Why yes, there is certainly nothing to be concerned about here. Please everyone just go about your business, and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...
Did they move to avoid some prosecution? MAYBE. But if it's in the interest of protecting shareholder assets, then what would you expect them to do? If that doesn't sum up the conservative take on ethics and morality in the U.S., I don't know what does...
Right, because these executives never want to come back home. Makes perfect sense. *rolls eyes* It does, if "home" means a decade or three in federal prison (even the "Club Fed" kind)...
How do you fix the situation? There's no situation to fix. Knock yourself out. Be inspired as much as you like.
You can take GPL code, customize it, and sell it for as much as you can get. What you can't do is withhold the source code or impose a license on your customers that is more restrictive than the GPL that you got it under.
But take someone else's code, close it up, and sell it as your own, without attribution, then you have a problem. It amazes me that anyone can think this is unfair or unreasonable.
You run into a somewhat gray area when you want to mix your own code with GPLed code; e.g., if you're using GPLed libraries and such. As long as they're kept separate in distribution, your own stuff shouldn't be affected (you'll still have to provide source for the GPLed package, however). That's pretty much how shared libraries work anyway.
Wow... It's one thing to insist on using closed, proprietary software for everything you do, but you seem positively angry that there are alternatives out there. I mean, someone offers you something for free, lets you and anyone else see the code fro themselves, and allows you to use, modify or customize it any way you want, and you act like you've just been slapped in the face.
Can you say, "Cognitive Dissonance"? I knew that you could...
Re:My boss told me to look into "Microsoft groove"
on
Alternative to Groove?
·
· Score: 1
They're there, and they work well. But if by "integrated" you're referring to vendor lock-in and control, then I guess you've got me there...
But legal is unsure whether the mere act of allowing it to run in our workspace would force the entire codebase into GPL. That is completely absurd. Perhaps legal should spend the 20 minutes or so it would take to actually read the GPL.
Re:My boss told me to "Think of the User"
on
Alternative to Groove?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's this fundamental disconnect between OSS and everyone else that keeps (and will contine to keep) OSS out of a lot of places. Really, as an extensive user of OSS software, I couldn't care less whether you use it or not. In fact, if we're ever in competition with each other, I'd even prefer that you didn't. While you're dealing with licensing hassles and BSA audits, we'll just keep chuggin' away.
Just look at the list of Ask Slashdot's asking for an OSS solution to proprietary and at best the alternatives are an ill-fit, or at worst there's none at all despite years of asking. Elitism is it's own worse enemy. Well, if you want free open-source software that is exactly like some commercial offering, you're being unrealistic. Ditto if you think that OSS means that a corps of dedicated software professionals is supposed to drop everything to focus on your specific needs. Microsoft doesn't do that, either: You eat what they put on your plate, and you do it in the way they proscribe.
Regarding "elitism" though, let's look at the situation here. I listen to people all the time who put up with no end of grief and hassle dealing with proprietary closed-source software, and I see them paying handsomely for the priviledge. When informed that excellent free alternatives exist, they think of every nutty reason you can imagine not to try them out, but what they all boil down to is a fear of having to learn something new (ah, but here comes Vista!). Rather than do that scary thing, they'll just keep dropping their pants and bending over for more of the same. They'll eagerly believe whatever absurd FUD is pitched to them because it justifies their otherwise irrational behavior. They are beyond help because they build and maintain their own cages.
So maybe what you see as elitism over here is really just some of us shaking our heads in dismay...
Re:My boss told me to look into "Microsoft groove"
on
Alternative to Groove?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Linux is great, but very specialized and lacks out-of-the-box integrated tools. Sure, you can write a script or pipe output, but that's besides the point. Most users (think Admin Assistants) want and need nice GUIs. Lacks tools? One of the (many) reasons I switched to Linux is because I use a broad range of software and there's no way I could have afforded to duplicate under Windows what comes "out of the box" with any standard Linux distro. No crippleware, either.
And yes, you'll be surprised to learn that Linux has had pretty GUIs for quite some time now (as long as I can remember, anyway). I'd suggest that you update your FUD, but then it might lose its potency, no?
Managers are absolutely right to make sure that nobody uses open source in company products, because if somebody sneaks in snippets of GPL-protected code into their applications, that might have big legal ramifications. That makes no sense whatsoever, for several reasons. First, including GPL code in their own applications is perfectly OK, as long as the code isn't going to be sold or distributed under a more restrictive license. Second, open source code is out there whether your company chooses to use it or not, and unless your developers are as stupid as your managers apparently are, they know where to find it. Third, a lot of source code has been published under more restrictive licenses than the GPL (e.g., example code in programming books), and you're no less liable for that if you appropriate and sell it as your own. So, do you deny your developers access to programming manuals? And fourth, because open source code is so readily available, it is much easier to search your own code against a body of commonly used open source to detect any potential problems. Having done that bit of due-diligence will put you in much better standing should a dispute arise.
