Why should Microsoft be forced to remove IE from Windows?
I'm not sure I completely addressed this in my previous post, so I'll just make a quick comment.
I don't think anybody can reasonably agree with forcing Microsoft to remove IE. It's their product, they should be able to include it if they so desire. However, having said that, not providing the ability for a third-party application to take over the functions that IE provides IS a legitimate objection.
Exactly what is wrong with having the browser be part of the OS? It does OS-like things in a very natural way, and you have the advantage of using the same tool to browse the internet that you use to browse your hard drive.
My "objection" is not that the browser is part of the OS. My objection is that Internet Explorer is the browser.
What's wrong with having a published API so that if a competitor comes along and creates a better browser that obeys the published API, I can replace Microsoft's browser with the competitors? (Answer: that's not in Microsoft's best interest, and therefore they will not provide it to their customers - so much for being consumer-driven.)
Until the day Microsoft affords me the ability to replace - completely replace - Internet Explorer with a third-party browser control, and have that extend to Windows Explorer, Windows help, Visual Studio help (so that when I load up Windows Explorer, that third party browser is in the right-hand pane, not IE), then any offer by Microsoft to add IE to the Add/Remove menu, or the ability to get rid of the icons, is AT BEST a meaningless gesture.
Why? Let's say you decide you don't like IE, so you uninstall it.
Then you try and install the latest version of Word. Oops, Word doesn't work without IE - so you have to install. Nor does any component of the Office suite. OK, maybe you can deal without Office - but what about Visual Studio? Oops, VS doesn't work without IE. Plus, without IE, the "standalone" MSDN ceases to function. Or maybe you'd like to install Quicken? Guess again. It requires IE.
In other words, it's an empty, empty promise. The core OS might not need the IE icons or whatever, but they'll be back in force each and every time you install a Microsoft product. Microsoft has spent too much time, money, and energy getting the industry hooked on IE to ever give you the real choice of removing it. Too many of their products depend on IE (whether artificially or not) for them to ever really allow you to dump it.
Say you invent a software product, copyright it under your name, and then GPL it. You could sell this product as a proprietary product under a different licence. However, as soon as someone else contributes to your code, you lose all rights to sell it under your proprietary licence.
Bzzzt! Wrong.
What you "lose" is the right to sell the version that contains your code AND the code contributed by other people. You are still entitled to distribute the product you wrote under any license whatsoever.
What you essentially have is a fork, where you have a proprietary and a free version that share a common code base. There's nothing that says you can't distribute your original product under a proprietary license (in fact, there's nothing that says you can't continue to improve it!) - you simply can't distribute the changes and modifications other people make.
That's incorrect. There are 19 states who are also part of this lawsuit, in addition to the government. Even if the government drops out, the states have publicly stated that they will continue to appeal.
They said that they could not do a library, because they user C or C++ and different technologies.
Actually, they said something more like that if the library ever did come to fruition it would probably be C++ based, but provide C methods for accessing the functionality.
Does anybody know if the DeLorme Earthmate is supported by any of these apps/libraries?
I know the Earthmate doesn't use the standard GPS information format, but instead some binary, proprietary Rockwell (?) format. The fact that my GPS would become a paperweight is about the only thing keeping me from installing Linux on my laptop.
The problem, unfortunately, sounds like it's not a case of the Foobar-Bazbox Fisheye Algorithm (TM) being trademarked. It sounds like IPIX has a patent on fisheye->panorama conversions _altogether_. Which means that no matter how many clever alternate algorithms or methodologies you come up with for converting fisheye images to panoramas, you're still going to be running afoul of the patent.
In other words, they have the sole and exclusive right to convert fisheye images to panoramas, regardless of how it's done. It's not a matter of "how" you do it, it's that you're doing it in the first place.
Think about that. It's like saying that a particular tire manufacturer has the sole and exclusive right to make round tires, regardless of the manufacturing method used. It wouldn't be a matter of "how" you made the tires, but that you made them in the first place.
Oh, I'm not necessarily saying that people "get" the concept or existence of the RIAA.
