c) Open Source. Recipient's license rights to the Software are conditioned upon Recipient (i) not distributing such Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as defined below); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part. For purposes of the foregoing, "Potentially Viral Software" means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that: (x) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the Software or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights to or immunities under Microsoft's intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Software. By way of example but not limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. "Publicly Available Software" means each of (i) any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models; and (ii) any software that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of such software that other software distributed with such software (A) be disclosed or distributed in source code form; (B) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (C) be redistributable at no charge. Publicly Available Software includes, without limitation, software licensed or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the following: (A) GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL), (B) The Artistic License (e.g., PERL), (C) the Mozilla Public License, (D) the Netscape Public License, (E) the Sun Community Source License (SCSL), and (F) the Sun Industry Standards License (SISL).
Wow. MS is really pushing the "viral" thing. I guess they found the meme they're gonna fight with, and this is it.
It seems they're not afraid to scare off potential developers (who are already GNU software users and are unlikely to develop on MS anyway).
For those of you who *still* develop on MS platform AND use GNU tools to do it.. ask yourselves "why?" Is it the only job you can get? Do you really need the money? MS doesn't want your kind in their camp.
Sure, you are the Rosa Parks of the free software movement proving that you deserve to sit in the front of the MS bus.. but do you REALLY want to go where that bus is going? MS thought they wanted to garner a free-software-like grassroots community around MS to compete with OSS (they said as much in the Halloween documents), but it is clear that they have now completely given up on this and opened fire. YOU are now the enemy - why are you still treating MS as a friend?
From your comment, I'm assuming you think a requirements document that employs the words "paradigm shift" and "quality oriented" and "customer centric" is an informative one?
Either that, or it was another of your trolls.
Sometimes I can't tell where you stand - but your posts are always exciting!
The things I enjoy in my job are delivering solutions that work to customers that have cash. Anything that gets in the way of that I destroy.
How bully for you. I have many friends who make TON of money at companies that make a TON of money peddling shoddy products to people that have lots of cash by convincing them that their product works well enough to keep them from jumping ship to a competitor.
How? By having managers more concerned with single source lockin, rabid copyright and IP hoarding, armies of lawyers, and a minimal underpaid (and underqualified) engineering staff.
For your information, while the management team is perfectly happy, and the CEO is flying around in his corporate jet, the rest of the company just does barely enough to stay employed to get their next paycheck.
Sorry if my original post gave you the wrong impression.
What, that you are a deluded, narcissistic, shallow, greedy, concieted prick who enjoys putting down other people by stifling their creativity all while making sure you are surrounded by people who don't make you feel insecure and stupid?
Is this report targetted at os/server vendors or os/server purchasers?
Seeing as the report indicates that PURCHASES of linux are down, that shouldn't affect your decision to BUY, given that you understand that the raw number of purchases in no way indicates a) popularity and b) (by a fairly flawed populist metric) stability/suitability.
However, if you are a VENDOR, then all you care about is net profit anyway, and you don't care whether Linux or Windows is *installed*. You ONLY care about how much money is *spent* on them. If you are a VENDOR you LIKE large TCO as long as the resources spent on that big TCO are going to you.
Microsoft commisioned this report as a VENDOR, but released it with the hopes that it will discourage VENDORS as well as BUYERS to avoid Linux.
Everybody is so busy whining about the Gartner vs IDC numbers that they are failing to see the forest for the trees.
To be on your side for a moment, now we need to invent a new protocol. TCP is great, but that blasted SYN packet just sticks out like a sore thumb. We need to move our hiding down to a lower level. (Actually, I'm completely on your side, just a bit more pessimistic.)
.. and only prove himself MORE loony than ever thought imaginable.
This guy has all the markings of a NetKook(TM) (e.g. TIME HAS INERTIA), but sadly guys like him INFEST the English Lit community.
Anagrams? Please.
At minimum, they are a screen writers' crutch to come up with unique names, and at most they are nothing but amusing Easter Eggs.
The only thing more pathetic than watching an English Lit major analyze a book with anagrams is watching a Physics major attempt to pass his quantum final with numerology.
Since you are so fond of Jefferson, I have a quote for you.
