what about singles that are produced? Won't there be a loss in that market? I wouldn't neccessarily think so. Even though a large percentage of the music available on napster servers are available as singles, There are plenty of (rarities && b sides && songs not on singles). Now if you think of you average napster user with 100+ songs on there hard drive, how manyt of them purchase singles on a regular basis. I personally don't. Also the majority of "hit singles" I download from napster are songs that I could only see myself buying either as discount rack singles or part of (sound tracks || compilation cds). Now I'm sure there are people who have bought less singles because of napster. However, I think in general napster users do buy music. There decisions may have been affected by napster, but mainly in what they buy not how much.
SO what caldera gets here is the ability to sell to more "conservative" companies... you know, the ones that actually believe that they need to be able to sue a company with a REAL OS, like SCO...
Yeah but if these companies had any brains they would use BSDi or FreeBSD. Yahoo uses Free with no problem and they have a very good network getting God knows how many hits. You have the support and you have a REAL OS and a REAL company to sue. FreeBSD is very stable and very secure.
Honestly I see a lot of good coming out of this in terms of user verification. Of course it is pausible in theory that once a voice reconigition system is good enough to be used for user validation voice synthesis will be good enough to override it. However, many of mans greatest discoveries are discovered by accident so who know what little side project will evolve from this research. Even if nothing useful came from it, wouldn't it be fun to set up video confrencing software to interact via voice. Computer: Incomming communication from Alan Cox over an encrypted channel. br> Linus: Computer Onscreen.
Auctually that would be a brilliant marketing move. Then they sell off their patent to some other company which quickly goes public and is bought out by Corel executives as soon as Corel goes completly dead. They then wait for another business to die a slow painfull death and sue there asses off while they still have some money left. Of course they would have to make several patents to maximize profits. Sorta modularize the proccess.
It is true that the GPLed version can and probally will continue to be developed. However assuming they develop on there own some new feature, lets just say an IDE and compilier they can in theory persuade to buy the commercial version.
IANAL but it is my understanding of US copyright law and its releationship to the GPL that bugfixes and the like fall under the original works copyright. Obvisiousally if a group of open source developers say, "hey lets get rid of the crappy integrated web browser and replace it with Mozilla," That would be considered a seperate work and the intellectual property of that group of developers. Now I know that Mozilla is not a gpled product, but thats not the point. The point is assuming that Sun employees organize the development of Star Office and Sun take care of adding all new major fixes they will be able to use a sendmail like release cycle. This is not likely, because if they wanted to they could have used the BSD license and assuming most developers would submit there code to the CVS tree organized by Sun they would run into less problems.
Honestly I would like to see someone port a non Sun java implementation to Star office. That would be hilarious.
And the GPL version will not compete with Sun's variant? With that reasoning, Sun will lose either way. Sun is the copyright owner. They can use there inhouse staff to write the application server and release that under a commercial license. Also realize that any improvements made by Joe hAx0R is a derivitative work and therefore encompassed under the Sun copyright, so at anytime they could integrate the application server into a non-free product and move to a sendmail like model where you have a free version a year behind the non free version.
My original argument was lets say a closed source software company creates a commercial product from bsd licensed software. Lets us ssh as an example even though it was the same developers and merely a license change at a certain point in development. Now as time goes on they improve on the standard and create deritive works ssh2 and sftp. Now the developers at OpenSSH had to rewrite from scratch an SSH2 implementation. In theory eventually sftp will be reverse engineered eventually althought that does not seem to be considered priority at the moment. So anyway both licenses have flaws in the area of code reuse. The BSD license may have less assuming commercial software producers play nice, but if properly abused it can cause just as much code rewriting as the GPL.
t makes you think only black hats do it? The post I am replying to states: This vigilante sort of attitude you give real hackers a bad name. I am simply saying that does with these vigilante attitudes are being less harmful by overclocking than lets say DDoSing microsoft.com. Well Auctually the benifits to society caused by deoing harm to Microsoft is a whole other topic entirely.
I look in the FreeBSD/usr/src and see the copywrite it is under has no such clause inforced. I apoligize for that. The annoying advetising clause is no longer included in 4.4BSDlite because deriritive works would include similar clauses. This lead to making certain programs virtually unadvertisable because you would need to dedicate half the page to these annoying clauses. Anyway Microsoft and Apple used the code under the new license. Feel free to deny that the quality of TCP/IP networking in both M$ andApple products improved when they started using the BSD code. I nevr claimed using the BSD code didn't improve the product
Where was the copywrite notices that SHOULD have been displayed with ftp.exe on windows NT? The code in question is the TCP/IP stacks. Real low level stuff. What 'annoying' advertising clause was this? And I quote from Freshmeat:
All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of Califonia, Berkeley and its contributors.
Why is the effort of CLOSED SOURCE programmers to clone the functionality of GPLed code not worthy of consideration? I don't know when did I say that? Both licenses are flawed. There is no perfect solution. We live in an imperfect world. We have to deal with such harsh realities as not all code getting recycled.
