SCO: "We will show you the lines of code misappropriated by the GNU/Linux OS. For example:
void main {
That alone appears thousands of times in the Linux source code! The bastards stole that! They are trampling on our intellectual property rights with such infringement! "
On a more serious note, IBM would be fools to buy SCO since every unscrupulous creton on the planet will come out form under their rocks to try and work the same deal.
SCO was crushed by the market - a better deal came along in the form of Linux and many of us took it. Their product is largely irrelevant, outdated and inadequate. The market is a cruel but unbiased place - and it has delivered SCO's death warrant. This is just a gang-plank appeal to try and forstall the inevitable.
Is it (will it be) possible to use TCPA to effectively lock-out certain operating evironments from various services (software, media, etc) solely because the operating environment is not backed by a company, and has no mechanism for paying certification fees and licenses? Specifically, could TCPA be used against free OS's like Free/Open/netBSD and Linux to prevent those users from accessing the same content users of commercial OS's can?
Sorry to rain on your parade, but Ogg Vorbis is not a replacement for MPEG4. Vorbis competes with MP3, which means "Mpeg-1 Layer 3". Obviously, the audio layer. MPEG-4 is a next generation A/V standard, like MPEG-1 and MPEG-2.
Currently we have no Free Software alternative to these codecs, tho OGG Theora may be done in the next year.
It is true that MPEG-LA is being ridiculous. I have no sympathy for them and we can all see what 'reasonable and non-discrinatory' type licensing schemes get you.
That being said, keep in mind that what is true today may not be true tomorrow. It may not even be true today. Er...
Anyway:
1. WMP9 may be cheaper _right now_. MS can change that tomorrow. WMP10 may be 2x as much.
2. Just because the CODEC is cheaper doesn't mean its cheaper to implement Windows Media Streaimng over a solution streaming MP4.
3. WMP9 limits (to what degree is debateable) your audience.
4. Both of these technologies are on the path of the Dodo, IMO. Just as Real Technologies has fallen from techno-marvel to techno-garbage, so will these.
The past has shown that a truly open standard usually emerges in these areas, via governmental intervention or not. NTSC for North American television. Whatever guage the current railroad system runs on. An RJ-11 phone jack. Streaming video is just too young to be at that stage yet.
Re:Per Transaction Fees Suck...
on
Add-Ons Add Up
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Whether you think the fee is justified or not, you should at least familiarize yourself with the facts surrounding the situation.
There are 2 types of ATM usage, the banking jargon usually refers to "domestic" and "foreign" but that is in relation to a bank. So Bank X's card on Bank X's ATM is a 'dmestic transaction" or an "us-on-us" transaction.
For us-on-us transactions, they are almost always free - the cost for maintaining the ATMs and the network is figured into the normal account setup.
For us-on-them transactions, it gets messy. First, the owner of the ATM will almost always charge you a dollar or two for using their machine when you don't bank with them. That is the fee you are prompted for on the screen.
Now, Bank X's ATMs don't have access to Bank Y's accounts. This is reasonable, Chase isn't going to give Wells-Fargo access to ttheir systems, for example. So to facilitate this, their must be a middle clearinghouse that facilitates transferring the money and providing a standard network interface. This is the Plus, Cirrus, etc network. These are independent companies, or sometimes banks. In this area, Midwest Payment Systems is dominant, owned by Fifth Third Bank, for example.
This clearinghouse network charges the bank the card is from a fee for facilitating the transfer of money. That is why your own bank charged you a fee.
My suggestion is to find a bank with a large ATM network if you are interested in avoiding fees. For better or worse, its the system that is there.
Until Wednesday, SnoSoft's home page stressed that it had a policy of "full disclosure" of security threats--unless that company retains SnoSoft as consultants.
"If someone hires us to do research we can not disclose that information since the information becomes theirs--they purchase it," said Snosoft's Desautels.
Ok, so SnoSoft says, "Hey, we found a security hole in your Tru64 product, but we are only going to tell you if you fork over some dough!" How ethical is that? Its hardly full disclosure. HP was threatening legal action on this basis, not that they found a hole. If I were HP I would sue the extorting bastards, too. Either disclose all holes publicly upon discovery or give the opportunity for vendors to fix them, but disclosing security holes within 24 hours to bugtraq only in the cases where the vendor does not pay you for cracking their system is unethical, IMO.
