Someone should stand ourside an MCSE training class and hand out this article to all the people going in MCSE status offers several practical advantages. 1. PHBs think it's hard to get, so if you have one you are must be smart. 2. MCSE is easy to get if you've got $7000, a month, and a brain. Or $1000, 6 months, and a brain. 3. If you have an MCSE, you can run an NT network and earn nice money while you study for a real job.
It makes sense that they are opening the source a little; they did take a LOT from the Free software community for Netware 5 Gotta disagree with you there. They are revealing the source code; I saw nothing that indicates they are making it open or free. They are doing this to attract developers, not out of any sense of "Well, you gave us cool stuff, we'll give you cool stuff."
Within three months, I will have cable internet access for $50/month. The child tax credit put into place last year will pay for my internet access this year. So yeah, in my case at least, a tax cut is paying for high-speed internet access.
Of course, that's anecdotal. The truly fatal flaw of your argument is your implicit premise that bandwidth costs are constant, which is a patently absurd idea.
1. Patents can be bought and sold (whether you call them property or not). This does not alter the argument of the post you replied to. And on the topic of property, your house, your furnace, the food you eat, and the water you drink are all property. Millions die yearly for lack of these; opposition to the abstract notion of intellectual property strikes me as facetious and hypocritical unless you oppose the notion of property in its entirety, in which case you would sell all that you have and give it to the poor.
2. Yup, I agree with you. I would like to see software patents for one year, and copyrights for two. Shorter timeframes might be better. This would force innovation in the software sector - you either release a better product, or some guy with a CD burner who doesn't have to amortize development costs starts selling for half of what you can aford to.
IP laws should not be abolished, they should be remedied. 3. I think this was the point of the post you replied to.
4. The notion of God being a committee is fundamental to much Christian doctrine; read up on "the trinity" or "the triune nature of God".
Translation: "I don't trust people. I do trust machines."
I would rather use the opinions of good old fallible human beings. I can sort articles by their score (highest at the top) and set my threshold to -1000. Then I can see everything if I want to, with a predictably degrading SNR.
My guess is that this owuld permit a printer to attach diretly to the network, rather than attaching to a computer that attaches to the network. Think HP JetDirect and the DLC protocol - only this would use TCP/IP. Any better guesses, or anybody with specific info?
I must not have made myself clear. Of course Red hat, Caldera, etc. can make money. However, the stated purpose of the New Copyleft license was to make it easier for the author to make money by selling software. It did not do that.
I like their idea; this seems to me to be close to the original idea of patents (which is what they seem to intend): the inventor gets brief exclusive rights, then anyone may use it. Any software that is released under this license will be free software (note use of the future tense).
However, this license is broken. Their stated intent in the preamble conflicts with the wording of the license.
They want the author to be able to make money by distributing the software. The license grants the author exclusive for-profit distribution rights, but lets anyone distribute the software for free. From a commercial standpoint, how is this different from GPL software? If I'm selling software, I still have to compete against distributors who charge $0 for the software. Customers would have no more reason to buy from me under this license than they would under the GPL.
I think it would make more sense (given their stated purpose) to give the author exclusive distribution rights for a year or two (before GPLing it), and require that the source code be included, and allow licensees to modify the source code.
They should have thought about this a little more before releasing it. On the other hand, maybe they figured that given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow, including legal ones:)
GPL software can be used for pretty much anything; you just can't restrict the further distribution of that software or derivatives of that software. If Apple used some GPL code in their software, then that software is also GPL, which means that Apple can't sue you for copying it.
This is, of course, an oversimplification. For further info, consult www.fsf.org and read the GPL; then get a JD and specialize in intellectual property. Then you can tell me if I'm right:)
Make that - the joy of protecting yourself
on
OSI APSL Response
·
· Score: 1
Burocracy breeds evil, what self respecting hacker culture starts tradmarking things and creating organizations to monitor use of the trademark? [sic] I would suggest that evil breeds bureaucracy; if everyone were trustworthy, there'd be no need for lawyers (the creators of bureaucracy)- or gov't, for that matter. Consider this...
I'm writting some software right now which I plan to open source soon Once you made your software open source, I could sell it. In fact, that could become my business. I could then trademark the name of your software and all the filenames involved. Then I would sue anyone else who is distributing your software for violating my trademarks, and charge them a fee for using my trademarks (1). You could change the names and filenames of your software, but I could simply trademark those as well. Your legal protection against this would be to sue me for possession of the trademark (2), or to trademark the software to begin with.