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."
- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813
*Please* stop using that neologism - it's lame, it's intensely annoying, and it marks you out as a smug, arrogant fool.
Perhaps you'll understand when you're older.
*Please* stop using that cliche - it's lame, it's intensely annoying, and it marks you out as a smug, arrogant fool.
I *AM* older, and any time I hear somebody of my generation chiding a younger person with that taunt I cringe.
It very rarely has the effect they are looking for.
PHB's would love you to think that the internet is used primarily for business email (upper management email tends to be MORE important btw. even if it is to schedule the wife's baby shower) and for people surfing corporate sites for *valuable* marketing information.
As if that requires any real bandwidth or requires low latency/packet loss/jitter.
99% of the Internet is porn and games. Porn doesn't require low latency, low jitter or low packet loss, and can be safely QoS'ed into the "available bandwith" slot along with Mr. CEO's VITALLY IMPORTANT email to his golfing pals.
The only thing left is games and VoIP.
The latter is strictly CBR.
This leaves GAMES.
Nobody wants to admit this. It is the Internet's dirty little secret that when a company complains to an ISP about its shitty latency and packet loss rates, it is NOT because Mr. PHB can't check his stock portfolio (after all, he can do this over a modem with 20%+ packet loss and a ping of 500 ms). It is because somebody in the IT staff just got fragged by an LPB.
Isn't it funny how many engineers can design an airplane, yet a whole team of engineers can't design a donkey cart with 9 wheels (some of them square) that can fly to the moon and back?
My point is, given this hypothetical situation, the railroad companies would most certainly try to pass laws restricting air travel.
They CERTAINLY had the resources. I'm not sure the political climate would have allowed legislative manipulation on that level (like today).
They would also have tried very hard to gain mindshare by arguing that air travel would ruin their business, thereby threatening the US economy.
Unfortunately for them, there was NO PRIOR restrictions on air travel, since it was never percieved as a threat.
Fortunatly for them, however, air transport can be expensive (especially for very heavy things;) so railroads still have a niche.
P2P, however, has always been basically illegal (in a capitalistic structure) from the BIRTH of ideas in the form of patents and copyright laws. What kept it going was that the widespread transfer of large chunks of information was relatively expensive/hard and restricted to publishers of books and newspapers.
Once the technological/cost barrier had fallen, everybody started scrambling to keep the house of cards from completely collapsing.
It can't be stopped now - and unlike heavfy freight for railroads, I doubt there is a sizable niche for the retail information business model.
I realise the analog isn't so hot.. but part of my point is that the line between legal and illegal isn't necessarily a MORAL one. Had railroads been given the opportunity and a head start, they would have certainly pressed for laws restricting air travel. Especially if these mythical 747 flights were 1) nearly free and 2) available anywhere, anytime.
The point is, like the old railroad monopolies, the "retail information" business model (music, movies, software, etc) is a gigantic, aging, dinosaur struggling to survive.
All the bickering about whether copyright infringment is immoral (ie. equivalent to piracy, theft, rape, etc.) is meaningless when you consider that the instantaneous tranfer of large of amounts of information WILL become easier and easier in the future. This is a fact. This is not an analogy. Those business models that depends on the scarcity of information will fail.
Until lately, this scarcity (needed for a "free" and "competitive" market) was enforced by TWO effects. Firstly, by IP laws, and secondly by technology. Once the second column falls, the first can no longer sustain this horrible kluge. The marginal cost of information WILL approach zero, no matter how they try.
The question still remains: how do you fund the work required to generate the information to begin with?
Seeing as copyright/IP is doomed to failure, somebody had best start thinking clearly.
I think you underestimate the capabilities of a young mind. I myself am aging rapidly (being of the dumb terminal generation;), and slowly losing the ability to learn new things. The next generation of hackers may still yet suprise you.
They may be weened on playstation, Windows, and coinop's but I guarantee you the BRIGHTER ones will soon look for more challenging things.