Given the importance of the issue and the amount of money at stake, managers need to take an hour or two to become familiar with what's really in the GPL and other open source licenses. The picture may be a lot different than the one their proprietary software vendors are painting for them on the golf course.
Use how? What if one of the engineers needs a snippet of code, copies it from Spring, and incorporates it into their product without attribution? Suddenly, that company is legally vulnerable. That's basically a non-issue, because those "snippets of code" are out there and readily available to your developers whether your organization actually uses the software or not. You might as well argue that they shouldn't have access to any programming manuals, because they might appropriate some of the (copyrighted) example code.
Open source licenses are more permissive than those for proprietary software in all respects that I can think of, including distribution. But no, you can't simply modify it and sell it as your own under a more restrictive (e.g., closed source) license. But that's about it.
Either way the point is that with error correction as it is now, it's not hard to fix a CD if needed. For light scratches, I've found that a minute or so of radial rubbing with my t-shirt is usually enough to make an old disc readable.
So I wonder how it feels to have blown that much money on something like this, after the novelty's worn off and you've already worn it around the house and invited your friends over to see and touch it. A little buyer's remourse, maybe?
What you really want is a site that makes "open" music available but also has some sort of vote-based moderation system and maybe a discussion board, too. Then it's easy to look at the rankings and pick from there (if you're into following the crowd, a la "Top 40") or to seek the advice of people who share your tastes and have done you right in the past.
There may well be one or more sites like that; I haven't looked around. But that was the original question, wasn't it?
The RIAA et.al. aren't merely trying to prevent infringement of their own copyrights; they're afraid of open digital distribution channels even when these are used to distribute music whose copyright (or absense thereof) legally permits it. Their bread and butter is in their monopoly control of distribution, and they're acutely aware of this. Even in a world where they have their "perfect DRM" (whatever that is), P2P, BitTorrent, YouTube, and artist-controlled websites would still be a huge threat to them. However, if trafficking in copyrighted materials became less significant they wouldn't have any pretext to continue to attack these channels. Maybe they're realizing this as they loosen their embrace of DRM?
The major labels do perform the filtering service for you, but you'd be amazed at how much excellent stuff gets filtered out. Over the last 10 years or so I've been able to expose myself to a lot of music from all over the world that I didn't even know existed back when I was a slave to the majors, and it pisses me off that I didn't discover it earlier. Your favorite music? Probably you haven't heard it yet...
Tried to post some lovely code here, but was refused by the "Lameness filter", which said I have too many "junk characters". Well, of course I do - it's C++ code! Lots of ampersands and such, which apparently it won't accept even embedded in ecode or blockquote tags.
No textbook would want to include GPL-ed code--wouldn't that make the entire book GPL by nature of the license? Not as long as you provide the source (which of course you would; it's the whole point) and don't impose any additional restrictions on the license. If you modify GPLed code, then you have to release the revised source if you distribute the binary.
That said, a lot of nonsensical FUD has been circulated regarding the requirements of the GPL by parties who feel their interests are threatened by it. As with everything, it's best to read it for yourself.
The problem is that in a meeting you are on a social and political stage, however small. It's often not just about what idea is best, but rather whom you're going to support (for reasons that may have nothing to do with the idea being discussed) and how you want the group to perceive you. I know that on more than one occasion I've kept my doubts about a proposal to myself because I didn't want to be perceived as, well, a doubter (which really I am)...
Since I sense a philosophical trap here, I'll retreat a little from the word "democracy". But transparency does have a way of facilitating broader participation as well as lively and informed debate, and projects are always subject to forking (publicly or privately) if the ruling oligarchy is asleep at the wheel, in pursuit of hidden agendas, or otherwise unresponsive to "community" needs.
So, democracy or not, there is a right of revolution and a path of escape (call it a frontier) as well.
It's always interesting to observe the reaction of the people who supposedly make up the "open source community" when these things happen. Well, that's democracy for you. Things are a lot more placid in the "closed source community", aren't they?
Still, if you stick with open source software from reasonably active and widely-known sources, you're going to be safer from malware than if you run proprietary software exclusively (and especially if you download pirated versions of it!). That's going to be true regardless of operating system; it's all about transparency and operating in the light of day.
what do you think is going to happen when Joe Sixpack is confronted with a dialog saying "Type your root password to install the free porn viewer!"? You make a strong point there.
He really should learn about Usenet for that, though...
Slashdot Mirror
Why yes, there is certainly nothing to be concerned about here. Please everyone just go about your business, and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...
You can take GPL code, customize it, and sell it for as much as you can get. What you can't do is withhold the source code or impose a license on your customers that is more restrictive than the GPL that you got it under.
But take someone else's code, close it up, and sell it as your own, without attribution, then you have a problem. It amazes me that anyone can think this is unfair or unreasonable.