Somebody trademarked "Linux" and Linus sued to get possession of it. It would have been cheaper if he had trademarked it in the first place, but I doubt it occurred to him that it would be worthwhile to do so.
Since the Open Source Initiative was founded to (among other things) make "Open Source" software commercially acceptable, it seemed likely that another commercial entity might trademark "open source" and begin distributing non-free, non-open-source software. Naturally, people would say "Look! It's Open Source (tm)! It says so on the box! They couldn't print it if it weren't true!" And Open Source would die an ugly death.
(1) This may or may not violate the GPL, but I don't care; I'm not really trying to make money selling software that costs $0 elsewhere. I just want to make money from the frivolous lawsuits. Or maybe I'm already marketing an inferior commercial product which your program threatens and I want to make it a big hassle for people to get your software so that they'll have to buy mine.
(2) You'd probably win this, but you would need $1000's in attorney's fees, since I've got obviously got scads of dough to be able to push through a shaky trademark application and then sue all those people.
Dictionaries report on what most people mean when they say certain words. a good dictionary would also report the definitions of many racial slurs. Doesn't mean they shoud be used. As for their example, devout Muslims would be deeply offended if you referred to their holy scriptures as the "Mohammedan Bible".
Yes, but can you prove it? THAT is what truly rocks, seeing that this equation results naturally from a rather natural representation of complex numbers, and that this results from the (Taylor? McLaurin? it's been too long) expansion of trigonometric and exponential functions. Then seeing all this come together in solving linear differential equations makes you realize that sometimes, beauty can be quite utilitarian, and utility can be quite beautiful.
I'm really stretching here to recall what we were told (I was a support tech for a big OEM when IE4 was released), but as I recall, when Internet Explorer 4.x is installed on Windows 95, it replaces explorer.exe, commctrl.dll, and shell.dll. This is a pretty big chunk of the user interface. Windows ties the UI to the OS at every level. You can argue that theoretically, in an abstract sense, that IE4 did not change the Windows 95 OS, but I would have to disagree with you on a practical level. Installing IE4 was an OS upgrade. Trying to uninstall IE4 meant formatting the hard drive.
I'd rather hear Linus say "I don't really care about you people" than to hear him lie and say something like "truly, you are all very important to me."
I like Mr. Katz, and I enjoy reading him, but he wouldn't have made it out of my freshman Comp 110 class. An essay is complete, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. Mr. Katz needs an editor not only for grammar and spelling, but also for style.
When I was in high school (read "when I had 30 years less experience with writing than Mr. Katz"), we had a guy on the newspaper staff who wrote much like Mr. Katz does. The one thing he wrote that made it into the paper was a movie review. He wrote a lot about the experience of going to the movies (the red velvet ropes, the enveloping seats) and not much about the movie. We made him an editor - no classified ad was allowed in the paper without his say-so.
Mr. Katz, if you read this (and I know you will:), keep writing. I like what you say. But find a friendly, intelligent, rational, professional writer who does not like the way you write and LISTEN to them. You're not progressing as a writer unless you look at what you wrote a year ago and cry "HOW COULD I HAVE SUCKED SO BAD?"
Authors write books to distribute ideas. If you had a brain, you could place the ideas there and give the book to a friend. So there's no restriction on redistribution of the ideas in the book. If you like, you can modify the book and its ideas. You can highlight words you like, and black out words you don't. In fact, you can cut out all the letters, re-arrange them, and make your own book! So there's no restriction on modification. Anyone you give the book to has the same freedoms. What's your gripe? You don't like the concept of ownership? Remember, if you don't own and are not compensated for the things you produce, you are a slave. Or an amateur.
It's so sad to see such knee-jerk reactions from people who are so obviously the products of 12 years of government-funded education.
I can personally attest to the accuracy of Mr. Stallman's analysis. The company I work for was founded four years ago to fix Y2K bugs in (unnamed) proprietary mainframe software, when customers who used the software were not being supported by the producer of the software. Because my boss had the foresight four years ago to quit and start his own company, a lot of companies are now fixed (hopefully) that would not have been. If my boss had not been feeling entrepeneurial the day he quit, those companies would have been wholly dependent on the manufacturer of the (unnamed) software.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone should stand ourside an MCSE training class and hand out this article to all the people going in
MCSE status offers several practical advantages.
1. PHBs think it's hard to get, so if you have one you are must be smart.
2. MCSE is easy to get if you've got $7000, a month, and a brain. Or $1000, 6 months, and a brain.
3. If you have an MCSE, you can run an NT network and earn nice money while you study for a real job.
The end of the article mentions possible legal action. Why would there be any legal action? Or is the author just being overly dramatic?
