blurry, so I understand the confusion, but in the end, it's all the same. Just becouse something interacts with something doesn;t mean it's part of the application or system. Seems simple enough.. Cars require tires, but are tires part of the car? Heck no.. ;-P Does a 'tire adapter' make the tire part of the car? Once again, hell no..
All they have to do to comply with the GPL is point the users to a location where the source is available, and ensure it is indeed available. And yes, they can do that without permission.
But Bruce.. My question here would be, *WHAT'S WRONG* with what they're doing? Aren't drivers no more then loadable libraries? Why are peoples pants in a knot about it?
Basically, why are you concerned with what they are doing? They're not stealing the drivers and claiming them for their own. They're simply providing a way for them to run somewhere else. People don;t get in an uproar when someone ports vi to windows, or anything else to an alternate environment.
I guess I don;t get what the concern is all about. The fact that Sun is using Linux kernel things for their own OS, doesn't that merely reenforce the quality of the code?
Exactly. And as long as they distribute the tool, not the drivers, they're all set. Even if they distribute the drivers, all they need do is, include the original driver source.. ;-P
I'm interpeting this as a tool that takes a driver, and allows it to run under Solaris. How could this *possibly* break the GPL? Dynamically loaded drivers are peices of software, NOT part of the kernel. I can't imagine how someone could think that this, at least as descibed, breaks the GPL.
I already agree they should. Not questions there. I also think several other protocols out there should die. They're not about to. I seem to remember the same argument being used for HTML a while back. What happens? I was extended all to hell, and it's still here. So will WAP I think. Hopefully, I'm wrong. In the meantime, I'm hedging my bets.. ;-P
Many people here seem to be confusing a big issue here. This post is regarding the entire of the WAP situation. WML, which is what one would use to provide content for the WAP gateways, is one of the *SMALLEST* parts of the article. The WAP protocol is what he's talking about. WML is the display mechanism that you can spit out. WAP is the raw protocol in and of itself. WAP = IP.. WML = HTML.. The gateway converts WAP requests to HTTP. Apps could, theoretically, spit out WML direct to the phone, instead of going thru the HTTP 'gateway'.
The WAP protocol and WML are two different beasts. You speaking WML, which spits out content for a WAP gateway. The WAP protocol is the actual protocol being used BY the phones..
This guys gonna get his rear kicked one of these days. I mean, I like the idea, but the very *LOOK* of the beast with the Palm sticking out just screams "Please, KICK MY A**!!". ;-P Of course, as you peddle as fast as you can to get away, you hit a rock, fly through the air, and begin to cry as all of the wonderfull toys come smashing to a pile of smashed plastic and broken circuit boards. And just then, the guys who say you earlier catch up.. ;-P
Unfortionatly, what they are looking for is cheap, experienced, freshoutacollege-but-an-expert, competent individuals. Unfortionatly, no matter what I do, I *cannot* make a buncha negative numbers add up to one no matter *WHAT* I do.. Hrm, maybee that imaginary number thing.. ;-P
Unfortionatly, it's not the usage of their hardware that's the issue. It's the posting of the specs of the protocol used by the hardware for software use. This is *NOT* a 'clean room' implementation, either. The actual hardware was used to do it.
And unfortionatly, they *HAVE* to defend it in order to continue to own the product and IP surrounding it. If the protocol IP is lost, then anyone can make identical, competing products, based on their specs.
Documented in many locations is the fact that anything derived works are held under the same rights as the original, unless otherwise given up..
Rob doesn't have to claim it is, legally it is, unless he's specifically given up that right to someone else, or the public domain..
Unfortionatly, I'd say that, in it's current state, it's practically unusable as a 'production' level game platform. The graphics are there, and damned nice, but it takes alot more then the engine to make a MMORPG.
But they didn't make IE run better becouse of API lvl things. They gave it away for free, and shipped it with the OS. Hence, the whole idea of using a 'better' interface just isn't there. Same API. There wasn't bad faith from the API lvl. I can do everything IE does with my apps.
Now, the play fair rule is definatly there..
But is lack of apps the contributing factor in this? This particular article was about a study that basically disputed the number of apps available for Win32. My question is, does this matter? Did Microsoft 'lockin' these apps? Heck no. Someone else wrote them. Did they have a choice? Well, they *DID*, but was the deciding factor based on Microsoft locking in the PC market? Probrably was, but did Microsoft do this, or did it simply 'happen'? Why did the Beta tape go obsolete? Was it marketing, or that the market will only support one standard?
The article does make several points that are indeed valid, in that the judge made a big deal about some thing he didn't have to, and didn;t about some thing he should have..
The first thing addressed, or not, in the above article is that, yes, indeed, the judge *IS* making up a new meaning for a monopoly. In the past *NOTHING* of any value could simply be copied billions and billions of times at little cost. I can mass mail an application to a million people, at the total cost of 19.95. Heck, run a little banner ad proggy, and it's *FREE*. *NEVER* in *HISTORY* has a situation like this been present. No one could ever argue that Microsoft has not stopped people from developing alternate operating systems. They haven't. What they have done is ensure a closed and private 'public' standard.
Think about someone having a patent on the internal cumbustion engine. I'm sure someone had a patent at one point in time that applied. Now, along comes the car. Suddenly, you're forced to only buy the patents owners gas. And by the way, you'll need to buy a new engine for your car every few years, so you can run the new gas. Certainly, in no way has this patent holder stopped anyone from coming up with a new means of power. But if they can manage to get enough people using it, you *DO* have a monopoly.
Personally, I do not like Microsoft. I don't like their company, or how it treats its customers. Sure, they have some good apps. And yes, they've done some damned good buisness deals, and been sucessfull as hell. But at some point, it has to stop. At some point, it has to be said that you've simply made *to* much money, and you've locked in to good of a nestbed.
Anything that ends up being used widely in the public needs to be open eventually. It's in the general good of the public. In the past, things moved slower. No one could lock the public in, becouse of the length of time it would take. Microsoft locked over 90% of the OS market into place within a few short years, becouse of the success of the PC.
Whoever came up with the tarred road had a damned good idea. What if he was still recieving money for the idea? What if it cost the government millions of dollars, paying for the use of the idea? It's certainly in the good of the public to have these roads. It's also in the good of the public to have a well defined, standardized computing environment.
I'm blathering, I'll shadap and read some other opinions now..
Unfortionatly, your app doesn;t rely on the windows OS.. ;-P I can simply recompile for nearly any compiler out there.. ;-P
That's french for a standard API. Win32 doesn't have one..
I do, however, agree with your point. It's not the number of apps. It if I can open that neato word document that my grammy just emailed me from prison. Interoprability is the key, not app count.
This is really nice. This basically gives a 'QA' release of stable, etc, before it's really stable. woody is like a full fledged development environment, aka, things change at anyone whim. Once ready, things go into a 'QA' stage. This is a very good and tried and proven method for testing of software for stable release.
Incorrect in this case. The driver is required becouse it does a selective garbling of the data.
A typical bar code reader functions exactly like you say. *UNFORTIONATLY*, they decided that want to play games with it. It selectivly garbles the data, and you *MUST* use it on a Windows system using a custom keyboard 'driver'.
It's just as interesting to some as reports on LinuxWorld or any other major convention. It's news for *NERDS*, not computer geeks.. ;-P Granted, it's usually hand and hand, so.. ;-P
I do as well. Unfortionatly (Or fortunenatly), most of the players I used to play with don;t like to play any more. Mostly becouse they *KNOW* if we start playing again, the fact that we call it Crack; the Addiction will come to bear once again.. ;-P
*OOhh, FOILIES!! GOTTA get the FOILIES!!*