They could have, but they probably just copied what the Linux kernel uses since their first GPLed code was a Linux driver and the Linux kernel is GPLv2 only. To me that seems far more likely than some sinister plot to sue people who use this code.
Have you tried rock band, or are you aware of it? Did you give the drums a shot and then think "oh shit, this is too much like playing drums here - dammit now I'm learning". Newsflash : Learning and having fun are not always mutually exclusive. Don't buy rock band, you'll hate it then.
No, that's because Rock Band is just a game that you play for fun. It's not a music class simulator.
Did you actually read what I said here? It's USING A REAL GUITAR. How could you not learn anything by hitting some strings on the guitar plugged in to this "game" that actually correspond to generating the same notes on the guitar? Maybe you're not learning as much as you could playing a real guitar (you won't learn theory or chord identification for example, and it may not show how to position your fingers). But compare that to the current guitar hero - where you learn virtually nothing on how to play music (maybe timing, that's about it).
I think you're confusing what I said. I was saying that no one is playing this game either thinking they are learning to play a guitar nor are they playing to learn the guitar. They are playing it to have a fun and turning the game into a guitar lesson class is going to make it cease being fun.
Microsoft controls the LiveID servers, which is the ONLY use for this code and plugin.
So then what is all the uproar over patent lawsuits about? If this code is only ever run on Microsoft servers for the users of it's Live@edu services who exactly is going to be sued for infringement? This makes the claims even more ridiculous because the only people who could get sued here are itself since it would be the only one distributing the code.
Even if something like this didn't hold up well in court, it would still bring plenty of negative press to GPL'd code.
How so? If the lawsuit was shown to be baseless and it was thrown out how would that bring bad press to the GPL more than an actual successful lawsuit against patent infringing GPL code?
Probably not, but you never know.
No, I do know. IF a successful patent lawsuit against an infringing piece of code in the Linux kernel didn't get businesses to drop OSS some controversy over a Moodle plugin for LiveServer is barely even gonna register on anyone's radar.
simple phrase that incorporates why the GPLv3 is a big deal for MS to license under instead:
patent covenants. [tinyurl.com]
Or maybe the fact that the Linux kernel is GPLv2 only and as such they are just using the same license terms it is? No, it has to be phantom lawsuits instead.
Add a mod or controller that allows you to hook up a real guitar, and figure out some "skill / sound = more points" system. Something similar to the voice recognition for the microphone in rock band. Now you're actually learning a real instrument and feel some sense of accomplishment (and your parents / spouse won't be on your ass for wasting time 'playing video games').
Oh boy! Instead of just having fun playing a game I can now turn it into a music class! That sounds like loads of fun! Seriously, why do you people like you keep posting bullshit like this as if anyone, other than a few hardcore nerds, who plays this game actually thinks they are learning an instrument?
I've never met a guitar player that just stopped playing 'cause it was boring or they "just didn't feel like it anymore".
OTOH, I know about a half dozen people who have done exactly that.
Okay, well I didn't see that it was GPLv2 with "any later version" on it. So in this one case, I guess they could have used GPLv3 but they probably just copied the terms that the Linux kernel uses which is just GPLv2 only and is going to apply that to everything they release GPL. I'd say that's a much more likely answer than some phantom patent lawsuit over some PHP code.
Sue for what? They can't sue you for anything if they themselves release it under a license that says you can freely use, modify and distribute the source code. This imagined case would be thrown out of court.
Microsoft would be glad to spend a hundred million dollars to make GPL'ed software a "NO-NO" in big business.
But the only GPL'ed software that would become a "NO NO" in this case would be their own. Moodle wouldn't be effected in the least bit by Microsoft disallowing anyone to use their Live plugin.
If they can give away their source for free... not sue any of their users... but sue anyone who uses their open sourced software for patent violations (and actually win the case) then that will make anyone in the business world pretty much immediately remove any and all GPL software from their systems.
I'm pretty sure that such a tactic wouldn't hold up in any court. Secondly, if what you claim was true any and all GPLed software would have already been removed from the business world after the successful TomTom suit over the FAT support in the Linux kernel, but amazingly it hasn't been.
First, they introduce nice features that are confusing enough to use but simple enough that nobody feels like taking the time to improve upon them.
Have you even looked at their code to make such a statement? Doubtful.
Then, they release proprietary, closed-source "extensions" for their own tools to access the services and utilise those features with incredibly useful, simplified methodologies. Their tools then become the tools du jour and they make like bandits.
Which then begs the question of why even release anything under the GPL? They could have just gone straight to what you claim their ultimate goal is without having to release anything open source code. You're really grasping at straws here.
It's also important to note that in both of the cases where they've done this, the contribution wasn't a general "here's some improvements" code, it was "here is some code which would allow you to work better with our proprietary services, so more people would be willing to use those."