Ok, I think you completely missed the point on most of his answers. The fact that the binaries can be assmebled onto an ISO with an install script is nothing. Go ahead and do it. Licensing is on your side, and it isn't what they are selling.
Go to a large enterprise (their target), and give them a choice:
1. This distibution, built form a consortium of companies CERTIFIED to run with Oracle, DB2, Checkpoint-1, etc etc... for some price (say $2,500)
2. This free distribution which has all the same components, but is backed by some volunteers over the internet. It mirrors (1) in all regards but support and certification.
Most medium to large companies will go with (1) in a heartbeat. So go ahead. Make a distro. The linux community will shun it because it is essentially UnitedLinux, businesses will shun it because it isn't what they asked for.
I am no Ransom Lover (had to get that in), or a fan of SuSE, but they are finally hearing what commercial enterprises have been demanding - reassurance. Red Hat has moved even further down this path with training certs. I don't think United Linux will make a huge impact. I don't ever see myself considering it. But then again, my annual revenues are markedly lower than the annual revenues of the people they are targetting this thing for.
How is the membership into the United Linux group going to work, and how much flexibility will there be? Can any distribution join? Are there significant costs to becoming a member? Can members set their own policies with regard to per-seat-licensing? In sum, how much freedom do the member companies have in how they market, contribute and license United Linux?
This SP does NOT make Windows more modular. It simply is a convenient interface to override default applications.
You can't uninstall IE or its libraries - they still will load on startup. What you can do is associate URLs to Moz or whatever.
This can all be done now, just not very conveniently for the average user. All the SP adds is a Control Panel applet to facilitate the association changing.
People are missing the point. The fact there are other ways to authenticate SMTP is moot. The question is whether or not free speech and expression can be limited because of inconveniences it causes. For example, in the US you cannot yell, 'Fire' in a crowded movie theater - it has been decided by the court system that the public interests outweigh the individual right.
So does the same thing apply here?
Analogy: I build a subway, and charge no admission. Penniless vagrants board the subway and ride to Wealthyville and rob a house. Am I to blame because had I charged a subway fare they would not have been able to get to Wealthyville?
Comes down to his Terms of Service with Verio. If he agreed not to run an oen relay, then he shouldn't. If Verio did not prohibit it, then he can. In general, long term Bad Things(c) happen when practicality trumps freedom.
I'll remind you that this site bears a multinational culture, but your remarks appear to be in the context of the USA so I will repsond in that context as well.
I just read the conclusions of the TMISS report you linked. The report's conclusions are mainly centered around the cultural context of school, particularly the testing and subsequent placement of students into varying programs based on skill. As Germany and Japan (the two countries used as a basis for comparison of American youth) the authors point out that with the importance of proficiency exams determining an individual's future, those exams and schoolwork receive a high degree of social importance.
What is interesting is that it mentions gaming and/or the internet NOWHERE in its conclusions. I don't know what type of child psych-babble you are portending to represent, but it is clear from the source you provided gaming was never considered an influence, nor the internet.
You then go on to cite 'Children at this age...' (under 16 apparently) and draw a litany of conclusions about them. First, what data are you using to support your claim that 'The slashdot editors should be aware that a large part of their community consists of children at an age below 16'? Or that they have trouble disseminating information as a whole.
And as for this comment, 'When they are exposed to computer game propagandizing sites they'll have no chance against the psychological tricks used there and fall for computer gaming addiction at once.' - all I have to say is that it is meaningless conjecture until you provide substantiation for a statement such as that.
If you don't like gaming, then fine, what distresses me is your unabashed and shameless use of a 'save the children' cry to try and forward your agenda. I would rather my children understand the cultural decisions they need to make about entertainment and work than follow a scrupulous shill as yourself.
The most disappointing aspect of RMS's views is the potential impact on the GNOME Foundation.
One Board member cannot change things drastically working alone, so in that I am somewhat relieved. What concerns me is that we actually have multiple UNIX vendors (as well as Linux) looking to make GNOME a default desktop. Once again, Free Software is on the precipice of becoming a standard - it would be a shame to see that fail to materialize due to squabbles. What his statement amounts to is that GNOME is to provide a desktop to an - as of now - incomplete operating system.
No it isn't a violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects you against the government suppressing speech - not a private company.
It is a contract of sorts. You can say whatever you want - you just can't use their tool to do it. If you do, they can fight you on breeching the contract. You will pay damages. You will not have your speech removed unless you choose to do so.