If you are really against drugs and censorship, as I would a ssume a recovering herion addict to be, you would realize that this law will have zero impact on reducing drug use. Especially among children and groups that lack the life experience to realize that if they are going to use drugs they better be very careful. I'm sorry, but I'd rather risk being killed by a drunk driver in a free country then being killed by a drunk driver in an oppressed country.
This vigilante sort of attitude you gives real hackers a bad name. I think its better to channel black hat whims into something like overclocking than teardropping Winboxes.
If the goal is to stop duplication of efforts, the BSD or public domain licence does a better job than a GPL licence.
Your theory is flawed. With BSD license a closed source software company could take software, modify it, release it with a restrictive license plus annoying advertising clause, and the open source developers gotta clone software. Microsoft did it with TCP/IP. Now of they did nothing that there is a need to duplicate. They just implemented it in there OS. Now IBM released there e-biz software closed source based on apache, BSD licensed software. Assuming it catches on there will be a need to provide the functionality in an open source product. People will have to clone the functionality.
In addition we have contributed more new code to the SAMBA team to support CUPS printing "natively" via IPP, providing a faster, more reliable Windows printing experience.
Its good to see one OSS project helping another one with slightly different goals. Hopefully other projects will take after their example.
Think about it like this though. A lot of software, such as encryption software takes a lot of R&D to develop. Now take encryption for example. Now going back ten years ago, the open source community did not neccessarally have the resources to develop the encryption algorithims neccessary for a product such as ssh. However, commercial software companies could. Now it is feasible that a similar product could be created by an open source effort from scratch without the aid of an existing standard. However, the resulting product would take longer to develop.
My high schools video editing club had an Amige 500 running the video toaster. They don't use it anymore. I want to see if I can go back and "appropiate" it.
Well, assuming that to be true, it still does not stop the SDRAM companies from challenging the validity of the patent. The articles seems to state they plan on doing just that:
A vice president at one of the so-called Big Five DRAM producers, who declined to be identified, said memory vendors had hoped the Rambus synchronous patents would be invalidated as the intellectual-property house proceeded with its lawsuit against Hitachi and Sega.
My first computer was a super-charges XT clone. Featuring the 8088 proccessor, 640k of ram(hey thats all well ever need, right Gates?), a whopping 10 meg hard drive, an external 2400bps modem, and of course double density 3.5 and 5.25 floppies.The 3.5 was the B: drive and was attached to a 5.25" slot adapter which was secured to the top of the modem via electric tape. One of the expansion slot covers was removed to allow for the floppy ribon cable and power cord to connect to the 3.5' floppy/
Slashdot Mirror
what about singles that are produced? Won't there be a loss in that market?
I wouldn't neccessarily think so. Even though a large percentage of the music available on napster servers are available as singles, There are plenty of (rarities && b sides && songs not on singles). Now if you think of you average napster user with 100+ songs on there hard drive, how manyt of them purchase singles on a regular basis. I personally don't. Also the majority of "hit singles" I download from napster are songs that I could only see myself buying either as discount rack singles or part of (sound tracks || compilation cds). Now I'm sure there are people who have bought less singles because of napster. However, I think in general napster users do buy music. There decisions may have been affected by napster, but mainly in what they buy not how much.
If only there were more people like you on Slashdot. Of course that would probally mean most of us would be using Some sort of BSD.
Wait, what would be the problem there?
I'm just waiting for IBM to release a baseball Game for Linux/X. Then I will be convinced Sisko is running the place.
SO what caldera gets here is the ability to sell to more "conservative" companies... you know, the ones that actually believe that they need to be able to sue a company with a REAL OS, like SCO...
Yeah but if these companies had any brains they would use BSDi or FreeBSD. Yahoo uses Free with no problem and they have a very good network getting God knows how many hits. You have the support and you have a REAL OS and a REAL company to sue. FreeBSD is very stable and very secure.
Honestly I see a lot of good coming out of this in terms of user verification. Of course it is pausible in theory that once a voice reconigition system is good enough to be used for user validation voice synthesis will be good enough to override it. However, many of mans greatest discoveries are discovered by accident so who know what little side project will evolve from this research.
Even if nothing useful came from it, wouldn't it be fun to set up video confrencing software to interact via voice.
Computer: Incomming communication from Alan Cox over an encrypted channel. br> Linus: Computer Onscreen.
With the way the us patent office is handing out patents Its sounding more legeal every day.
Auctually that would be a brilliant marketing move. Then they sell off their patent to some other company which quickly goes public and is bought out by Corel executives as soon as Corel goes completly dead. They then wait for another business to die a slow painfull death and sue there asses off while they still have some money left. Of course they would have to make several patents to maximize profits. Sorta modularize the proccess.
It is true that the GPLed version can and probally will continue to be developed. However assuming they develop on there own some new feature, lets just say an IDE and compilier they can in theory persuade to buy the commercial version.