You mean like this where IBM ported a bunch of Linux development tools to AIX so that more people would develop apps for their proprietary system?
So your claim is that they are releasing this code in order to get people to use it but at the same time they are going to sue anyone who actually uses it thus leading no one to using it? Huh?
Well duh. The only true OSS license is clearly the GPLv3. All those people releasing code under the Apache, MIT/X11, PHP, GPLv3, BSD, etc are clearly enemies of FOSS and we must burn them at the stake!
They're reaching out to the open-source world by Embracing open standards, they'll Extend the abilities of certain products and services but in a way that those benefits can only be reaped by people using their hardware/software to use them, and then they'll Extinguish their competitors because Microsoft is in control of the extensions to those services that people depend upon.
How does one "control" the extensions if they are also required to be licensed under the GPL as well? Aren't FOSS people always talking about how no one can have control over GPLed code since anyone and everyone can always grab the source and fork it?
Like their previous driver offering, it's not a wholehearted contribution to making an open source project better, but instead just a thing to make microsoft's own services work better when people need to use open source.
But when IBM contributes code to Linux and other open source projects it's not because they just want their services to work better with open source and thus make more money for themselves?
Why? That would make it be under an incompatible license with what the original software is written under and as such no third party would be able to distribute it legally because of this incompatibility. Or did you not even bother to take the 2 seconds to realize this fundamental problem with your argument?
Hmm, this is interesting. The more cynical part of me wonders why, and can't help but recall the protections against patent litigation built into GPLv3, and notably missing from GPLv2...
What's interesting about it? The Linux kernel is GPLv2 so a GPLv3 driver is unlikely to make it in. Moodle is also GPLv2 so it's perfectly logical that they'd release their plugin that works with it under the same license. Did you forget that whole big thing about GPLv3 being incompatible with GPLv2? In fact, it would be stupid on their part to release source code to work with programs under incompatible license terms which would disallow anyone from legitimately being able to distribute it.
Of sure, German is an extremely over verbose language at times, but the fact of the matter is that CorporateSuit, despite all his blusterings, is about as clueless in German as he tries to claim others are.
Slashdot Mirror
They could have, but they probably just copied what the Linux kernel uses since their first GPLed code was a Linux driver and the Linux kernel is GPLv2 only. To me that seems far more likely than some sinister plot to sue people who use this code.
Have you tried rock band, or are you aware of it? Did you give the drums a shot and then think "oh shit, this is too much like playing drums here - dammit now I'm learning". Newsflash : Learning and having fun are not always mutually exclusive. Don't buy rock band, you'll hate it then.
No, that's because Rock Band is just a game that you play for fun. It's not a music class simulator.
Did you actually read what I said here? It's USING A REAL GUITAR. How could you not learn anything by hitting some strings on the guitar plugged in to this "game" that actually correspond to generating the same notes on the guitar? Maybe you're not learning as much as you could playing a real guitar (you won't learn theory or chord identification for example, and it may not show how to position your fingers). But compare that to the current guitar hero - where you learn virtually nothing on how to play music (maybe timing, that's about it).
I think you're confusing what I said. I was saying that no one is playing this game either thinking they are learning to play a guitar nor are they playing to learn the guitar. They are playing it to have a fun and turning the game into a guitar lesson class is going to make it cease being fun.
Microsoft controls the LiveID servers, which is the ONLY use for this code and plugin.
So then what is all the uproar over patent lawsuits about? If this code is only ever run on Microsoft servers for the users of it's Live@edu services who exactly is going to be sued for infringement? This makes the claims even more ridiculous because the only people who could get sued here are itself since it would be the only one distributing the code.
Even if something like this didn't hold up well in court, it would still bring plenty of negative press to GPL'd code.
How so? If the lawsuit was shown to be baseless and it was thrown out how would that bring bad press to the GPL more than an actual successful lawsuit against patent infringing GPL code?
Probably not, but you never know.
No, I do know. IF a successful patent lawsuit against an infringing piece of code in the Linux kernel didn't get businesses to drop OSS some controversy over a Moodle plugin for LiveServer is barely even gonna register on anyone's radar.
How can you NOT think it's embracing and extending?
Because there is no extending of Moodle happening? Because I don't see conspiracies around every corner?
simple phrase that incorporates why the GPLv3 is a big deal for MS to license under instead:
patent covenants. [tinyurl.com]
Or maybe the fact that the Linux kernel is GPLv2 only and as such they are just using the same license terms it is? No, it has to be phantom lawsuits instead.
Add a mod or controller that allows you to hook up a real guitar, and figure out some "skill / sound = more points" system. Something similar to the voice recognition for the microphone in rock band. Now you're actually learning a real instrument and feel some sense of accomplishment (and your parents / spouse won't be on your ass for wasting time 'playing video games').