I'm simply saying that the attempts by the music industry to shut down online music services (whether right or wrong) has the effect of alienating their online customers.
Similarly, the attempts to watermark and encrypt physical CDs will alienating their offline customers, especially when some new encrypted format requires them to buy all-new equipment just to listen to it (because their old equipment is incompatible). It will alienate their offline customers when they can't create a personal mix CD, or create a backup CD on a burner (some people do it so that the original CD doesn't get used, and thus scratched or damaged), etc.
Regardless of whether the customer knows _who_ is the person or organization doing it, it still remains that the customers are being alienated by the music industry. Maybe it's not a cataclysmic event, but even a steady creep of dissatisfied customers adds up over time.
It's not so much that perspective is needed, really.
Look at it this way. Right or wrong, the music companies have been suing almost everyone, and everything, as of late, including a lot of pet services that people enjoy. There are some things that probably deserved it (Napster), some that didn't (My.MP3.com), and some that are only peripherally relevant in comparison to some of the things the music industry has gone after (Aimster). However, as a result of being litigation-happy, people have come to view the music industry/RIAA as 800 lb. gorillas. Essentially, the music industry is pissing off their customer base.
So, when something happens that the music industry can legitimately sue over (licensing violation), a lot of people look at that and say, "The music industry has lied, cheated, stolen, and bribed their way to quashing stuff they didn't like - I hope those bastards deserve what they get!" and cheer for the guy in the wrong - even if they know the guy in the wrong is IN the wrong!.
As for living in a land where legal contracts are routinely flouted, you already do. That's why we have the court system. If you have enough money, you can flout contracts and get away scot-free. Contract law generally only helps the richest party to the contract in quashing violations by the less wealthy party or parties.
One problem with Napster's EULA, however, is that Napster's EULA was anti-copyrighted material in name only. Napster not only failed to discourage the trading of copyrighted material, they found gobs of emails and correspondence from its founders about, basically, how useful the service would be for trading copyrighted material (as well as statements about how much music the founders had gotten off the service!).
On another hand, considering that Aimster "transactions" are also encrypted, and Napster trades were not, it's probably a much easier argument to make for Aimster that they can't govern/filter/control the material that flows through their servers (or the materials the users trade).
Plus, given that Napster was music only, and Aimster is a generic file trading service, it can also be a much stronger argument that people are trading material to which those people own the copyright to. Not everybody can be a musician, but everybody can write crappy haikus, take pictures of their cats at a distance of two inches, or share the "Hello, world" programs they wrote.
Aimster's EULA also specifically prohibits the transmission of copyrighted material to which you aren't the copyright owner (it actually pretty much prohibits everything useful on the service, up to and including _storing_ files).
I wonder, should Aimster bring up this defense and get defeated, if this is a blow against the enforceability of EULAs. It could be that the RIAA winds up, in the processing of squashing one technology, opening up a whole other can of worms.
First of all, if you really could get around the GPL (say the Linux kernel) by writing a LGPL wrapper (glibc), then it would be pretty easy to just bypass the GPL.
How do you think you have native GNU/Linux applications that are closed-source? The glibc libraries are specifically LGPL-ed so that commercial applications may be developed and linked without requiring that they be GPL-ed themselves.
Second, there's plainly no reference to the LGPL in the text of the GPL.
I don't recall saying that there was.
Third, you haven't read Linux's COPYING file. Linux is not under the GPL -- there's a special Linus modification at the top of the file allowing anyone (even proprietary apps) to link to the kernel.
That's all well and good, and is probably the reason why (as the poster above you stated) people can link to symbols that the kernel exports (select, open, etc.).
However, Linux _is_ under the GPL; Linus, as copyright holder and ultimate licenser, can add as many exceptions onto the licensing as he wants. The GPL gives you certain rights; Linus can give you other rights, or modify the rights that the GPL gives you (but then it no longer qualifies as "true" GPL licensing). In this case, Linus chose to allow people not only the rights afforded by the GPL, but also one that wasn't: linking with non-GPL software.
