Not only do they get their new FS with nifty new features (DRM yada...yada...) but imagine this scenario...
MS Sales Rep: "You need a database?" Potential Sucker^H^H^H^H^H^HCustomer: "We're looking at Oracle." Rep: "Oracle's OK and all, but you know...the TCO is over the top. With Windows NG [Next Generation], a top-notch, state-of-the-art DB is included for free."
Customer: "Really? Hmm...well, if it's already in there, I might as well use it."
Plus, you don't have to mess with that "windowless" crap you get with those braindead console apps. God, those are so hard to use. I mean, if you can't point, how can you click?
If the GPL is a POS contract (I couldn't argue one way or another), what other "open-source compatible" licenses exist that would better protect an author's wishes to keep his code in the community, prohibit the said code from being incorporated into a privately controlled, profit-seeking venture against said author's wishes, AND stand up in court?
I'm not asking you for formal legal advice, just your opinion as a lawyer. Are there any open-source licenses you COULDN'T drive a truck through? (much less a Trident...)
I'm sure after I do some research and tweak some stuff, it will work. But the point is, I shouldn't have to!
You don't have to. If you're happy to pay Microsoft or Apple to do it for you, fine. Either way, *somebody* did some tweaking at some point along the way or there would be no software at all.
If you're not into coding, then don't. That doesn't make proprietary better than open-sourced software. It just means you don't wanna fsck with it.
Well, I will go out on a limb here and venture the reason it went up so high so quick was that it points out one of the big problems with proprietary software. And/. folks love pointing out the flaws of proprietary software.
When compared to open-source software, the usefulness of proprietary software is limited. GPL'ed code can outlast the corporation that creates it.
And considering the rapid decline of many corporations, customers may need to insist on access to source code lest they suffer the same fate as the company who provides them their software.
Technically, I believe that's correct: fair use is a defense, not a right. In other words, it's up to you to show that your copying falls under fair use. (I think -- IANAL.)
Well, I'm not a lama either, but I think the reason fair use is a valid defense is because US courts have (generally) upheld *the right* to fair use.
Konqueror seems to be as fast as Opera at rendering pages (but no in-gui ads!)
Well, I use Opera and I don't have any in-gui ads. I actually *gasp* paid for it. It's worth it.
Best of all, Konqueror is *just* a web browser, which is something all the other browser projects should come to terms with.
Well, when WWW browsers started out, they were intended to be a universal client to access http, ftp, gopher, and wais servers. Some even included pop and smtp clients as well as nntp clients.
While some (you presumably included) may consider a browser hanging onto the client ability for these protocols a burden, I consider it a useful feature. I like that my browser can still access gopher especially.
Your comment about the referral system just got me thinking.
What would it take to make a google-ish search engine where you put in your keywords and it returns music based on popularity of an item? Kind of a "people who liked X also liked Y..." thing like Amazon does now, but cumulatively. If Alice downloads X and Y, then people looking for keywords that would normally turn up X will now have a greater chance of turning up Y. The more people who link X with Y, the more likely Y will show up along with X in a search.
Does that make sense as a "referral" system? Or would it be better to have actual referrals where Alice literally gets on some system and manually links X to Y.
I haven't used Kazaa (sp?) or any P2P file-sharing system but do any of them work like this?
But if the supply is not naturally limited, only limited by mechanisms of either a controlling group (eg., OPEC) or an individual monopoly power, then it is price-fixing.
The price one pays for CDs should be coming down. It isn't because the producers who sell CDs collude to keep the prices artificially propped up.
On May 10, 2000, the Federal Trade Commission announced that it has reached settlement agreements with Universal Music and Video Distribution, Sony Corp. of America, Time-Warner Inc., EMI Music Distribution and Bertelsmann Music Group (BMG), the five largest distributors of recorded music who sell approximately 85 percent of all compact discs (CDs) purchased in the United States to end their allegedly illegal advertising policies that affected prices for CDs. "The FTC estimates that U.S. consumers may have paid as much as $480 million more than they should have for CDs and other music because of these policies over the last three years," said FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky.
According to the FTC's complaints, the companies required retailers to advertise CDs at or above the "Minimum Advertised Price" (MAP) set by the distribution company in exchange for substantial cooperative advertising payments. The restrictions applied to all advertising, including television, radio, newspaper and signs and banners within the retailers' own stores. The restrictions even applied to advertising funded entirely by the retailer. Under the policies, large music retailers would lose millions of dollars a year if they failed to follow the MAP restrictions.
I don't remember if collusion is covered in Econ 101--but this is pretty basic stuff. Oh, and it looks like even though the FTC has "reached settlement agreements" there are several states still pursuing litigation and this class action case still appears to be pending.
I dunno, I'd rather hear an MP3 of someone playing actual music than listen to some dinky MIDI data running through a cheap wavetable chip or soundfont any day.
I dunno, when I pipe MIDI into my external synth, it sounds pretty damn good. It sometimes requires a little mapping because just like every other standard: even if it SAYS "General MIDI", it's not always the same.
