Its not really they want to make the world safe for capitalism. since that implys free market. Its that they want it safe for the 'good-old-boy' network that has been built up.
Well you are right about the fact the people with alot of money don't invest/speculate with only $10k. But I was just throwing the number of $10k for example, not meant to be a real case. Add a zero or two if you like.
Wall Street is not a zero-sum game as you say. But it does have a house. And we ain't in it.:-)
Here's the basic math. Say you have a ton of money. You figure that if SCO wins, they're worth a ton. If they loose, they're worth nothing.
Spend 10K on investment of SCOX when you first hear about their claims against IBM an stock is $1.50 a share. $10K gives about 6666 shares. (heh)
Other analysis say same thing and pushes the stock to $10/share. Initial $10k investment is not about $66K investment. Not bad. If the speculation was now 'proven', they can pump more cash into it. If not, they can remove $15K, and let the rest sit to see what happens.
I'm over-simplfying this, but many stock brokers think along these lines. Its a gamble. Picks like SCOX a year ago was good simply because the odds compare to potential win are good. Wall Street is an elite version of Las Vegas... with the same results. (House wins)
I get that they are licensing the schema... though that seems abit weird. But it seems trivial to 'go around it' Make a public domain xsl/t filter to convert it from/to the OpenOffice XML version. Every program and just fork/exec an app to run the xsl/t app (like . (Only problem is its not integrated)
But what does it really mean to license the schema? (Maybe I don't really "get" it) What's the difference between reverse engineering a c-struct or reading the published structure for the c-struct? If you publish something publically, yeah, there's no reverse engineering. But by making it available, how is it more offlimits? Least now no one can claim the DMCA was violated by the reverse engineering.
And if you use the schema and put in the link to their license, can't they just update the content that the link displays turning it into propritary?
I agree with Tom7 here for the most part. Cheating at solitaire doesn't mean the 'moral fabric' is ripping. People have always cheated at Solitaire when they're just using a deck of playing cards... just because the cheating happens on a computer doesn't mean society is more immoral then before. It just that now companys have found a way to profit from it.
Cheaters may never profit, but companys may on the assumption that people like to cheat.
Lets change the qustion slightly. Should one feel guilty to create a game where a potential goal (roleplay) is of evil? Should one feel guilty creating a game where the only role is of evil. (GTA3, for example)
Video games are like wrestling. They both appeal to the masses. Tetris isn't GTA3, WWF isn't Sumo. But there is an intended audience, and the developers of both types write for their audience. The end product contains not only the developers view of the tastes of the audience in question, but also what the developer in question considers entertainment and/or interesting. (And this coming from the guy who wanted to port the old Mac game Despair to Java....)
Yes, you are missing something. JBoss as a product is the best J2EE open-source server available, and a product that competes with WebLogic and WebSphere big time. (And quite well, I might add, with the clustering support working in most environments just fine.) The consulting group was the method for supporting the open-source product, so this may impact development, though I'm unsure as to how much impact it will have.
This is like saying, oh, some Apple developers left to start BeOS. Hopefully with better results. Is that news? (Now, I know the folks say that they plan to continue work on JBoss, but we'll see how long that lasts, or if the end up forking JBoss too.)
Its kinda like XFree86 being forked... only different.;-)
What's really funny about this is IBM has tons of patents, and I'm sure SCO's SYSV must have violated at least one of them. A smell counter-suit. This is the only reason to have software patents... protection of the self.
They DO specify that you have to pay off the balance on any machines that you sell, though. How's that any different than, say, requiring you to pay off your bank loan before you sell your car?
After the car loan is done, you own the car. After the software service contract is done, you still don't own the software. Its more like leasing a car.
Actually, this is not the same thing as you described. A brief history; Walnut Creak software hosted the FreeBSD development. It wasn't owned by Walnut Creak, but they helped by having a distribution site, et al. Of course, Walnut Creak also distributed version of Linux and other open-source software on the website and various CD sets.