It is an onerous license, so don't use the tool. Simple. But they aren't violating your rights because you don't have to purchase the tool - there are other tools available.
I completely disagree. Route to the server is moot. DJ simply says I have a document here on this (cluster) server. If you wish, you -with your own means- may initiate a connection to the server, located in the US, and take that document and transfer it to your PC in AUS. The individual reading it and their ISP facilitated that transfer, not DJ. If I am selling Foo and Foo is illegal in AUS, yet someone comes up to me and buys Foo while mentioning that they are immediately leaving for AUS, is that my problem? Heck no, adn neither is this DJ's. Its a PULL model, not PUSH. DJ didn't lift a finger to send that document to AUS until an _Australian_ connected to a US server and asked for it.
As far as your good faith efforts - what do you propose, requiring every individual on the planet to comply with every law under every TLD allowed into their webserver? The most dangerous part is that you immediately hold everyone to be _simultaneously_ governed by multiple nations. Totally unworkable without major changes in terms of heirarchy (can you imagine that).
One could actually argue that the document wasn't a document until the _user_ opened it on his PC and changed it from incomprehensible electrons to a human-readable language. As far as I can tell, the person who is ultimately culpable is the end user. When did we get away from that type of thinking anyway?
This appears to be flawed legislation to me. Not that I agree with the basis of the law to begin with, but shouldn't the Australian Parliament target the Australian ISP? It would seem to me that they 'imported' the content.
The funny thing is, doing this would erect a huge virtual content-firewall around the country. I understand that treaties exist mandating reciprocal action (for all those posting "How can they do this?": its a joint treaty that basically says, "You give us all your citizens that face civil action in our country and we will give you ours.."), but those are in place for big-hitter type offenders and clear cases of injustice. If I write a factual, but critical article about Australia, does that get targetted? What this shows is just how silly those treaties are sometimes in practice.
The bottom line in my opinion is what is the AUS gov't saying about its citizens? Is it telling the world that they are not educated enough to read the content and critically think about it? That they need protection from this? If indeed the gov't believes that, then just shut the internet off down there, given the fact-to-opinion ratio of the internet as a whole.
One thought that came to mind was it seems to also offer this statement: "Downloading porn until your hard drive smokes - fine, but none of that stuff saying we aren't the bestest country on the planet!"
Has anyone gandered at the new license? My first question is whether it attempts to prevent you from distributing *parts* of the distribution or just the distribution as a whole.
This is going to get messy. Two observations.
1.) Wasn't distribution of KDE (QT license) with GPL licensed software the big hang-up with Debian? IIRC, it was the fact they were packaged and distributed together that caused issues with the GPL. So doesn't the same hold true for Caldera's 'proprietary software'?
2.) How can a company that has developed Free Software for years _not_ let GPL'd code influence the development of their 'proprietary' software?
We all knew Ransom never _really_ cared about the community - but this is over the top.
Isn't this what we want? Engaging Mr. Mundie in a controlled debate of the issue definately favors Free Software, IMO. What better way to confront the FUD than face to face.
I also believe that as a community we need to stay focused on what is important and avoid falling into the same headline chasing FUD tactics that Microsoft uses. Competing with MS on their terms is foolish. Remember when Clinton's '92 campaign reverberated 'It's the economy, stupid!'? We need to stick to that same sort of level, but substitute economy with technology and freedom.
How do they Use a propietary File System...
on
TiVo Upgrade Isn't
·
· Score: 1
How do they use this closed source MFS filesystem without linking it and bundling it with the kernel, which is GPL'd? For all those that point to TiVo's and say 'see what linux can do..' - look again, and the same statement can be made, but in the context of 'OMG, look what they did to our values....'
The point is, they aren't charging for the work of others. The GPL defines it as charging for the distribution of the work. It is no different than Fed-Ex charging me $14 to overnight a report I write. My work, their distribution. When we release code under the GPL, these are the rules we sign up for.
Sadly, Mandrake did what many Free Software companies have done (free distribution), and it contributed to problems. The thing is, Free Software allows for making money off the venture, but in specific ways: distribution and service. Mandrake was making strides in distribution (I even saw a copy of Mandrake 7.2 in Wal-Mart) but it always seemed easier to just download a copy.
