Thanks for the correction. But actually, it really is MS messenger that installs itself when I apply an update... also, I can tell the difference between MSIM and the critical update daemon.
Yeah, MS messenger is always popping up somewhere when I install a new windows 2000 update or IE update or something like that. I would probably use it, and I started to once, but that license agreement is too damn long to read through. It is like 35 pages or something, so I say screw it.
This sounds like a great idea! In fact, Microsoft should make it illegal to run Windows period. Everyone will still have to use Windows thanks to their monopoly, and should any legal troubles come up, Microsoft has already won because you are using their product illegally. Excellent!!
Yeah... but what if the RIAA wins? It would kinda suck for you to pay their lawyer bills, since I'm sure they will spend more for lawers than you do... hmm... that would be enough to scare me away even if I felt confident I would win and they would pay my bills if I won...
Oh, I forgot to mention that the person releasing her modified code also has to release under the same license... thus the source stays available, but people can make a profit...
This is offtopic, but the parent's point about profit friendly licenses reminded me... has anyone seen any licenses that go something like this:
You release a piece of software and its source code for a fee. Anyone who buys your software can modify it for their own personal use, and can even distribute their modified version as long as they either distribute it as an upgrade to other people who have bought my original software, or buy copies of my software for each copy of their modified software sold/distributed. This way people can change my stuff and add to it and make a profit off of it if they like, and I can still make a profit from my original code...
Well, I dunno if it will work well or not... but I'm wondering if anyone has seen something like that before?
No really, hear me out first. I am talking about their standard of the AIM client. Why work against it and try to make everyone switch? Why not make it easy and gradual for people?
AIM has one of the largest userbases (if not the largest.) of all IM clients. Wouldn't it be cool if, instead of creating new clients able to speak with AIM, we could simply make AIM be able to speak with our new clients? Sorta like having a plugin or patch for AIM. This would kinda be like Microsoft's notorious "embrace and extend" technique.
If there were some way to give AIM the ability to talk with Jabber and other IM clients, AOL would lose a fair amount of their hold on the IM population. I could use Jabber, and all my friends on AIM could set up a Jabber account (easy enough) and use AIM's Jabber interoperability to contact me. I wouldn't have to worry about illegally going through AOL's servers, because we're using Jabber servers. AIM becomes just another Jabber client! And if AOL decides to make new incompatable versions, you can imagine people would be unhappy when they suddenly upgrade to AOL AIM version 9.5 or whatever and they can no longer talk to half their buddy list but only the ones who use AOL's servers!
This seems contrary to the popular idea of creating newer/better/different IM systems, giving them interoperability with AIM and having legal and technical difficulties piled on top of them. However, I think it may actually work at loosening AOL's hold over the IM market if it were technically possible.
I just need to find out how to embrace and extend AIM... hmm..
Taken from http://www.appwatch.com/Linux/App/663/data.html
Bonobo is a set of language and system independant CORBA interfaces for creating reusable components and creating compound documents. The Bonobo distribution includes a GTK+ based implementation of the Bonobo interfaces, enabling developers to create reusable components and applications that can be used to form more complex documents.
Okay, say you are reading a web page or something, and the mouse keeps getting in the way of the words you are reading. You have to turn your head sideways and look at an angle with your eyes to get rid of the mouse. Wouldn't this get annoying quickly?
I said that if you want money, you are free to charge them. But the fact is, once you sell it to one person, it is in the open and you lose control of charging since that other person can do whatever she desires with it.
No, you don't get paid too. Remember, you released your code under the GPL. Libranet is free to do whatever you want with your code, it is free software. If you want to get paid, try selling it to them, or release your code under some other license. It is not their responsibility to pay you when they use your GPL'd code. You gave it for free under the GPL--it is pretty much public code now. If Libranet wants to charge for your code, you allowed that by releasing your software under the GPL
Libranet is getting paid for their work on the distribution: putting it together, giving support, and writing their own programs. If someone wants your Libranet included program, it is probably available on the net for free elsewhere. Even if Libranet is the only thing offering your GPL'd code, the moment they sell it to someone--and yes, once again, they can charge for *your* GPL'd code, they do not have to give it to anyone for free--that person can take your code and redistribute it however they wish.
I can't believe everyone posting about how outrageous it is to charge for free software. "But it is *free* software!" they say. Okay, so if the programmers only wanted their code to be released for free or else be paid for it, they would add a "for non-commercial use only" condition to their license of choice, right? I think the QT license is something like this; you can use QT free for any non-commercial products, but you have to pay for commercial.
The bottom line is that you chose the license which allows this, why bitch when people do something that you authorized? YOU released your code under a license that allows them to repackage it and charge for it without giving you anything. You have no one to blame but yourself. Get over it.
Besides, it is $15!! That's nothing for an operating system! If you don't like it, use debian or make your own distribution or any number of other ways you can use your free (beer) software without paying for it.
IM is a way for people to communicate with one another, just like a telephone. Imagine if telephone companies were all incompatible with one another! It would really suck to learn that you use company A and half your family uses company B, and thus you can not communicate with them via phone.
Of course, AIM is free, so a better analogy would be: If company B gives free calls to all other members of company B, and half your family uses company B, but you live in a small town in the middle of nowhere and you can not get access to company B's services, then you're still out of luck if you have phone services, but they are not company B's.
Open is a good thing. Telephone companies are still able to gain profits, while having open standards for communicating with one another.