Every program ever written under linux would be a derivative work of the kernel, which is GPL.
*bzzzzt!*
Programs under GNU/Linux are not linked against the kernel. Programs under GNU/Linux are linked against the GNU C library, which is LGPL'ed (Library GPL). The LGPL says that you can link non-GPL'ed software against the C libraries and be OK, which allows for commercial, closed-source applications to be developed for GNU/Linux.
So even if the GPL is held to be enforceable against libraries, commercial apps are safe and can continue to co-exist because the LGPL'ed C library gives them the exception they need.
Actually, this isn't nearly as bad a scenario as it you make it out to be in the worst case.
In the worst case scenario: the GPL is ruled unenforceable. As a result, any code licensed under the GPL reverts to "mere" copyright - which means no corporation can use it _period_ without asking the author or authors for permission. In other words, use of the code will require explicit permission to use rather than the implicit permission granted by the GPL.
Essentially, in the worst-case scenario, GPL'ed software immediately reverts to closed-source software, which is more restrictive than the GPL.
So you exchange it for an unopened box, take the box to a different store, and return the now-unopened software (with your receipt that shows a valid purchase for the software title).
Funny how Microsoft has never complained about the Public Domain aspect of government-developed software, but the GPL gets them hysterical...
The reason they never complained is because Microsoft can freely use/abuse public domain software, incorporate it into their products or take ideas from it, and nobody can complain (after all, it's public domain).
If they try those same stunts with GPL, suddenly they're in violation of a license.
In other words, they don't have free reign over other people's inventions/work.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should Microsoft be forced to remove IE from Windows?
I'm not sure I completely addressed this in my previous post, so I'll just make a quick comment.
I don't think anybody can reasonably agree with forcing Microsoft to remove IE. It's their product, they should be able to include it if they so desire. However, having said that, not providing the ability for a third-party application to take over the functions that IE provides IS a legitimate objection.
--
Exactly what is wrong with having the browser be part of the OS? It does OS-like things in a very natural way, and you have the advantage of using the same tool to browse the internet that you use to browse your hard drive.
My "objection" is not that the browser is part of the OS. My objection is that Internet Explorer is the browser.
What's wrong with having a published API so that if a competitor comes along and creates a better browser that obeys the published API, I can replace Microsoft's browser with the competitors? (Answer: that's not in Microsoft's best interest, and therefore they will not provide it to their customers - so much for being consumer-driven.)
Until the day Microsoft affords me the ability to replace - completely replace - Internet Explorer with a third-party browser control, and have that extend to Windows Explorer, Windows help, Visual Studio help (so that when I load up Windows Explorer, that third party browser is in the right-hand pane, not IE), then any offer by Microsoft to add IE to the Add/Remove menu, or the ability to get rid of the icons, is AT BEST a meaningless gesture.
--
It's worthless.
Why? Let's say you decide you don't like IE, so you uninstall it.
Then you try and install the latest version of Word. Oops, Word doesn't work without IE - so you have to install. Nor does any component of the Office suite. OK, maybe you can deal without Office - but what about Visual Studio? Oops, VS doesn't work without IE. Plus, without IE, the "standalone" MSDN ceases to function. Or maybe you'd like to install Quicken? Guess again. It requires IE.
In other words, it's an empty, empty promise. The core OS might not need the IE icons or whatever, but they'll be back in force each and every time you install a Microsoft product. Microsoft has spent too much time, money, and energy getting the industry hooked on IE to ever give you the real choice of removing it. Too many of their products depend on IE (whether artificially or not) for them to ever really allow you to dump it.
--
Say you invent a software product, copyright it under your name, and then GPL it. You could sell this product as a proprietary product under a different licence. However, as soon as someone else contributes to your code, you lose all rights to sell it under your proprietary licence.
Bzzzt! Wrong.
What you "lose" is the right to sell the version that contains your code AND the code contributed by other people. You are still entitled to distribute the product you wrote under any license whatsoever.