It makes sense that they are opening the source a little; they did take a LOT from the Free software community for Netware 5
Gotta disagree with you there. They are revealing the source code; I saw nothing that indicates they are making it open or free. They are doing this to attract developers, not out of any sense of "Well, you gave us cool stuff, we'll give you cool stuff."
"We the people...in order to provide for the common defense..."
When was the last time a foreign power launched a military attack against this country? I say if asystem ain't broke, don't break it.
Within three months, I will have cable internet access for $50/month. The child tax credit put into place last year will pay for my internet access this year. So yeah, in my case at least, a tax cut is paying for high-speed internet access.
Of course, that's anecdotal. The truly fatal flaw of your argument is your implicit premise that bandwidth costs are constant, which is a patently absurd idea.
In the column to the right of that message, click on "Hackers Sack Competition Site". Or delete the quote at the end of the URL.
1. Patents can be bought and sold (whether you call them property or not). This does not alter the argument of the post you replied to. And on the topic of property, your house, your furnace, the food you eat, and the water you drink are all property. Millions die yearly for lack of these; opposition to the abstract notion of intellectual property strikes me as facetious and hypocritical unless you oppose the notion of property in its entirety, in which case you would sell all that you have and give it to the poor.
2. Yup, I agree with you. I would like to see software patents for one year, and copyrights for two. Shorter timeframes might be better. This would force innovation in the software sector - you either release a better product, or some guy with a CD burner who doesn't have to amortize development costs starts selling for half of what you can aford to.
IP laws should not be abolished, they should be remedied.
3. I think this was the point of the post you replied to.
4. The notion of God being a committee is fundamental to much Christian doctrine; read up on "the trinity" or "the triune nature of God".
Translation: "I don't trust people. I do trust machines."
I would rather use the opinions of good old fallible human beings. I can sort articles by their score (highest at the top) and set my threshold to -1000. Then I can see everything if I want to, with a predictably degrading SNR.
My guess is that this owuld permit a printer to attach diretly to the network, rather than attaching to a computer that attaches to the network. Think HP JetDirect and the DLC protocol - only this would use TCP/IP. Any better guesses, or anybody with specific info?
Not bloody likely. This license gives the author 2 years (sort of). A software patent gives the holder iron-clad control for SEVENTEEN YEARS!
I must not have made myself clear. Of course Red hat, Caldera, etc. can make money. However, the stated purpose of the New Copyleft license was to make it easier for the author to make money by selling software. It did not do that.
I like their idea; this seems to me to be close to the original idea of patents (which is what they seem to intend): the inventor gets brief exclusive rights, then anyone may use it. Any software that is released under this license will be free software (note use of the future tense).
:)
However, this license is broken. Their stated intent in the preamble conflicts with the wording of the license.
They want the author to be able to make money by distributing the software. The license grants the author exclusive for-profit distribution rights, but lets anyone distribute the software for free. From a commercial standpoint, how is this different from GPL software? If I'm selling software, I still have to compete against distributors who charge $0 for the software. Customers would have no more reason to buy from me under this license than they would under the GPL.
I think it would make more sense (given their stated purpose) to give the author exclusive distribution rights for a year or two (before GPLing it), and require that the source code be included, and allow licensees to modify the source code.
They should have thought about this a little more before releasing it. On the other hand, maybe they figured that given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow, including legal ones
GPL software can be used for pretty much anything; you just can't restrict the further distribution of that software or derivatives of that software. If Apple used some GPL code in their software, then that software is also GPL, which means that Apple can't sue you for copying it.
:)
This is, of course, an oversimplification. For further info, consult www.fsf.org and read the GPL; then get a JD and specialize in intellectual property. Then you can tell me if I'm right
Burocracy breeds evil, what self respecting hacker culture starts tradmarking things and creating organizations to monitor use of the trademark? [sic]
I would suggest that evil breeds bureaucracy; if everyone were trustworthy, there'd be no need for lawyers (the creators of bureaucracy)- or gov't, for that matter. Consider this...
I'm writting some software right now which I plan to open source soon
Once you made your software open source, I could sell it. In fact, that could become my business. I could then trademark the name of your software and all the filenames involved. Then I would sue anyone else who is distributing your software for violating my trademarks, and charge them a fee for using my trademarks (1). You could change the names and filenames of your software, but I could simply trademark those as well. Your legal protection against this would be to sue me for possession of the trademark (2), or to trademark the software to begin with.
Somebody trademarked "Linux" and Linus sued to get possession of it. It would have been cheaper if he had trademarked it in the first place, but I doubt it occurred to him that it would be worthwhile to do so.