I like the University of Michigan's distinction between CS and CE majors. You can find a faq explaining the difference here
I would imagine, however, that not all schools are the same. The differences between CS and CE are most likely potentially drastic between two schools. You should look at descriptions of the courses, etc. from the schools you are interested in to see which major you think is best suited for you.
I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying. Most people who are allowed to come to the US will be highly skilled professionals. Obviously, this is because the U.S. will accept the more highly skilled applicants over the less skilled ones. These people are anything *but* cheap labor.
If you look at it this way, you can realize that this is good for the U.S. (getting educated, skilled people), but what about other countries? I imagine it sucks to lose 100,000 of your best and most skilled workers (I have no idea of the actual numbers...).
Since you can not view the Windows license agreement until you've bought the computer, what happens if you don't agree to it? Can you return Windows, or are you stuck with a product you can't use?
Slashdot Mirror
I heard it was a problem with a router.
You forgot Pac-man.
Bren.
Bren.
Bren.
Bren.
Oh, I forgot to mention that the person releasing her modified code also has to release under the same license... thus the source stays available, but people can make a profit...
You release a piece of software and its source code for a fee. Anyone who buys your software can modify it for their own personal use, and can even distribute their modified version as long as they either distribute it as an upgrade to other people who have bought my original software, or buy copies of my software for each copy of their modified software sold/distributed. This way people can change my stuff and add to it and make a profit off of it if they like, and I can still make a profit from my original code...
Well, I dunno if it will work well or not... but I'm wondering if anyone has seen something like that before?
Bren.
AIM has one of the largest userbases (if not the largest.) of all IM clients. Wouldn't it be cool if, instead of creating new clients able to speak with AIM, we could simply make AIM be able to speak with our new clients? Sorta like having a plugin or patch for AIM. This would kinda be like Microsoft's notorious "embrace and extend" technique.
If there were some way to give AIM the ability to talk with Jabber and other IM clients, AOL would lose a fair amount of their hold on the IM population. I could use Jabber, and all my friends on AIM could set up a Jabber account (easy enough) and use AIM's Jabber interoperability to contact me. I wouldn't have to worry about illegally going through AOL's servers, because we're using Jabber servers. AIM becomes just another Jabber client! And if AOL decides to make new incompatable versions, you can imagine people would be unhappy when they suddenly upgrade to AOL AIM version 9.5 or whatever and they can no longer talk to half their buddy list but only the ones who use AOL's servers!
This seems contrary to the popular idea of creating newer/better/different IM systems, giving them interoperability with AIM and having legal and technical difficulties piled on top of them. However, I think it may actually work at loosening AOL's hold over the IM market if it were technically possible.
I just need to find out how to embrace and extend AIM... hmm..
Bren.
Bonobo is a set of language and system independant CORBA interfaces for creating reusable components and creating compound documents. The Bonobo distribution includes a GTK+ based implementation of the Bonobo interfaces, enabling developers to create reusable components and applications that can be used to form more complex documents.
Bren.
Bren.
Aren't the re-using the BSD code? I would consider that ancient...
Bren.
Bren.
Naturalpoint's slogan: "We're the dot on your forehead."
Bren.
I said that if you want money, you are free to charge them. But the fact is, once you sell it to one person, it is in the open and you lose control of charging since that other person can do whatever she desires with it.
Libranet is getting paid for their work on the distribution: putting it together, giving support, and writing their own programs. If someone wants your Libranet included program, it is probably available on the net for free elsewhere. Even if Libranet is the only thing offering your GPL'd code, the moment they sell it to someone--and yes, once again, they can charge for *your* GPL'd code, they do not have to give it to anyone for free--that person can take your code and redistribute it however they wish.
I can't believe everyone posting about how outrageous it is to charge for free software. "But it is *free* software!" they say. Okay, so if the programmers only wanted their code to be released for free or else be paid for it, they would add a "for non-commercial use only" condition to their license of choice, right? I think the QT license is something like this; you can use QT free for any non-commercial products, but you have to pay for commercial.
The bottom line is that you chose the license which allows this, why bitch when people do something that you authorized? YOU released your code under a license that allows them to repackage it and charge for it without giving you anything. You have no one to blame but yourself. Get over it.
Besides, it is $15!! That's nothing for an operating system! If you don't like it, use debian or make your own distribution or any number of other ways you can use your free (beer) software without paying for it.
Bren.
Of course, AIM is free, so a better analogy would be: If company B gives free calls to all other members of company B, and half your family uses company B, but you live in a small town in the middle of nowhere and you can not get access to company B's services, then you're still out of luck if you have phone services, but they are not company B's.
Open is a good thing. Telephone companies are still able to gain profits, while having open standards for communicating with one another.
Bren.
I would imagine, however, that not all schools are the same. The differences between CS and CE are most likely potentially drastic between two schools. You should look at descriptions of the courses, etc. from the schools you are interested in to see which major you think is best suited for you.
If you look at it this way, you can realize that this is good for the U.S. (getting educated, skilled people), but what about other countries? I imagine it sucks to lose 100,000 of your best and most skilled workers (I have no idea of the actual numbers...) .
Bren.
I know, I know, get a cordless."
I think it would be rather akward sitting on the crapper with a cordless phone, actually.
Bren.
Since you can not view the Windows license agreement until you've bought the computer, what happens if you don't agree to it? Can you return Windows, or are you stuck with a product you can't use?