An interesting point - the GPL does not require providing FTP access to the distribution free of charge, particularly before a boxed version of the product is available. I was no huge fan of what Libranet did by charging for the download, but in a moment of rare clarity I realized if the choice is to have a fee based download or boxed purchase versus losing a distribution, I would gladly pay. I have purchased 2 versions of RedHat (5.2 and 7.1) solely because I believe in supporting companies that have empowered me. not everyone can create a Debian - it is a special group of people that make things like Debian happen.
I don't think I am alone when I say I don't mind paying for Free Software. As oxymoronic as that sounds, developers need to eat. Companies need to make money. Hopefully Mandrake will rebound and solve their issues. In the interim - for those of us with the means - we should consider buying a single copy of our favorite distro, or donate to Free Software projects we value. Download a copy, try it, and if it is worth it, support the people that made it happen. Code, money, whatever. Communities are a two-way street and if we don't support developers how can they support us?
To correct my earlier post, they were found liable under the Tort of fraud. It is easy to slip into the 'guilty' vernacular since fraud is one of the very few Torts where intent must be proven.
It was good, because it exposed another failed business model. Rambus didn't make things they created lawsuits. Intellectual Property is one thing if you are actively using it to produce goods and services, instead, Rambus used it to collect royalties alone. For Rambus the problem rests in the fact that just as they are getting immensely profitable, other companies are looking at the costs and deciding that bringing suit is a financially viable option, win or lose. When the business model reaches this stage, it is nothing more than a high stakes flip of the coin - anyone who thinks legal proceedings are anyhting but is fooling themselves.
On one other note: they were found guilty of fraud - the patents have not been invalidated. A Plaintiff still needs a judge to invalidate the patents before the memory makers are completely out of the woods. I, for one, am hoping that Judge Payne does just that and everyone can come to closure on who is shafting whom.
The.NET platform is primarily about distributing data among different devices, applications, operating systems, etc
How many people really believe this? Given my experiences with MS in the past I have a hard time with this concept. If the application is MS certified, and if the OS is an MS OS, and if the device is an OEM under contract, then I beleive the statement. We have empirical evidence of MS behavior vs. marketing hype. What do you want to believe today?
Slashdot Mirror
SCO: "We will show you the lines of code misappropriated by the GNU/Linux OS. For example:
void main {
That alone appears thousands of times in the Linux source code! The bastards stole that! They are trampling on our intellectual property rights with such infringement! "
On a more serious note, IBM would be fools to buy SCO since every unscrupulous creton on the planet will come out form under their rocks to try and work the same deal.
SCO was crushed by the market - a better deal came along in the form of Linux and many of us took it. Their product is largely irrelevant, outdated and inadequate. The market is a cruel but unbiased place - and it has delivered SCO's death warrant. This is just a gang-plank appeal to try and forstall the inevitable.
And I thought the people that sought legal advice on Slashdot were nuts...
Asking for tax advice on here is taking it to another level...
Is it (will it be) possible to use TCPA to effectively lock-out certain operating evironments from various services (software, media, etc) solely because the operating environment is not backed by a company, and has no mechanism for paying certification fees and licenses? Specifically, could TCPA be used against free OS's like Free/Open/netBSD and Linux to prevent those users from accessing the same content users of commercial OS's can?
Sorry to rain on your parade, but Ogg Vorbis is not a replacement for MPEG4. Vorbis competes with MP3, which means "Mpeg-1 Layer 3". Obviously, the audio layer. MPEG-4 is a next generation A/V standard, like MPEG-1 and MPEG-2.
Currently we have no Free Software alternative to these codecs, tho OGG Theora may be done in the next year.
It is true that MPEG-LA is being ridiculous. I have no sympathy for them and we can all see what 'reasonable and non-discrinatory' type licensing schemes get you.
That being said, keep in mind that what is true today may not be true tomorrow. It may not even be true today. Er...
Anyway:
1. WMP9 may be cheaper _right now_. MS can change that tomorrow. WMP10 may be 2x as much.
2. Just because the CODEC is cheaper doesn't mean its cheaper to implement Windows Media Streaimng over a solution streaming MP4.
3. WMP9 limits (to what degree is debateable) your audience.
4. Both of these technologies are on the path of the Dodo, IMO. Just as Real Technologies has fallen from techno-marvel to techno-garbage, so will these.