Airplanes are inherently dangerous to railroad companies. Roll back the clock a few decades before cheap air travel. If Mr. Railroad Tycoon was suddenly faced with a flottilla of 747s prepped and ready to take passengers to/from EVERY point on earth, you can BET he would spend every dollar trying to prove that 1) it was dangerous and 2) it would cause him to lose money, thereby affecting the economy. After all, the railroads WERE the US economy for several decades. Follow the money, my son. Follow the money, and there you will find enlightenment.
I am interested to read what examples can be provided for positive usage of P2P, but I'm afraid that like guns, it will be shown that overwhelmingly P2P is used to flout the law and that our society is better without it.
It will be shown that P2P is used to flout several stupid and shortsighted laws, and that our society is better without said laws.
I am extremely offended at your attitude. My father spent the last years of his life _skeptically_ examining all the evidence gathered throughout the THIRTY years the pioneer probes were operational.
The fact that you can sit in your armchair and question his objectivity, wonder, and *passion* for the mysteries of life makes me physically ill.
Any failing of science is OUR fault. OUR faliere to educate. OUR faliure to recognize our biases. OUR faliures to drag concieted shits like you out of the dark ages.
My (recently deceased) dad is on that paper.. he believed that it was most probably (b) (outgassing of some sort, possibly a malfunction/weakness common to both pioneer probes). No real evidence of that of course, and a "mysterious" force is more publishable;) Still it is very spooky.
(g) and (h) were (in his opinion) the least likely.
Note that the paper was actually first released in April, and just revised today.
Slashdot Mirror
c) Open Source. Recipient's license rights to the Software are conditioned upon Recipient (i) not distributing such Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with Potentially Viral Software (as defined below); and (ii) not using Potentially Viral Software (e.g. tools) to develop Recipient software which includes the Software, in whole or in part. For purposes of the foregoing, "Potentially Viral Software" means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that: (x) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft with respect to the Software or (y) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights to or immunities under Microsoft's intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Software. By way of example but not limitation of the foregoing, Recipient shall not distribute the Software, in whole or in part, in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. "Publicly Available Software" means each of (i) any software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) or similar licensing or distribution models; and (ii) any software that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of such software that other software distributed with such software (A) be disclosed or distributed in source code form; (B) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (C) be redistributable at no charge. Publicly Available Software includes, without limitation, software licensed or distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the following: (A) GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL (LGPL), (B) The Artistic License (e.g., PERL), (C) the Mozilla Public License, (D) the Netscape Public License, (E) the Sun Community Source License (SCSL), and (F) the Sun Industry Standards License (SISL).
Wow. MS is really pushing the "viral" thing. I guess they found the meme they're gonna fight with, and this is it.
It seems they're not afraid to scare off potential developers (who are already GNU software users and are unlikely to develop on MS anyway).
For those of you who *still* develop on MS platform AND use GNU tools to do it.. ask yourselves "why?" Is it the only job you can get? Do you really need the money? MS doesn't want your kind in their camp.
Sure, you are the Rosa Parks of the free software movement proving that you deserve to sit in the front of the MS bus.. but do you REALLY want to go where that bus is going? MS thought they wanted to garner a free-software-like grassroots community around MS to compete with OSS (they said as much in the Halloween documents), but it is clear that they have now completely given up on this and opened fire. YOU are now the enemy - why are you still treating MS as a friend?
And I'm putting doo-doo in your socks! So there!
From your comment, I'm assuming you think a requirements document that employs the words "paradigm shift" and "quality oriented" and "customer centric" is an informative one?
Either that, or it was another of your trolls.
Sometimes I can't tell where you stand - but your posts are always exciting!
The things I enjoy in my job are delivering solutions that work to customers that have cash. Anything that gets in the way of that I destroy.
How bully for you. I have many friends who make TON of money at companies that make a TON of money peddling shoddy products to people that have lots of cash by convincing them that their product works well enough to keep them from jumping ship to a competitor.
How? By having managers more concerned with single source lockin, rabid copyright and IP hoarding, armies of lawyers, and a minimal underpaid (and underqualified) engineering staff.
For your information, while the management team is perfectly happy, and the CEO is flying around in his corporate jet, the rest of the company just does barely enough to stay employed to get their next paycheck.
Sorry if my original post gave you the wrong impression.