Since the Open Source Initiative was founded to (among other things) make "Open Source" software commercially acceptable, it seemed likely that another commercial entity might trademark "open source" and begin distributing non-free, non-open-source software. Naturally, people would say "Look! It's Open Source (tm)! It says so on the box! They couldn't print it if it weren't true!" And Open Source would die an ugly death.
(1) This may or may not violate the GPL, but I don't care; I'm not really trying to make money selling software that costs $0 elsewhere. I just want to make money from the frivolous lawsuits. Or maybe I'm already marketing an inferior commercial product which your program threatens and I want to make it a big hassle for people to get your software so that they'll have to buy mine.
(2) You'd probably win this, but you would need $1000's in attorney's fees, since I've got obviously got scads of dough to be able to push through a shaky trademark application and then sue all those people.
Dictionaries report on what most people mean when they say certain words. a good dictionary would also report the definitions of many racial slurs. Doesn't mean they shoud be used. As for their example, devout Muslims would be deeply offended if you referred to their holy scriptures as the "Mohammedan Bible".
See RFC 1925, "Fundamental Truths of Networking".
. html
Paragraph 2, section 7a:
"Good, Fast, Cheap: Pick any two (you can't have all three)."
For the complete text of the RFC, see
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/htbin/rfc/rfc1925
2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2.
Yes, but can you prove it? THAT is what truly rocks, seeing that this equation results naturally from a rather natural representation of complex numbers, and that this results from the (Taylor? McLaurin? it's been too long) expansion of trigonometric and exponential functions. Then seeing all this come together in solving linear differential equations makes you realize that sometimes, beauty can be quite utilitarian, and utility can be quite beautiful.
...ring of real numbers...
Wouldn't that be the field of real numbers? Could be the ring of integers, I suppose.
IE has NO connection to the Windows OS
Which version of IE? Which version of Windows?
I'm really stretching here to recall what we were told (I was a support tech for a big OEM when IE4 was released), but as I recall, when Internet Explorer 4.x is installed on Windows 95, it replaces explorer.exe, commctrl.dll, and shell.dll. This is a pretty big chunk of the user interface. Windows ties the UI to the OS at every level. You can argue that theoretically, in an abstract sense, that IE4 did not change the Windows 95 OS, but I would have to disagree with you on a practical level. Installing IE4 was an OS upgrade. Trying to uninstall IE4 meant formatting the hard drive.
I'd rather hear Linus say "I don't really care about you people" than to hear him lie and say something like "truly, you are all very important to me."
Who's going to check it, CmdrTaco and crew? :)
:), keep writing. I like what you say. But find a friendly, intelligent, rational, professional writer who does not like the way you write and LISTEN to them. You're not progressing as a writer unless you look at what you wrote a year ago and cry "HOW COULD I HAVE SUCKED SO BAD?"
I like Mr. Katz, and I enjoy reading him, but he wouldn't have made it out of my freshman Comp 110 class. An essay is complete, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. Mr. Katz needs an editor not only for grammar and spelling, but also for style.
When I was in high school (read "when I had 30 years less experience with writing than Mr. Katz"), we had a guy on the newspaper staff who wrote much like Mr. Katz does. The one thing he wrote that made it into the paper was a movie review. He wrote a lot about the experience of going to the movies (the red velvet ropes, the enveloping seats) and not much about the movie. We made him an editor - no classified ad was allowed in the paper without his say-so.
Mr. Katz, if you read this (and I know you will
Authors write books to distribute ideas. If you had a brain, you could place the ideas there and give the book to a friend. So there's no restriction on redistribution of the ideas in the book. If you like, you can modify the book and its ideas. You can highlight words you like, and black out words you don't. In fact, you can cut out all the letters, re-arrange them, and make your own book! So there's no restriction on modification. Anyone you give the book to has the same freedoms. What's your gripe? You don't like the concept of ownership? Remember, if you don't own and are not compensated for the things you produce, you are a slave. Or an amateur.
It's so sad to see such knee-jerk reactions from people who are so obviously the products of 12 years of government-funded education.
I can personally attest to the accuracy of Mr. Stallman's analysis. The company I work for was founded four years ago to fix Y2K bugs in (unnamed) proprietary mainframe software, when customers who used the software were not being supported by the producer of the software. Because my boss had the foresight four years ago to quit and start his own company, a lot of companies are now fixed (hopefully) that would not have been. If my boss had not been feeling entrepeneurial the day he quit, those companies would have been wholly dependent on the manufacturer of the (unnamed) software.
subject