IANAL but it is my understanding of US copyright law and its releationship to the GPL that bugfixes and the like fall under the original works copyright. Obvisiousally if a group of open source developers say, "hey lets get rid of the crappy integrated web browser and replace it with Mozilla," That would be considered a seperate work and the intellectual property of that group of developers. Now I know that Mozilla is not a gpled product, but thats not the point. The point is assuming that Sun employees organize the development of Star Office and Sun take care of adding all new major fixes they will be able to use a sendmail like release cycle. This is not likely, because if they wanted to they could have used the BSD license and assuming most developers would submit there code to the CVS tree organized by Sun they would run into less problems.
Honestly I would like to see someone port a non Sun java implementation to Star office. That would be hilarious.
And the GPL version will not compete with Sun's variant? With that reasoning, Sun will lose either way.
Sun is the copyright owner. They can use there inhouse staff to write the application server and release that under a commercial license. Also realize that any improvements made by Joe hAx0R is a derivitative work and therefore encompassed under the Sun copyright, so at anytime they could integrate the application server into a non-free product and move to a sendmail like model where you have a free version a year behind the non free version.
My original argument was lets say a closed source software company creates a commercial product from bsd licensed software. Lets us ssh as an example even though it was the same developers and merely a license change at a certain point in development. Now as time goes on they improve on the standard and create deritive works ssh2 and sftp. Now the developers at OpenSSH had to rewrite from scratch an SSH2 implementation. In theory eventually sftp will be reverse engineered eventually althought that does not seem to be considered priority at the moment.
So anyway both licenses have flaws in the area of code reuse. The BSD license may have less assuming commercial software producers play nice, but if properly abused it can cause just as much code rewriting as the GPL.
I think that all linked sites should have to sign a waiver so they can't sue /. when the slashdot effect brings there netfinity cluster to its knees
t makes you think only black hats do it?
The post I am replying to states: This vigilante sort of attitude you give real hackers a bad name.
I am simply saying that does with these vigilante attitudes are being less harmful by overclocking than lets say DDoSing microsoft.com. Well Auctually the benifits to society caused by deoing harm to Microsoft is a whole other topic entirely.
I look in the FreeBSD /usr/src and see the copywrite it is under has no such clause inforced.
I apoligize for that. The annoying advetising clause is no longer included in 4.4BSDlite because deriritive works would include similar clauses. This lead to making certain programs virtually unadvertisable because you would need to dedicate half the page to these annoying clauses. Anyway Microsoft and Apple used the code under the new license.
Feel free to deny that the quality of TCP/IP networking in both M$ and Apple products improved when they started using the BSD code.
I nevr claimed using the BSD code didn't improve the product
The code in question is the TCP/IP stacks. Real low level stuff.
What 'annoying' advertising clause was this?
And I quote from Freshmeat: Why is the effort of CLOSED SOURCE programmers to clone the functionality of GPLed code not worthy of consideration?
I don't know when did I say that? Both licenses are flawed. There is no perfect solution. We live in an imperfect world. We have to deal with such harsh realities as not all code getting recycled.
If you are really against drugs and censorship, as I would a ssume a recovering herion addict to be, you would realize that this law will have zero impact on reducing drug use. Especially among children and groups that lack the life experience to realize that if they are going to use drugs they better be very careful.
I'm sorry, but I'd rather risk being killed by a drunk driver in a free country then being killed by a drunk driver in an oppressed country.
This vigilante sort of attitude you gives real hackers a bad name.
I think its better to channel black hat whims into something like overclocking than teardropping Winboxes.
Microsoft did it with TCP/IP. Now of they did nothing that there is a need to duplicate. They just implemented it in there OS.
Now IBM released there e-biz software closed source based on apache, BSD licensed software. Assuming it catches on there will be a need to provide the functionality in an open source product. People will have to clone the functionality.
Think about it like this though. A lot of software, such as encryption software takes a lot of R&D to develop. Now take encryption for example. Now going back ten years ago, the open source community did not neccessarally have the resources to develop the encryption algorithims neccessary for a product such as ssh. However, commercial software companies could. Now it is feasible that a similar product could be created by an open source effort from scratch without the aid of an existing standard. However, the resulting product would take longer to develop.
My high schools video editing club had an Amige 500 running the video toaster. They don't use it anymore. I want to see if I can go back and "appropiate" it.
Well what wrong with just (email || ftp ) + ing) the fscking document in a format you can both read. e.g.:
My first computer was a super-charges XT clone. Featuring the 8088 proccessor, 640k of ram(hey thats all well ever need, right Gates?), a whopping 10 meg hard drive, an external 2400bps modem, and of course double density 3.5 and 5.25 floppies.The 3.5 was the B: drive and was attached to a 5.25" slot adapter which was secured to the top of the modem via electric tape. One of the expansion slot covers was removed to allow for the floppy ribon cable and power cord to connect to the 3.5' floppy/