The past has shown that a truly open standard usually emerges in these areas, via governmental intervention or not. NTSC for North American television. Whatever guage the current railroad system runs on. An RJ-11 phone jack. Streaming video is just too young to be at that stage yet.
Whether you think the fee is justified or not, you should at least familiarize yourself with the facts surrounding the situation.
There are 2 types of ATM usage, the banking jargon usually refers to "domestic" and "foreign" but that is in relation to a bank. So Bank X's card on Bank X's ATM is a 'dmestic transaction" or an "us-on-us" transaction.
For us-on-us transactions, they are almost always free - the cost for maintaining the ATMs and the network is figured into the normal account setup.
For us-on-them transactions, it gets messy. First, the owner of the ATM will almost always charge you a dollar or two for using their machine when you don't bank with them. That is the fee you are prompted for on the screen.
Now, Bank X's ATMs don't have access to Bank Y's accounts. This is reasonable, Chase isn't going to give Wells-Fargo access to ttheir systems, for example. So to facilitate this, their must be a middle clearinghouse that facilitates transferring the money and providing a standard network interface. This is the Plus, Cirrus, etc network. These are independent companies, or sometimes banks. In this area, Midwest Payment Systems is dominant, owned by Fifth Third Bank, for example.
This clearinghouse network charges the bank the card is from a fee for facilitating the transfer of money. That is why your own bank charged you a fee.
My suggestion is to find a bank with a large ATM network if you are interested in avoiding fees. For better or worse, its the system that is there.
Is it just me or does the "Grand Alliance" sound like a bunch of guys sitting around wearing blue water-buffalo hats? (apologies to the Flintstones).
Seriously though, that is one arrogant name.
Until Wednesday, SnoSoft's home page stressed that it had a policy of "full disclosure" of security threats--unless that company retains SnoSoft as consultants. "If someone hires us to do research we can not disclose that information since the information becomes theirs--they purchase it," said Snosoft's Desautels.
Ok, so SnoSoft says, "Hey, we found a security hole in your Tru64 product, but we are only going to tell you if you fork over some dough!" How ethical is that? Its hardly full disclosure. HP was threatening legal action on this basis, not that they found a hole. If I were HP I would sue the extorting bastards, too. Either disclose all holes publicly upon discovery or give the opportunity for vendors to fix them, but disclosing security holes within 24 hours to bugtraq only in the cases where the vendor does not pay you for cracking their system is unethical, IMO.
Ok, I think you completely missed the point on most of his answers. The fact that the binaries can be assmebled onto an ISO with an install script is nothing. Go ahead and do it. Licensing is on your side, and it isn't what they are selling.
Go to a large enterprise (their target), and give them a choice:
1. This distibution, built form a consortium of companies CERTIFIED to run with Oracle, DB2, Checkpoint-1, etc etc... for some price (say $2,500)
2. This free distribution which has all the same components, but is backed by some volunteers over the internet. It mirrors (1) in all regards but support and certification.
Most medium to large companies will go with (1) in a heartbeat. So go ahead. Make a distro. The linux community will shun it because it is essentially UnitedLinux, businesses will shun it because it isn't what they asked for.
I am no Ransom Lover (had to get that in), or a fan of SuSE, but they are finally hearing what commercial enterprises have been demanding - reassurance. Red Hat has moved even further down this path with training certs. I don't think United Linux will make a huge impact. I don't ever see myself considering it. But then again, my annual revenues are markedly lower than the annual revenues of the people they are targetting this thing for.
How is the membership into the United Linux group going to work, and how much flexibility will there be? Can any distribution join? Are there significant costs to becoming a member? Can members set their own policies with regard to per-seat-licensing? In sum, how much freedom do the member companies have in how they market, contribute and license United Linux?
This SP does NOT make Windows more modular. It simply is a convenient interface to override default applications.
You can't uninstall IE or its libraries - they still will load on startup. What you can do is associate URLs to Moz or whatever.
This can all be done now, just not very conveniently for the average user. All the SP adds is a Control Panel applet to facilitate the association changing.
Marc
People are missing the point. The fact there are other ways to authenticate SMTP is moot. The question is whether or not free speech and expression can be limited because of inconveniences it causes. For example, in the US you cannot yell, 'Fire' in a crowded movie theater - it has been decided by the court system that the public interests outweigh the individual right.
So does the same thing apply here?
Analogy: I build a subway, and charge no admission. Penniless vagrants board the subway and ride to Wealthyville and rob a house. Am I to blame because had I charged a subway fare they would not have been able to get to Wealthyville?