Oh boy! Instead of just having fun playing a game I can now turn it into a music class! That sounds like loads of fun! Seriously, why do you people like you keep posting bullshit like this as if anyone, other than a few hardcore nerds, who plays this game actually thinks they are learning an instrument?
I've never met a guitar player that just stopped playing 'cause it was boring or they "just didn't feel like it anymore".
OTOH, I know about a half dozen people who have done exactly that.
Or maybe you've missed the entire point that people aren't playing games like this for anything other than to have fun.
Okay, well I didn't see that it was GPLv2 with "any later version" on it. So in this one case, I guess they could have used GPLv3 but they probably just copied the terms that the Linux kernel uses which is just GPLv2 only and is going to apply that to everything they release GPL. I'd say that's a much more likely answer than some phantom patent lawsuit over some PHP code.
Way to rip off The Onion.
Why play any game at all when most of them are just simulators for stuff you can also do in real life?
Or the TV series based on Super Mario and Zelda?
The Super Mario and Zelda cartoons were great.
Sue for what? They can't sue you for anything if they themselves release it under a license that says you can freely use, modify and distribute the source code. This imagined case would be thrown out of court.
Microsoft would be glad to spend a hundred million dollars to make GPL'ed software a "NO-NO" in big business.
But the only GPL'ed software that would become a "NO NO" in this case would be their own. Moodle wouldn't be effected in the least bit by Microsoft disallowing anyone to use their Live plugin.
If they can give away their source for free... not sue any of their users... but sue anyone who uses their open sourced software for patent violations (and actually win the case) then that will make anyone in the business world pretty much immediately remove any and all GPL software from their systems.
I'm pretty sure that such a tactic wouldn't hold up in any court. Secondly, if what you claim was true any and all GPLed software would have already been removed from the business world after the successful TomTom suit over the FAT support in the Linux kernel, but amazingly it hasn't been.
First, they introduce nice features that are confusing enough to use but simple enough that nobody feels like taking the time to improve upon them.
Have you even looked at their code to make such a statement? Doubtful.
Then, they release proprietary, closed-source "extensions" for their own tools to access the services and utilise those features with incredibly useful, simplified methodologies. Their tools then become the tools du jour and they make like bandits.
Which then begs the question of why even release anything under the GPL? They could have just gone straight to what you claim their ultimate goal is without having to release anything open source code. You're really grasping at straws here.
It's also important to note that in both of the cases where they've done this, the contribution wasn't a general "here's some improvements" code, it was "here is some code which would allow you to work better with our proprietary services, so more people would be willing to use those."
You mean like this where IBM ported a bunch of Linux development tools to AIX so that more people would develop apps for their proprietary system?
Oops, that second GPLv3 was meant to be GPLv2
So your claim is that they are releasing this code in order to get people to use it but at the same time they are going to sue anyone who actually uses it thus leading no one to using it? Huh?
Well duh. The only true OSS license is clearly the GPLv3. All those people releasing code under the Apache, MIT/X11, PHP, GPLv3, BSD, etc are clearly enemies of FOSS and we must burn them at the stake!
They're reaching out to the open-source world by Embracing open standards, they'll Extend the abilities of certain products and services but in a way that those benefits can only be reaped by people using their hardware/software to use them, and then they'll Extinguish their competitors because Microsoft is in control of the extensions to those services that people depend upon.
How does one "control" the extensions if they are also required to be licensed under the GPL as well? Aren't FOSS people always talking about how no one can have control over GPLed code since anyone and everyone can always grab the source and fork it?
Like their previous driver offering, it's not a wholehearted contribution to making an open source project better, but instead just a thing to make microsoft's own services work better when people need to use open source.
But when IBM contributes code to Linux and other open source projects it's not because they just want their services to work better with open source and thus make more money for themselves?
If it was a big change, they'd go GPLv3.
Why? That would make it be under an incompatible license with what the original software is written under and as such no third party would be able to distribute it legally because of this incompatibility. Or did you not even bother to take the 2 seconds to realize this fundamental problem with your argument?
Hmm, this is interesting. The more cynical part of me wonders why, and can't help but recall the protections against patent litigation built into GPLv3, and notably missing from GPLv2...
What's interesting about it? The Linux kernel is GPLv2 so a GPLv3 driver is unlikely to make it in. Moodle is also GPLv2 so it's perfectly logical that they'd release their plugin that works with it under the same license. Did you forget that whole big thing about GPLv3 being incompatible with GPLv2? In fact, it would be stupid on their part to release source code to work with programs under incompatible license terms which would disallow anyone from legitimately being able to distribute it.
Unlike Red Hat, Sun, Novel, IBM, etc which are just contributing to Linux and other open source through pure altruism!
Of sure, German is an extremely over verbose language at times, but the fact of the matter is that CorporateSuit, despite all his blusterings, is about as clueless in German as he tries to claim others are.