What you essentially have is a fork, where you have a proprietary and a free version that share a common code base. There's nothing that says you can't distribute your original product under a proprietary license (in fact, there's nothing that says you can't continue to improve it!) - you simply can't distribute the changes and modifications other people make.
--
That's incorrect. There are 19 states who are also part of this lawsuit, in addition to the government. Even if the government drops out, the states have publicly stated that they will continue to appeal.
--
My guess is that's it's the Australian version of the BBC.
--
They said that they could not do a library, because they user C or C++ and different technologies.
Actually, they said something more like that if the library ever did come to fruition it would probably be C++ based, but provide C methods for accessing the functionality.
--
Oops. My bad. :)
--
In case anybody is wondering, those coordinates put you somewhere in the "left half" of Kyrgyzstan, which borders China and Kazakhstan.
:)
--
Does anybody know if the DeLorme Earthmate is supported by any of these apps/libraries?
I know the Earthmate doesn't use the standard GPS information format, but instead some binary, proprietary Rockwell (?) format. The fact that my GPS would become a paperweight is about the only thing keeping me from installing Linux on my laptop.
--
The difference, I believe, is that with only rare exception, music boxes are designed to play one, and only one, song.
The player piano, and later tools, could play any arbitrary music, as long as it was in the right format.
--
The problem, unfortunately, sounds like it's not a case of the Foobar-Bazbox Fisheye Algorithm (TM) being trademarked. It sounds like IPIX has a patent on fisheye->panorama conversions _altogether_. Which means that no matter how many clever alternate algorithms or methodologies you come up with for converting fisheye images to panoramas, you're still going to be running afoul of the patent.
In other words, they have the sole and exclusive right to convert fisheye images to panoramas, regardless of how it's done. It's not a matter of "how" you do it, it's that you're doing it in the first place.
Think about that. It's like saying that a particular tire manufacturer has the sole and exclusive right to make round tires, regardless of the manufacturing method used. It wouldn't be a matter of "how" you made the tires, but that you made them in the first place.
See how ludicrious that sounds?
--
Oh, I'm not necessarily saying that people "get" the concept or existence of the RIAA.
I'm simply saying that the attempts by the music industry to shut down online music services (whether right or wrong) has the effect of alienating their online customers.
Similarly, the attempts to watermark and encrypt physical CDs will alienating their offline customers, especially when some new encrypted format requires them to buy all-new equipment just to listen to it (because their old equipment is incompatible). It will alienate their offline customers when they can't create a personal mix CD, or create a backup CD on a burner (some people do it so that the original CD doesn't get used, and thus scratched or damaged), etc.
Regardless of whether the customer knows _who_ is the person or organization doing it, it still remains that the customers are being alienated by the music industry. Maybe it's not a cataclysmic event, but even a steady creep of dissatisfied customers adds up over time.
--
It's not so much that perspective is needed, really.
Look at it this way. Right or wrong, the music companies have been suing almost everyone, and everything, as of late, including a lot of pet services that people enjoy. There are some things that probably deserved it (Napster), some that didn't (My.MP3.com), and some that are only peripherally relevant in comparison to some of the things the music industry has gone after (Aimster). However, as a result of being litigation-happy, people have come to view the music industry/RIAA as 800 lb. gorillas. Essentially, the music industry is pissing off their customer base.
So, when something happens that the music industry can legitimately sue over (licensing violation), a lot of people look at that and say, "The music industry has lied, cheated, stolen, and bribed their way to quashing stuff they didn't like - I hope those bastards deserve what they get!" and cheer for the guy in the wrong - even if they know the guy in the wrong is IN the wrong!.
As for living in a land where legal contracts are routinely flouted, you already do. That's why we have the court system. If you have enough money, you can flout contracts and get away scot-free. Contract law generally only helps the richest party to the contract in quashing violations by the less wealthy party or parties.
--
Same difference: PDF stands for Postscript Display Format.