Comes down to his Terms of Service with Verio. If he agreed not to run an oen relay, then he shouldn't. If Verio did not prohibit it, then he can. In general, long term Bad Things(c) happen when practicality trumps freedom.
I'll remind you that this site bears a multinational culture, but your remarks appear to be in the context of the USA so I will repsond in that context as well.
I just read the conclusions of the TMISS report you linked. The report's conclusions are mainly centered around the cultural context of school, particularly the testing and subsequent placement of students into varying programs based on skill. As Germany and Japan (the two countries used as a basis for comparison of American youth) the authors point out that with the importance of proficiency exams determining an individual's future, those exams and schoolwork receive a high degree of social importance.
What is interesting is that it mentions gaming and/or the internet NOWHERE in its conclusions. I don't know what type of child psych-babble you are portending to represent, but it is clear from the source you provided gaming was never considered an influence, nor the internet.
You then go on to cite 'Children at this age...' (under 16 apparently) and draw a litany of conclusions about them. First, what data are you using to support your claim that 'The slashdot editors should be aware that a large part of their community consists of children at an age below 16'? Or that they have trouble disseminating information as a whole.
And as for this comment, 'When they are exposed to computer game propagandizing sites they'll have no chance against the psychological tricks used there and fall for computer gaming addiction at once.' - all I have to say is that it is meaningless conjecture until you provide substantiation for a statement such as that.
If you don't like gaming, then fine, what distresses me is your unabashed and shameless use of a 'save the children' cry to try and forward your agenda. I would rather my children understand the cultural decisions they need to make about entertainment and work than follow a scrupulous shill as yourself.
The most disappointing aspect of RMS's views is the potential impact on the GNOME Foundation.
One Board member cannot change things drastically working alone, so in that I am somewhat relieved. What concerns me is that we actually have multiple UNIX vendors (as well as Linux) looking to make GNOME a default desktop. Once again, Free Software is on the precipice of becoming a standard - it would be a shame to see that fail to materialize due to squabbles. What his statement amounts to is that GNOME is to provide a desktop to an - as of now - incomplete operating system.
No it isn't a violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects you against the government suppressing speech - not a private company.
It is a contract of sorts. You can say whatever you want - you just can't use their tool to do it. If you do, they can fight you on breeching the contract. You will pay damages. You will not have your speech removed unless you choose to do so.
It is an onerous license, so don't use the tool. Simple. But they aren't violating your rights because you don't have to purchase the tool - there are other tools available.
I completely disagree. Route to the server is moot. DJ simply says I have a document here on this (cluster) server. If you wish, you -with your own means- may initiate a connection to the server, located in the US, and take that document and transfer it to your PC in AUS. The individual reading it and their ISP facilitated that transfer, not DJ. If I am selling Foo and Foo is illegal in AUS, yet someone comes up to me and buys Foo while mentioning that they are immediately leaving for AUS, is that my problem? Heck no, adn neither is this DJ's. Its a PULL model, not PUSH. DJ didn't lift a finger to send that document to AUS until an _Australian_ connected to a US server and asked for it.
As far as your good faith efforts - what do you propose, requiring every individual on the planet to comply with every law under every TLD allowed into their webserver? The most dangerous part is that you immediately hold everyone to be _simultaneously_ governed by multiple nations. Totally unworkable without major changes in terms of heirarchy (can you imagine that).
One could actually argue that the document wasn't a document until the _user_ opened it on his PC and changed it from incomprehensible electrons to a human-readable language. As far as I can tell, the person who is ultimately culpable is the end user. When did we get away from that type of thinking anyway?
This appears to be flawed legislation to me. Not that I agree with the basis of the law to begin with, but shouldn't the Australian Parliament target the Australian ISP? It would seem to me that they 'imported' the content.
The funny thing is, doing this would erect a huge virtual content-firewall around the country. I understand that treaties exist mandating reciprocal action (for all those posting "How can they do this?": its a joint treaty that basically says, "You give us all your citizens that face civil action in our country and we will give you ours.."), but those are in place for big-hitter type offenders and clear cases of injustice. If I write a factual, but critical article about Australia, does that get targetted? What this shows is just how silly those treaties are sometimes in practice.
