You're missing the point. In the GNU manifesto it states *explicitly* that Free Software is about *FREEDOM*, not *PRICE*.
The FSF does make the source available on the ftp site which has a link from the FSF's website.
Also, when you download Linux as an ISO it is usually because the companies selling Linux *ALLOW* this.
AAARRRRRRRGGGGHHHHH - I can't believe how many people actually can't understand english or don't bother to read about thing *before* they make idiotic comments.
Even if Best Buy delays the prices for just a week it's done it's job. The reason the prices are kept secret is because they don't want their competitors to know.
And they'll loose a pittance on the suit while making bank on the sale.
Microsoft is using the term "free" in a couple of different and confusing ways...
1) Red Hat isn't abandoning it's "free" (gratis) users since it never provided support for those who downloaded it's Linux distribution from it's FTP without paying in the first place.
2) Red Hat remains a proponent of Free (Libre) software and is trying to push Linux more into the server market to increase the visibility of Free (Libre) Software there.
3) Novell has been a staunch supported of Linux from the beginning and it's buyout SuSE actually validates the Open Source model, not Microsoft's.
In fact with so many companies embracing open source in this way, it's suprising that even Microsoft would try to put this kind of spin on these events. Then again...
Uncalled for. The USPTO has rexamined and invalidated patents before. It does the Patent Office no good to issue bad patents, although that happens *all the time*.
No. Any "useful, non-obvious invention" can be patented. Whether that's how you build a rocketship or how you jerk off.;)
One thing most people misunderstand is that patents do not grant the exclusive right to an invention to one person. It grants the right to control who and who does not utilize the invention. There is a subtle difference.
The latter basically means that it is up to the holder of the patent to determine if there is infrigement and prosecute. Patent holders must be vigilant.
1) SCO is making this claim in it's affirmative defense so that it doesn't loose the chance to do so later. According to the law, defendant and plaintiff are required to mention all possible defenses in their filing or otherwise waive the right to said defense later in the trial. In plain english, they're saying it now so that they will be able to say it later. Will it come up?? Probably not.
2) The basis of SCO's claim is the line in constitution which says that "Congress shall confer, for the development of the useful arts, a limited monopoly for a given period of time onto the creator of any work". This line is the basis for both patent and copyright law. Copyright law further specifies that some consideration shall be rewarded to the person who owns the "work".
It doesn't specify if that "consideration" is monitery or not. SCO is trying to bend the rules here and they don't stand a chance of winning.
Your argument is laughable. Nothing has been proven yet. Just because someone has challenged it, doesn't make it invalid.:)
BTW, FreeBSD, which Apple used heavily in revamping the BSD layer of Mach for Mac OS X, is under the BSD license which has many of the same provisions that SCO is arguing make the GPL invalid.
What makes you think BSD isn't next? If SCO wins this thing, all UNIX derivates or UNIX-like OSes will be their targets.
It's imperative that this be put down for the entire communities sake. The BSD license has many of the elements that SCO is claiming makes the GPL license "invalid". The are of course spouting horse hockey.
It's amazingly diffucult to manage a project which runs domestically. What do you expect from a workforce that is halfway around the world, barely speaks english, and is no better at programming than we are.:)
Most Indian programmers I know take drastic shortcuts and some, even worse, have produced some of the *worst* designs I've ever seen to date. I have met a few good ones, but mostly not.
Trademarks don't need to be registered, only used in conducting business. If you can prove that your unregistered trademark was used by you in conducting some form of business, then you can fight infringement of said trademark in court.
This is the difference between (R) a registered trademark and (TM) a (non-registered) trademark.
The issue here is that the words "under God" were added to the pledge by Eisenhower by congressional act.
Since this was done as an act of legislation it is a clear violation of the establishment clause and is therefore not constitutional.
The establishment clause reads: "Congress shall pass no law respecting any religion".
The spirit and meaning of this clause is meant to prevent Government from involving itself in the backing of any particular religion. The supreme court will have only one choice in this case.
Also, the argument that early settlers were christians doesn't justify the US government going against an established constitutional amendment. The early settlers fled the countries they were in *because of* religious persecution. In doing so, they learned that it is best not to force a state sponsered religion. The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom of religion so long as it is Christianity.
Besides, there is no God anyway. It's all about who has the better imaginary friend isn't it?
SGI didn't apologize. SGI removed publically available, but arguable code in the kernel. Also, since when is accidentally copying a few lines of public domain code (which might have questionable legal status) more of a crime than using your control of 95% of the market to force multitudes of businesses out of the market and unfairly gain a foothold for your own personal gain?