--
One problem with Napster's EULA, however, is that Napster's EULA was anti-copyrighted material in name only. Napster not only failed to discourage the trading of copyrighted material, they found gobs of emails and correspondence from its founders about, basically, how useful the service would be for trading copyrighted material (as well as statements about how much music the founders had gotten off the service!).
On another hand, considering that Aimster "transactions" are also encrypted, and Napster trades were not, it's probably a much easier argument to make for Aimster that they can't govern/filter/control the material that flows through their servers (or the materials the users trade).
Plus, given that Napster was music only, and Aimster is a generic file trading service, it can also be a much stronger argument that people are trading material to which those people own the copyright to. Not everybody can be a musician, but everybody can write crappy haikus, take pictures of their cats at a distance of two inches, or share the "Hello, world" programs they wrote.
--
Aimster's EULA also specifically prohibits the transmission of copyrighted material to which you aren't the copyright owner (it actually pretty much prohibits everything useful on the service, up to and including _storing_ files).
I wonder, should Aimster bring up this defense and get defeated, if this is a blow against the enforceability of EULAs. It could be that the RIAA winds up, in the processing of squashing one technology, opening up a whole other can of worms.
--
First of all, if you really could get around the GPL (say the Linux kernel) by writing a LGPL wrapper (glibc), then it would be pretty easy to just bypass the GPL.
How do you think you have native GNU/Linux applications that are closed-source? The glibc libraries are specifically LGPL-ed so that commercial applications may be developed and linked without requiring that they be GPL-ed themselves.
Second, there's plainly no reference to the LGPL in the text of the GPL.
I don't recall saying that there was.
Third, you haven't read Linux's COPYING file. Linux is not under the GPL -- there's a special Linus modification at the top of the file allowing anyone (even proprietary apps) to link to the kernel.
That's all well and good, and is probably the reason why (as the poster above you stated) people can link to symbols that the kernel exports (select, open, etc.).
However, Linux _is_ under the GPL; Linus, as copyright holder and ultimate licenser, can add as many exceptions onto the licensing as he wants. The GPL gives you certain rights; Linus can give you other rights, or modify the rights that the GPL gives you (but then it no longer qualifies as "true" GPL licensing). In this case, Linus chose to allow people not only the rights afforded by the GPL, but also one that wasn't: linking with non-GPL software.
--
Every program ever written under linux would be a derivative work of the kernel, which is GPL.
*bzzzzt!*
Programs under GNU/Linux are not linked against the kernel. Programs under GNU/Linux are linked against the GNU C library, which is LGPL'ed (Library GPL). The LGPL says that you can link non-GPL'ed software against the C libraries and be OK, which allows for commercial, closed-source applications to be developed for GNU/Linux.
So even if the GPL is held to be enforceable against libraries, commercial apps are safe and can continue to co-exist because the LGPL'ed C library gives them the exception they need.
--
Actually, this isn't nearly as bad a scenario as it you make it out to be in the worst case.
In the worst case scenario: the GPL is ruled unenforceable. As a result, any code licensed under the GPL reverts to "mere" copyright - which means no corporation can use it _period_ without asking the author or authors for permission. In other words, use of the code will require explicit permission to use rather than the implicit permission granted by the GPL.
Essentially, in the worst-case scenario, GPL'ed software immediately reverts to closed-source software, which is more restrictive than the GPL.
--
The problem with Motif, though, everything else notwithstanding is that Motif is _butt_ugly._
--
Why is this marked as insightful? Scott Bakula's not gay.
--
The hard part will be lifting the cable up in the first place.
Make it in space, and lower it to the planet surface.
--
So you exchange it for an unopened box, take the box to a different store, and return the now-unopened software (with your receipt that shows a valid purchase for the software title).
Is it really that difficult?
--
Funny how Microsoft has never complained about the Public Domain aspect of government-developed software, but the GPL gets them hysterical...
The reason they never complained is because Microsoft can freely use/abuse public domain software, incorporate it into their products or take ideas from it, and nobody can complain (after all, it's public domain).
If they try those same stunts with GPL, suddenly they're in violation of a license.
In other words, they don't have free reign over other people's inventions/work.
--