Of course, if you don't have a decent MIDI capable external synth, MP3s don't suck too much.
I think that when I read a report from someone without a vested interest one way or another, there may be a believable word in it. Until then, I choose to do the typical/. thing: respond without actually reading the article.
OK. I know it's off-topic, but if the original Castle Wolfenstein was only released on the Apple ][ platform, then how was I able to play it on my Atari? (And no, it's not because they were both powered by the Motorola 6502.)
Perhaps it's because the Apple ][ release came out in 1981, followed by the Atari release in 1982, the Commodore 64 in 1983, and DOS in 1984.
Those alternatives from Sun are mostly expensive proprietary systems, too, aren't they?
They have been. But with Sun's recent announcements and leanings towards releasing x86-based Linux systems, they are just sewing the seeds of doubt to get people on their bandwagon.
Incorrect. There are many reasons someone would not use GPL code. For example, if I wanted to use a portion of code in a BSD-licensed project, I would stick with BSD'd code.
Okay. You got me there. There are times when you wouldn't use GPLed code because the GPL is incompatible with your existing license. I was thinking more in terms of new projects looking to benefit from GPLed code.
Personally, I see the BSD license as having a larger set of entities which can use the code than the GPL.
I don't. There are no provisions in the GPL that prohibit the use of code licensed under it by any entity. The only reason an entity would not use code licensed under the GPL is if they are intent on profiting from the work of others without giving anything back.
It is not the GPL that limits the set of entities that can benefit from code licensed under it. All entities can benefit from code licensed under the GPL.
It is the intent of one set of entities to restrict the rights to other entities that limits which entities will use the GPL.
The BSD license says you can profit from the fruit of others and not have to give anything back. It is a good license for those who wish to give away their work for anyone to do with as they please.
The GPL says you can profit from the fruit of others so long as you share the fruits of your efforts (not even monetarily) with the community to make the community better as a whole. It is a good license for those who wish to give away their work for the betterment of humanity, assuring no single entity can usurp the benefits from the rest.
I like them both. And I think the decision of which license should be used for any given project should be left up to the contributors to that project.
Because I believe the ones doing the work should have the right to say who can do what with the results.
...It also lacks the 'viral' nature of the GPL which is also a much more restrictive license.
This message brought to you by your good friends at Microsoft. Where do you want us to let you go today?
The GPL has negative connotations due to RMS's somewhat anti-corporate stance and communistic leanings, neither of which play well to corporations or the general public in these days of the war against terrorism.
This message brought to you by the Enron^H^H^H^H^H Republican Party.
All kidding aside...
The GPL offers more freedom to the community. The BSD license offers more freedom to the individual. They are both good licenses. They each have their place.
What would be bad is if developers like those working on Wine had no right to choose between them. This is where most folks differ in opinion from RMS. It seems RMS would rather there be no software license other than the GPL.
-1 Offtopic
That said, I am not sure the BSD license would be wise for them. I would think it best to go with something more akin to the LGPL or something that would make it less likely that their efforts were incorporated into a commercial product for which they received no remuneration.
+1 Insightful
Here's hoping the moderators are on my side today.
Slashdot Mirror
The Register had and article about this ages ago.
Think SQL Server 2003 = OFS
Not only do they get their new FS with nifty new features (DRM yada...yada...) but imagine this scenario...
MS Sales Rep: "You need a database?"
Potential Sucker^H^H^H^H^H^HCustomer: "We're looking at Oracle."
Rep: "Oracle's OK and all, but you know...the TCO is over the top. With Windows NG [Next Generation], a top-notch, state-of-the-art DB is included for free."
Customer: "Really? Hmm...well, if it's already in there, I might as well use it."
Don't knock it, it worked with IE.
Largely due to the migration of much of the needed code into the core OS DLLs. If it's in the OS, the apps are smaller, and they load faster.
After all, wouldn't you rather allocate the memory once when the DLLs are loaded at startup...or repeatedly every time you run the app?
Plus, you don't have to mess with that "windowless" crap you get with those braindead console apps. God, those are so hard to use. I mean, if you can't point, how can you click?
If the GPL is a POS contract (I couldn't argue one way or another), what other "open-source compatible" licenses exist that would better protect an author's wishes to keep his code in the community, prohibit the said code from being incorporated into a privately controlled, profit-seeking venture against said author's wishes, AND stand up in court?
I'm not asking you for formal legal advice, just your opinion as a lawyer. Are there any open-source licenses you COULDN'T drive a truck through? (much less a Trident...)
You don't have to. If you're happy to pay Microsoft or Apple to do it for you, fine. Either way, *somebody* did some tweaking at some point along the way or there would be no software at all.
If you're not into coding, then don't. That doesn't make proprietary better than open-sourced software. It just means you don't wanna fsck with it.
Well, I will go out on a limb here and venture the reason it went up so high so quick was that it points out one of the big problems with proprietary software. And /. folks love pointing out the flaws of proprietary software.