Seems to me you're a little confused. Go read SGI's letter again and you'll see the "upon completion of this exhaustive investigation we found some code (similar in nature to the code above)". The "similar in nature" means that the code was all public domain.
Caveat Emptor is the short answer, here's the long one...
Because it presents an issue to people who wish to release free and open source software. Free Software and Open Source might suffer because there is, often times, no rich corporation to back it up.
This might also lead to mandatory licensing of engineers which is another problem. It may become illegal for someone without a license to produce software in the first place. A number people who write open source/free software are still in college and don't have their degree yet. Still others do it simply as a hobby. This would criminalize thier activities.
Also, some of your examples focus on command/control systems which involve the real possibility of loss of property (the office building scenario). In these cases I can see a case for liability.
With respect to the car, there have been some cases in which it was the resposibility of the *driver* since the car wasn't properly maintained.
With respect the the dataloss scenario, aren't you as the user responsible for keeping backups? It is your data after all.:)
Any ruling making Microsoft liable could be used by the legal system as a precendent to make ALL software companies and/or individuals who produce software *personally* liable damages arising from use. This may look like a "we've got 'em now" scenario, but it might come back to bit us.
This depends on what is meant by "port". Is it possible that they mean that they have written drivers to work on those operating systems to make it work?
I believe more information is needed on this before I make any decision as to whether it's better or worse than VMware.
You're correct. It's all about the license. That's what most people don't get. It's simply easier for the unwashed masses to believe that a given category of thing is "bad" in general rather than having to think about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Hello Idiot,
You're missing the point. In the GNU manifesto it states *explicitly* that Free Software is about *FREEDOM*, not *PRICE*.
The FSF does make the source available on the ftp site which has a link from the FSF's website.
Also, when you download Linux as an ISO it is usually because the companies selling Linux *ALLOW* this.
AAARRRRRRRGGGGHHHHH - I can't believe how many people actually can't understand english or don't bother to read about thing *before* they make idiotic comments.
GJC
What you're alluding to in jest is actually the truth.
:)
I never said it was "right" or "fair", i just said this is their strategy and it's going to work.
GJC
Even if Best Buy delays the prices for just a week it's done it's job. The reason the prices are kept secret is because they don't want their competitors to know.
And they'll loose a pittance on the suit while making bank on the sale.
GJC
I mean, I don't think I've really seen her give a glowing review to anything.
Besides, who made her *the* expert.
Bah.
GJC
Microsoft is using the term "free" in a couple of different and confusing ways...
1) Red Hat isn't abandoning it's "free" (gratis) users since it never provided support for those who downloaded it's Linux distribution from it's FTP without paying in the first place.
2) Red Hat remains a proponent of Free (Libre) software and is trying to push Linux more into the server market to increase the visibility of Free (Libre) Software there.
3) Novell has been a staunch supported of Linux from the beginning and it's buyout SuSE actually validates the Open Source model, not Microsoft's.
In fact with so many companies embracing open source in this way, it's suprising that even Microsoft would try to put this kind of spin on these events. Then again...
GJC
Uncalled for. The USPTO has rexamined and invalidated patents before. It does the Patent Office no good to issue bad patents, although that happens *all the time*.
GJC
No. Any "useful, non-obvious invention" can be patented. Whether that's how you build a rocketship or how you jerk off. ;)
One thing most people misunderstand is that patents do not grant the exclusive right to an invention to one person. It grants the right to control who and who does not utilize the invention. There is a subtle difference.
The latter basically means that it is up to the holder of the patent to determine if there is infrigement and prosecute. Patent holders must be vigilant.
GJC
Save your sympathy for those who need it. We donate our time because we love what we're doing. Money is a secondary consideration for some.
Bug off, asshole.
GJC
A couple of things:
1) SCO is making this claim in it's affirmative defense so that it doesn't loose the chance to do so later. According to the law, defendant and plaintiff are required to mention all possible defenses in their filing or otherwise waive the right to said defense later in the trial. In plain english, they're saying it now so that they will be able to say it later. Will it come up?? Probably not.
2) The basis of SCO's claim is the line in constitution which says that "Congress shall confer, for the development of the useful arts, a limited monopoly for a given period of time onto the creator of any work". This line is the basis for both patent and copyright law. Copyright law further specifies that some consideration shall be rewarded to the person who owns the "work".