The bottom line in my opinion is what is the AUS gov't saying about its citizens? Is it telling the world that they are not educated enough to read the content and critically think about it? That they need protection from this? If indeed the gov't believes that, then just shut the internet off down there, given the fact-to-opinion ratio of the internet as a whole.
One thought that came to mind was it seems to also offer this statement: "Downloading porn until your hard drive smokes - fine, but none of that stuff saying we aren't the bestest country on the planet!"
Has anyone gandered at the new license? My first question is whether it attempts to prevent you from distributing *parts* of the distribution or just the distribution as a whole.
This is going to get messy. Two observations.
1.) Wasn't distribution of KDE (QT license) with GPL licensed software the big hang-up with Debian? IIRC, it was the fact they were packaged and distributed together that caused issues with the GPL. So doesn't the same hold true for Caldera's 'proprietary software'?
2.) How can a company that has developed Free Software for years _not_ let GPL'd code influence the development of their 'proprietary' software?
We all knew Ransom never _really_ cared about the community - but this is over the top.
Isn't this what we want? Engaging Mr. Mundie in a controlled debate of the issue definately favors Free Software, IMO. What better way to confront the FUD than face to face.
I also believe that as a community we need to stay focused on what is important and avoid falling into the same headline chasing FUD tactics that Microsoft uses. Competing with MS on their terms is foolish. Remember when Clinton's '92 campaign reverberated 'It's the economy, stupid!'? We need to stick to that same sort of level, but substitute economy with technology and freedom.
How do they use this closed source MFS filesystem without linking it and bundling it with the kernel, which is GPL'd? For all those that point to TiVo's and say 'see what linux can do..' - look again, and the same statement can be made, but in the context of 'OMG, look what they did to our values....'
The point is, they aren't charging for the work of others. The GPL defines it as charging for the distribution of the work. It is no different than Fed-Ex charging me $14 to overnight a report I write. My work, their distribution. When we release code under the GPL, these are the rules we sign up for.
Sadly, Mandrake did what many Free Software companies have done (free distribution), and it contributed to problems. The thing is, Free Software allows for making money off the venture, but in specific ways: distribution and service. Mandrake was making strides in distribution (I even saw a copy of Mandrake 7.2 in Wal-Mart) but it always seemed easier to just download a copy.
An interesting point - the GPL does not require providing FTP access to the distribution free of charge, particularly before a boxed version of the product is available. I was no huge fan of what Libranet did by charging for the download, but in a moment of rare clarity I realized if the choice is to have a fee based download or boxed purchase versus losing a distribution, I would gladly pay. I have purchased 2 versions of RedHat (5.2 and 7.1) solely because I believe in supporting companies that have empowered me. not everyone can create a Debian - it is a special group of people that make things like Debian happen.
I don't think I am alone when I say I don't mind paying for Free Software. As oxymoronic as that sounds, developers need to eat. Companies need to make money. Hopefully Mandrake will rebound and solve their issues. In the interim - for those of us with the means - we should consider buying a single copy of our favorite distro, or donate to Free Software projects we value. Download a copy, try it, and if it is worth it, support the people that made it happen. Code, money, whatever. Communities are a two-way street and if we don't support developers how can they support us?
To correct my earlier post, they were found liable under the Tort of fraud. It is easy to slip into the 'guilty' vernacular since fraud is one of the very few Torts where intent must be proven.
It was good, because it exposed another failed business model. Rambus didn't make things they created lawsuits. Intellectual Property is one thing if you are actively using it to produce goods and services, instead, Rambus used it to collect royalties alone. For Rambus the problem rests in the fact that just as they are getting immensely profitable, other companies are looking at the costs and deciding that bringing suit is a financially viable option, win or lose. When the business model reaches this stage, it is nothing more than a high stakes flip of the coin - anyone who thinks legal proceedings are anyhting but is fooling themselves.
On one other note: they were found guilty of fraud - the patents have not been invalidated. A Plaintiff still needs a judge to invalidate the patents before the memory makers are completely out of the woods. I, for one, am hoping that Judge Payne does just that and everyone can come to closure on who is shafting whom.
The .NET platform is primarily about distributing data among different devices, applications, operating systems, etc
How many people really believe this? Given my experiences with MS in the past I have a hard time with this concept. If the application is MS certified, and if the OS is an MS OS, and if the device is an OEM under contract, then I beleive the statement. We have empirical evidence of MS behavior vs. marketing hype. What do you want to believe today?