When compared to open-source software, the usefulness of proprietary software is limited. GPL'ed code can outlast the corporation that creates it.
And considering the rapid decline of many corporations, customers may need to insist on access to source code lest they suffer the same fate as the company who provides them their software.
What I want to know is, does this effect them at all?
Yes. I seem to remember the introduction of cassettes was going to kill the music industry if their prophets were right. I guess they were wrong.
The same goes for VCRs and the movie industry. "Oh no! Videos will kill the movie industry!!!"
Bzzzt! Wrong again...
Besides, the only reason Eiser is going after Apple is because he's pissed at Jobs.
Why? Because:
- Pixar is a better animation studio than Disney is,
- Eisner knows it,
- and the Disney/Pixar contract has only three films to go...all currently in production.
Poor Little Farquad (or as my daughter [properly] pronounces it "fuckwad") is just mad about those sour grapes.I'm sorry, that's like saying Sandra Bernhard is as ugly as Madeleine Albright.
I mean, come on, they may both be ugly, but they're in completely different leagues.
Well, when WWW browsers started out, they were intended to be a universal client to access http, ftp, gopher, and wais servers. Some even included pop and smtp clients as well as nntp clients.
While some (you presumably included) may consider a browser hanging onto the client ability for these protocols a burden, I consider it a useful feature. I like that my browser can still access gopher especially.
Your comment about the referral system just got me thinking.
What would it take to make a google-ish search engine where you put in your keywords and it returns music based on popularity of an item? Kind of a "people who liked X also liked Y..." thing like Amazon does now, but cumulatively. If Alice downloads X and Y, then people looking for keywords that would normally turn up X will now have a greater chance of turning up Y. The more people who link X with Y, the more likely Y will show up along with X in a search.
Does that make sense as a "referral" system? Or would it be better to have actual referrals where Alice literally gets on some system and manually links X to Y.
I haven't used Kazaa (sp?) or any P2P file-sharing system but do any of them work like this?
The price one pays for CDs should be coming down. It isn't because the producers who sell CDs collude to keep the prices artificially propped up.
To quote from this lawfirm...I don't remember if collusion is covered in Econ 101--but this is pretty basic stuff. Oh, and it looks like even though the FTC has "reached settlement agreements" there are several states still pursuing litigation and this class action case still appears to be pending.
Or view it as this PDF.
/. effect. :^)
Now let's see how well RR's server can handle the
Of course, if you don't have a decent MIDI capable external synth, MP3s don't suck too much.
I think that when I read a report from someone without a vested interest one way or another, there may be a believable word in it. Until then, I choose to do the typical
OK. I know it's off-topic, but if the original Castle Wolfenstein was only released on the Apple ][ platform, then how was I able to play it on my Atari? (And no, it's not because they were both powered by the Motorola 6502.)
Perhaps it's because the Apple ][ release came out in 1981, followed by the Atari release in 1982, the Commodore 64 in 1983, and DOS in 1984.
They have been. But with Sun's recent announcements and leanings towards releasing x86-based Linux systems, they are just sewing the seeds of doubt to get people on their bandwagon.
Okay. You got me there. There are times when you wouldn't use GPLed code because the GPL is incompatible with your existing license. I was thinking more in terms of new projects looking to benefit from GPLed code.
Ticket Master.
Umm...DEBT?
I don't. There are no provisions in the GPL that prohibit the use of code licensed under it by any entity. The only reason an entity would not use code licensed under the GPL is if they are intent on profiting from the work of others without giving anything back.
It is not the GPL that limits the set of entities that can benefit from code licensed under it. All entities can benefit from code licensed under the GPL.
It is the intent of one set of entities to restrict the rights to other entities that limits which entities will use the GPL.
The BSD license says you can profit from the fruit of others and not have to give anything back. It is a good license for those who wish to give away their work for anyone to do with as they please.
The GPL says you can profit from the fruit of others so long as you share the fruits of your efforts (not even monetarily) with the community to make the community better as a whole. It is a good license for those who wish to give away their work for the betterment of humanity, assuring no single entity can usurp the benefits from the rest.
I like them both. And I think the decision of which license should be used for any given project should be left up to the contributors to that project.
Because I believe the ones doing the work should have the right to say who can do what with the results.
This message brought to you by your good friends at Microsoft. Where do you want us to let you go today?
This message brought to you by the Enron^H^H^H^H^H Republican Party.
All kidding aside...
The GPL offers more freedom to the community.
The BSD license offers more freedom to the individual.
They are both good licenses.
They each have their place.
What would be bad is if developers like those working on Wine had no right to choose between them. This is where most folks differ in opinion from RMS. It seems RMS would rather there be no software license other than the GPL.
-1 Offtopic
That said, I am not sure the BSD license would be wise for them. I would think it best to go with something more akin to the LGPL or something that would make it less likely that their efforts were incorporated into a commercial product for which they received no remuneration.
+1 Insightful
Here's hoping the moderators are on my side today.