It doesn't specify if that "consideration" is monitery or not. SCO is trying to bend the rules here and they don't stand a chance of winning.
GJC
Simulation and number crunching is the most likely use. Does it have to be GNU/Linux or Windows to be useful?? :)
GJC
Your argument is laughable. Nothing has been proven yet. Just because someone has challenged it, doesn't make it invalid. :)
:)
BTW, FreeBSD, which Apple used heavily in revamping the BSD layer of Mach for Mac OS X, is under the BSD license which has many of the same provisions that SCO is arguing make the GPL invalid.
Better hope they loose, huh?
Moron.
GJC
What makes you think BSD isn't next? If SCO wins this thing, all UNIX derivates or UNIX-like OSes will be their targets.
It's imperative that this be put down for the entire communities sake. The BSD license has many of the elements that SCO is claiming makes the GPL license "invalid". The are of course spouting horse hockey.
Hope this helps you sleep.
GJC
It's amazingly diffucult to manage a project which runs domestically. What do you expect from a workforce that is halfway around the world, barely speaks english, and is no better at programming than we are. :)
Most Indian programmers I know take drastic shortcuts and some, even worse, have produced some of the *worst* designs I've ever seen to date. I have met a few good ones, but mostly not.
GJC
Trademarks don't need to be registered, only used in conducting business. If you can prove that your unregistered trademark was used by you in conducting some form of business, then you can fight infringement of said trademark in court.
This is the difference between (R) a registered trademark and (TM) a (non-registered) trademark.
GJC
The issue here is that the words "under God" were added to the pledge by Eisenhower by congressional act.
Since this was done as an act of legislation it is a clear violation of the establishment clause and is therefore not constitutional.
The establishment clause reads: "Congress shall pass no law respecting any religion".
The spirit and meaning of this clause is meant to prevent Government from involving itself in the backing of any particular religion. The supreme court will have only one choice in this case.
Also, the argument that early settlers were christians doesn't justify the US government going against an established constitutional amendment. The early settlers fled the countries they were in *because of* religious persecution. In doing so, they learned that it is best not to force a state sponsered religion. The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom of religion so long as it is Christianity.
Besides, there is no God anyway. It's all about who has the better imaginary friend isn't it?
GJC
GJC
I've had two or three go bad on me.
GJC
Yahoo Messenger has been doing this for a while..
SGI didn't apologize. SGI removed publically available, but arguable code in the kernel. Also, since when is accidentally copying a few lines of public domain code (which might have questionable legal status) more of a crime than using your control of 95% of the market to force multitudes of businesses out of the market and unfairly gain a foothold for your own personal gain?
Seems to me you're a little confused. Go read SGI's letter again and you'll see the "upon completion of this exhaustive investigation we found some code (similar in nature to the code above)". The "similar in nature" means that the code was all public domain.
Shheesh.
GJC
Not good.
Caveat Emptor is the short answer, here's the long one...
:)
Because it presents an issue to people who wish to release free and open source software. Free Software and Open Source might suffer because there is, often times, no rich corporation to back it up.
This might also lead to mandatory licensing of engineers which is another problem. It may become illegal for someone without a license to produce software in the first place. A number people who write open source/free software are still in college and don't have their degree yet. Still others do it simply as a hobby. This would criminalize thier activities.
Also, some of your examples focus on command/control systems which involve the real possibility of loss of property (the office building scenario). In these cases I can see a case for liability.
With respect to the car, there have been some cases in which it was the resposibility of the *driver* since the car wasn't properly maintained.
With respect the the dataloss scenario, aren't you as the user responsible for keeping backups? It is your data after all.
GJC
Any ruling making Microsoft liable could be used by the legal system as a precendent to make ALL software companies and/or individuals who produce software *personally* liable damages arising from use. This may look like a "we've got 'em now" scenario, but it might come back to bit us.
Later, GJC
This depends on what is meant by "port". Is it possible that they mean that they have written drivers to work on those operating systems to make it work?
I believe more information is needed on this before I make any decision as to whether it's better or worse than VMware.
GJC
They don't really want, in my opinion, to find the best job for you.
GJC
I already tried to get the lighthouse applications released from Sun, do you think that they'll be more willing to release NeWS??
;)
Sun seems to keep lots of things in it's morgue for no real reason other than to keep other people from having it.
GJC
You're correct. It's all about the license. That's what most people don't get. It's simply easier for the unwashed masses to believe that a given category of thing is "bad" in general rather than having to think about it.
GJC