What, that you are a deluded, narcissistic, shallow, greedy, concieted prick who enjoys putting down other people by stifling their creativity all while making sure you are surrounded by people who don't make you feel insecure and stupid?
No, that came through fine the first time.
Is this report targetted at os/server vendors or os/server purchasers?
Seeing as the report indicates that PURCHASES of linux are down, that shouldn't affect your decision to BUY, given that you understand that the raw number of purchases in no way indicates a) popularity and b) (by a fairly flawed populist metric) stability/suitability.
However, if you are a VENDOR, then all you care about is net profit anyway, and you don't care whether Linux or Windows is *installed*. You ONLY care about how much money is *spent* on them. If you are a VENDOR you LIKE large TCO as long as the resources spent on that big TCO are going to you.
Microsoft commisioned this report as a VENDOR, but released it with the hopes that it will discourage VENDORS as well as BUYERS to avoid Linux.
Everybody is so busy whining about the Gartner vs IDC numbers that they are failing to see the forest for the trees.
To be on your side for a moment, now we need to invent a new protocol. TCP is great, but that blasted SYN packet just sticks out like a sore thumb. We need to move our hiding down to a lower level. (Actually, I'm completely on your side, just a bit more pessimistic.)
One word: NFS!
because that guy just might be reading
.. and only prove himself MORE loony than ever thought imaginable.
This guy has all the markings of a NetKook(TM) (e.g. TIME HAS INERTIA), but sadly guys like him INFEST the English Lit community.
Anagrams? Please.
At minimum, they are a screen writers' crutch to come up with unique names, and at most they are nothing but amusing Easter Eggs.
The only thing more pathetic than watching an English Lit major analyze a book with anagrams is watching a Physics major attempt to pass his quantum final with numerology.
Urm you are confusing Bejamin Franklin with Jefferson again, sonny.
Nice Troll.
Since you are so fond of Jefferson, I have a quote for you.
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."
- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813
*Please* stop using that neologism - it's lame, it's intensely annoying, and it marks you out as a smug, arrogant fool.
Perhaps you'll understand when you're older.
*Please* stop using that cliche - it's lame, it's intensely annoying, and it marks you out as a smug, arrogant fool.
I *AM* older, and any time I hear somebody of my generation chiding a younger person with that taunt I cringe.
It very rarely has the effect they are looking for.
I considered it ethicaly and perhaps legally wrong.
;)
Yeah. Clearly the GPL is ethically and legally bankrupt - it impedes your employers "ability to innovate and to create Great Software(TM)".
I know this isn't what you meant, but it reads that way anyway
PHB's would love you to think that the internet is used primarily for business email (upper management email tends to be MORE important btw. even if it is to schedule the wife's baby shower) and for people surfing corporate sites for *valuable* marketing information.
As if that requires any real bandwidth or requires low latency/packet loss/jitter.
99% of the Internet is porn and games. Porn doesn't require low latency, low jitter or low packet loss, and can be safely QoS'ed into the "available bandwith" slot along with Mr. CEO's VITALLY IMPORTANT email to his golfing pals.
The only thing left is games and VoIP.
The latter is strictly CBR.
This leaves GAMES.
Nobody wants to admit this. It is the Internet's dirty little secret that when a company complains to an ISP about its shitty latency and packet loss rates, it is NOT because Mr. PHB can't check his stock portfolio (after all, he can do this over a modem with 20%+ packet loss and a ping of 500 ms). It is because somebody in the IT staff just got fragged by an LPB.
Isn't it funny how many engineers can design an airplane, yet a whole team of engineers can't design a donkey cart with 9 wheels (some of them square) that can fly to the moon and back?
My point is, given this hypothetical situation, the railroad companies would most certainly try to pass laws restricting air travel.
;) so railroads still have a niche.
They CERTAINLY had the resources. I'm not sure the political climate would have allowed legislative manipulation on that level (like today).
They would also have tried very hard to gain mindshare by arguing that air travel would ruin their business, thereby threatening the US economy.
Unfortunately for them, there was NO PRIOR restrictions on air travel, since it was never percieved as a threat.