BSDi, having financial troubles (my opinion), tried to get on the open-source bandwagon by buying out Walnut Creak. This was, of course, in the time when having Linux in your product line allowed for huge market valuations. It didn't help them, though it tried.
WRS decided it wanted more technology, and bought BSDi. I think they were interested more in embeded side of BSD/OS, as well as enlarging their customer base. Either way, the FreeBSD side of the house never fit their profile. At least, with BSDi, FreeBSD was based on the same source-base as BSD/OS. Namely, BSD. (Of course.:-)
Either way, this won't stop development of FreeBSD, so it's not exactly what you described. Rather, this cause logisitical problems for a bit until a) the FreeBSD trademark issue is solved, and b) the future of their core servers and how the core members will continue their development is dealt with.
Remember, the different is that this is still an open-source, community involved development project. If transmetal got bought-out and they fired Linus, it would not stop Linux. It would just change some of Linus's logistics. The principle is very similar here. (Except that core distributions were done by BSDi and Walnut creak. Core distributions are not done by Transmetal I believe.)
If they're claiming rights to the actual encoding/decoding mechanism, then do they really have a leg to stand on here?
Actually, yes. They created the mechanism, and allow other people to use it through a license. The patented mechanism has legal protection from using the mechanism without getting the license.
This is just like RSA inc. requiring licenses
for the RSA algorythim(sp) when it was still covered under their patent. Now that the patent expired, anyone can use the algorythim.
The real reason that Microsoft is 'attacking' GPL
is not only because they cannot steal the code, legally, but because of their fear that the government will support GPL code. Take for example, this:
"Today, any government putting work under GPL is walling it (the work) off from commercial business,"
That comment is specific to attacking the NSA's secure Linux project, which release their code under GPL. Expect more attacks in the future, until the government regulates that government code cannot be GPL.
Depends on what you think is cool... I've worked on a bunch of applications I think are cool. Billing apps that use XML/XSL for page generation (Using Cocoon from Apache) and EJB servers for transaction control... they work very well, and were quick to develop.
If the only thing you classify as cool is games, then you are correct. If you like good, fast object-oriented applications, then you're wrong.
This is all _wonderful_ IMO, and the last thing I want is for all the companies to merge into one big market leader that crushes all before it. This is one of the biggest reasons why I don't use/recommend FreeBSD to people.
So, you don't recommend people to use FreeBSD because it's company (Walnut creek, until now) is the market leader that crushes all before it? Perhaps BSDI has sold 90% of UNIX to the world, and is eating up Walnut creek as it plans Sun and Intel.
I recommend (and use) FreeBSD and Linux. It depends on the purpose. If I was writing embedded controllers, (which I'm not) I'd use BSDI. This is very simple for me. Use a tool when it's useful.
Slashdot Mirror
Its not really they want to make the world safe for capitalism. since that implys free market. Its that they want it safe for the 'good-old-boy' network that has been built up.
Well you are right about the fact the people with alot of money don't invest/speculate with only $10k. But I was just throwing the number of $10k for example, not meant to be a real case. Add a zero or two if you like.
:-)
Wall Street is not a zero-sum game as you say. But it does have a house. And we ain't in it.
Here's the basic math. Say you have a ton of money. You figure that if SCO wins, they're worth a ton. If they loose, they're worth nothing.
Spend 10K on investment of SCOX when you first hear about their claims against IBM an stock is $1.50 a share. $10K gives about 6666 shares. (heh)
Other analysis say same thing and pushes the stock to $10/share. Initial $10k investment is not about $66K investment. Not bad. If the speculation was now 'proven', they can pump more cash into it. If not, they can remove $15K, and let the rest sit to see what happens.
I'm over-simplfying this, but many stock brokers think along these lines. Its a gamble. Picks like SCOX a year ago was good simply because the odds compare to potential win are good. Wall Street is an elite version of Las Vegas... with the same results. (House wins)
was the prediction of what games on the PC looks like by 2007, where Duke Nukem Forever is still pending release.