You run into a somewhat gray area when you want to mix your own code with GPLed code; e.g., if you're using GPLed libraries and such. As long as they're kept separate in distribution, your own stuff shouldn't be affected (you'll still have to provide source for the GPLed package, however). That's pretty much how shared libraries work anyway.
Wow... It's one thing to insist on using closed, proprietary software for everything you do, but you seem positively angry that there are alternatives out there. I mean, someone offers you something for free, lets you and anyone else see the code fro themselves, and allows you to use, modify or customize it any way you want, and you act like you've just been slapped in the face.
Can you say, "Cognitive Dissonance"? I knew that you could...
They're there, and they work well. But if by "integrated" you're referring to vendor lock-in and control, then I guess you've got me there...
Regarding "elitism" though, let's look at the situation here. I listen to people all the time who put up with no end of grief and hassle dealing with proprietary closed-source software, and I see them paying handsomely for the priviledge. When informed that excellent free alternatives exist, they think of every nutty reason you can imagine not to try them out, but what they all boil down to is a fear of having to learn something new (ah, but here comes Vista!). Rather than do that scary thing, they'll just keep dropping their pants and bending over for more of the same. They'll eagerly believe whatever absurd FUD is pitched to them because it justifies their otherwise irrational behavior. They are beyond help because they build and maintain their own cages.
So maybe what you see as elitism over here is really just some of us shaking our heads in dismay...
And yes, you'll be surprised to learn that Linux has had pretty GUIs for quite some time now (as long as I can remember, anyway). I'd suggest that you update your FUD, but then it might lose its potency, no?
Given the importance of the issue and the amount of money at stake, managers need to take an hour or two to become familiar with what's really in the GPL and other open source licenses. The picture may be a lot different than the one their proprietary software vendors are painting for them on the golf course.
Open source licenses are more permissive than those for proprietary software in all respects that I can think of, including distribution. But no, you can't simply modify it and sell it as your own under a more restrictive (e.g., closed source) license. But that's about it.
Yes, but with OO you don't get Clippy, who is easily worth many times that amount.
You're not filling in the scratches, you're actually polishing them out to a smooth surface. The polish is rinsed away, so its R.I. is irrelevant.
So I wonder how it feels to have blown that much money on something like this, after the novelty's worn off and you've already worn it around the house and invited your friends over to see and touch it. A little buyer's remourse, maybe?
What you really want is a site that makes "open" music available but also has some sort of vote-based moderation system and maybe a discussion board, too. Then it's easy to look at the rankings and pick from there (if you're into following the crowd, a la "Top 40") or to seek the advice of people who share your tastes and have done you right in the past.
There may well be one or more sites like that; I haven't looked around. But that was the original question, wasn't it?
The RIAA et.al. aren't merely trying to prevent infringement of their own copyrights; they're afraid of open digital distribution channels even when these are used to distribute music whose copyright (or absense thereof) legally permits it. Their bread and butter is in their monopoly control of distribution, and they're acutely aware of this. Even in a world where they have their "perfect DRM" (whatever that is), P2P, BitTorrent, YouTube, and artist-controlled websites would still be a huge threat to them. However, if trafficking in copyrighted materials became less significant they wouldn't have any pretext to continue to attack these channels. Maybe they're realizing this as they loosen their embrace of DRM?
The major labels do perform the filtering service for you, but you'd be amazed at how much excellent stuff gets filtered out. Over the last 10 years or so I've been able to expose myself to a lot of music from all over the world that I didn't even know existed back when I was a slave to the majors, and it pisses me off that I didn't discover it earlier. Your favorite music? Probably you haven't heard it yet...
Tried to post some lovely code here, but was refused by the "Lameness filter", which said I have too many "junk characters". Well, of course I do - it's C++ code! Lots of ampersands and such, which apparently it won't accept even embedded in ecode or blockquote tags.
Anyone have any advice?
That said, a lot of nonsensical FUD has been circulated regarding the requirements of the GPL by parties who feel their interests are threatened by it. As with everything, it's best to read it for yourself.
The problem is that in a meeting you are on a social and political stage, however small. It's often not just about what idea is best, but rather whom you're going to support (for reasons that may have nothing to do with the idea being discussed) and how you want the group to perceive you. I know that on more than one occasion I've kept my doubts about a proposal to myself because I didn't want to be perceived as, well, a doubter (which really I am)...
Since I sense a philosophical trap here, I'll retreat a little from the word "democracy". But transparency does have a way of facilitating broader participation as well as lively and informed debate, and projects are always subject to forking (publicly or privately) if the ruling oligarchy is asleep at the wheel, in pursuit of hidden agendas, or otherwise unresponsive to "community" needs.
So, democracy or not, there is a right of revolution and a path of escape (call it a frontier) as well.
Still, if you stick with open source software from reasonably active and widely-known sources, you're going to be safer from malware than if you run proprietary software exclusively (and especially if you download pirated versions of it!). That's going to be true regardless of operating system; it's all about transparency and operating in the light of day.
He really should learn about Usenet for that, though...