Fortunatly for them, however, air transport can be expensive (especially for very heavy things
P2P, however, has always been basically illegal (in a capitalistic structure) from the BIRTH of ideas in the form of patents and copyright laws. What kept it going was that the widespread transfer of large chunks of information was relatively expensive/hard and restricted to publishers of books and newspapers.
Once the technological/cost barrier had fallen, everybody started scrambling to keep the house of cards from completely collapsing.
It can't be stopped now - and unlike heavfy freight for railroads, I doubt there is a sizable niche for the retail information business model.
I realise the analog isn't so hot.. but part of my point is that the line between legal and illegal isn't necessarily a MORAL one. Had railroads been given the opportunity and a head start, they would have certainly pressed for laws restricting air travel. Especially if these mythical 747 flights were 1) nearly free and 2) available anywhere, anytime.
The point is, like the old railroad monopolies, the "retail information" business model (music, movies, software, etc) is a gigantic, aging, dinosaur struggling to survive.
All the bickering about whether copyright infringment is immoral (ie. equivalent to piracy, theft, rape, etc.) is meaningless when you consider that the instantaneous tranfer of large of amounts of information WILL become easier and easier in the future. This is a fact. This is not an analogy. Those business models that depends on the scarcity of information will fail.
Until lately, this scarcity (needed for a "free" and "competitive" market) was enforced by TWO effects. Firstly, by IP laws, and secondly by technology. Once the second column falls, the first can no longer sustain this horrible kluge. The marginal cost of information WILL approach zero, no matter how they try.
The question still remains: how do you fund the work required to generate the information to begin with?
Seeing as copyright/IP is doomed to failure, somebody had best start thinking clearly.
If its any consolation, I do agree with the other poster.. he just didn't take it to the logical extreme ;)
His is marked insightful because it IS insightful.
I think you underestimate the capabilities of a young mind. I myself am aging rapidly (being of the dumb terminal generation ;), and slowly losing the ability to learn new things. The next generation of hackers may still yet suprise you.
They may be weened on playstation, Windows, and coinop's but I guarantee you the BRIGHTER ones will soon look for more challenging things.
Airplanes are inherently dangerous to railroad companies. Roll back the clock a few decades before cheap air travel. If Mr. Railroad Tycoon was suddenly faced with a flottilla of 747s prepped and ready to take passengers to/from EVERY point on earth, you can BET he would spend every dollar trying to prove that 1) it was dangerous and 2) it would cause him to lose money, thereby affecting the economy. After all, the railroads WERE the US economy for several decades. Follow the money, my son. Follow the money, and there you will find enlightenment.
I am interested to read what examples can be provided for positive usage of P2P, but I'm afraid that like guns, it will be shown that overwhelmingly P2P is used to flout the law and that our society is better without it.
It will be shown that P2P is used to flout several stupid and shortsighted laws, and that our society is better without said laws.
You mean, "I didn't know P2P could get cancer!"
.. and you wanted to prove airplanes were useful, would you find ways to use the airplane on the ground?
I think not.
P2P blows the top off of what the conventional wisdom of intellectual property says, and THAT is why there is a debate to begin with.
I am extremely offended at your attitude. My father spent the last years of his life _skeptically_ examining all the evidence gathered throughout the THIRTY years the pioneer probes were operational.
The fact that you can sit in your armchair and question his objectivity, wonder, and *passion* for the mysteries of life makes me physically ill.
Any failing of science is OUR fault. OUR faliere to educate. OUR faliure to recognize our biases. OUR faliures to drag concieted shits like you out of the dark ages.
My (recently deceased) dad is on that paper.. he believed that it was most probably (b) (outgassing of some sort, possibly a malfunction/weakness common to both pioneer probes). No real evidence of that of course, and a "mysterious" force is more publishable ;) Still it is very spooky.
(g) and (h) were (in his opinion) the least likely.
Note that the paper was actually first released in April, and just revised today.
The RIAA needs to investigate this assertion that data is copied in digial format into consumer CD player memory, sometimes MORE THAN ONCE!
This is a blatant violation of the copywrite holder's rights.
This is THEFT pure and simple.
Bank of America and Merril Lynch Online both
refuse SSL connections from Mozilla
You mean several *Iraqi* soldiers have, and a few of *our* soldiers have ;)