But what does it really mean to license the schema? (Maybe I don't really "get" it) What's the difference between reverse engineering a c-struct or reading the published structure for the c-struct? If you publish something publically, yeah, there's no reverse engineering. But by making it available, how is it more offlimits? Least now no one can claim the DMCA was violated by the reverse engineering.
And if you use the schema and put in the link to their license, can't they just update the content that the link displays turning it into propritary?
Cheaters may never profit, but companys may on the assumption that people like to cheat.
So, where does MAME fit in? Is it the Jurassic park of evolutionary games?
Lets change the qustion slightly. Should one feel guilty to create a game where a potential goal (roleplay) is of evil? Should one feel guilty creating a game where the only role is of evil. (GTA3, for example)
Video games are like wrestling. They both appeal to the masses. Tetris isn't GTA3, WWF isn't Sumo. But there is an intended audience, and the developers of both types write for their audience. The end product contains not only the developers view of the tastes of the audience in question, but also what the developer in question considers entertainment and/or interesting. (And this coming from the guy who wanted to port the old Mac game Despair to Java....)
This is like saying, oh, some Apple developers left to start BeOS. Hopefully with better results. Is that news? (Now, I know the folks say that they plan to continue work on JBoss, but we'll see how long that lasts, or if the end up forking JBoss too.)
Its kinda like XFree86 being forked... only different.
What's really funny about this is IBM has tons of patents, and I'm sure SCO's SYSV must have violated at least one of them. A smell counter-suit. This is the only reason to have software patents... protection of the self.
They DO specify that you have to pay off the balance on any machines that you sell, though. How's that any different than, say, requiring you to pay off your bank loan before you sell your car?
After the car loan is done, you own the car. After the software service contract is done, you still don't own the software. Its more like leasing a car.
BSDi, having financial troubles (my opinion), tried to get on the open-source bandwagon by buying out Walnut Creak. This was, of course, in the time when having Linux in your product line allowed for huge market valuations. It didn't help them, though it tried.
WRS decided it wanted more technology, and bought BSDi. I think they were interested more in embeded side of BSD/OS, as well as enlarging their customer base. Either way, the FreeBSD side of the house never fit their profile. At least, with BSDi, FreeBSD was based on the same source-base as BSD/OS. Namely, BSD. (Of course.
Either way, this won't stop development of FreeBSD, so it's not exactly what you described. Rather, this cause logisitical problems for a bit until a) the FreeBSD trademark issue is solved, and b) the future of their core servers and how the core members will continue their development is dealt with.
Remember, the different is that this is still an open-source, community involved development project. If transmetal got bought-out and they fired Linus, it would not stop Linux. It would just change some of Linus's logistics. The principle is very similar here. (Except that core distributions were done by BSDi and Walnut creak. Core distributions are not done by Transmetal I believe.)
Actually, yes. They created the mechanism, and allow other people to use it through a license. The patented mechanism has legal protection from using the mechanism without getting the license. This is just like RSA inc. requiring licenses for the RSA algorythim(sp) when it was still covered under their patent. Now that the patent expired, anyone can use the algorythim.
"Today, any government putting work under GPL is walling it (the work) off from commercial business,"
That comment is specific to attacking the NSA's secure Linux project, which release their code under GPL. Expect more attacks in the future, until the government regulates that government code cannot be GPL.
Actually, this just means that Slashdot has the ability to moderate on request by the 'victum'. Failure to do so can then be cause for litigation.
Depends on what you think is cool... I've worked on a bunch of applications I think are cool. Billing apps that use XML/XSL for page generation (Using Cocoon from Apache) and EJB servers for transaction control... they work very well, and were quick to develop. If the only thing you classify as cool is games, then you are correct. If you like good, fast object-oriented applications, then you're wrong.
So, you don't recommend people to use FreeBSD because it's company (Walnut creek, until now) is the market leader that crushes all before it? Perhaps BSDI has sold 90% of UNIX to the world, and is eating up Walnut creek as it plans Sun and Intel.
I recommend (and use) FreeBSD and Linux. It depends on the purpose. If I was writing embedded controllers, (which I'm not) I'd use BSDI. This is very simple for me. Use a tool when it's useful.