SCO is crap, but it is far from dead. Not only do they own the UNIX source, SCO actually leads the UNIX market in sales.
However, in case you didn't know, SCO is pretty much in bed with Microsoft. So much so that an MS VP sits on SCO's board. Sorry, I don't have the name right now, I did a report on this last year in my business law class.
My point is that you cannot justify that all software and other intellectual works should be free by the ease of which they can be copied. That makes no more sense than saying that theft should be legal, as long as you can pull it off without breaking a sweat.
And I am wholesale against patents, software or otherwise. The lack of patents promotes better competition between companies, as it prevents producers from resting on the laurels of a killer product. However, it is imperative for any country that wishes to foster innovation and productivity to guarantee the rights of the producers to their products. Because intellectual works like books, music, and software can be copied with ease, it is necessary to enforce copyrights. If people have nothing to guarantee that they will be able to benefit from their work (assuming it is marketably viable), what the hell makes you think they will pursue such avenues?
Enforcement is the main problem. Especially on the Internet and in the global economy. That's why you have the reactionary thrusts by our government and various private sector interests that border on digital fascism. We've gone from one end of the spectrum, akin to the lawless wild west, and are heading to the other, some Orwellian nightmare where we sport digital thought police processers running the latest version of Windoze CE. So as we decide exactly how information will be shared between people without trampling the rights of the authors, it is important to vehemently oppose these repulsive affronts to our freedom guised under the tag "protecting proprietary information."
These things are hard to resolve. Throwing up our hands and tossing intellectual property rights out the window is a very uncreative answer to this perplexing problem.
Are you people living in some Star Trek fairy land where you just turn the microwave on and a gourmet dinner magically appears? Or is it something more sinister such as a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" philosophy? Products like your computer, (most ) of the software on it, your clothes, etc. exist because the person that made it expected to get something in exchange for it. Why? Because people have to eat. Because some of us have lives outside of cyberspace and like to do things like drive cars, go on vacations, and buy pretty girls drinks .
Linux exists as a labor of love. The developers who created it wanted to do something special, further their own knowledge, etc. and devoted their spare time to furthering its cause. That is why it exists, not to create some new fanciful order of unlimited something for nothing economy.
The only reason you are seeing commercial companies adopt the OSS model is because it is the last defense against the Microsoft's thundering herd of hype, misinformation and hysteria. If you think that Netscape and Sun are releasing source code to the development community for any other reason, you are fooling yourself.
Companies exist to make money. There are some with more noble aspirations, such as creating a great product, furthering technology, etc., but when the board meets at the end of the month they ask, "what's our gross, and what's our net". Should said figures be $0 revenue and -$10000000 profit because the intrepid CEO has adopted freeware as the marketing strategy, guess who's head is going to roll.
And please don't lump musicians and record companies into "the music industry". They are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Musicians receive an abysmally low portion of the proceeds from their work. Musicians widely regard MP3 as a great tool to help promote their work. It's the record companies who are throwing red flags everywhere, all they see is a repeat of that cassette tape fiasco in the 70's and 80's. However, I do not know one musician (myself included) that wants to spend months toiling away on an album, have it be a national sensation, and not receive a dime for it.
What people do have to realize is that intangibles are not public property. Information is not "free", public information is free. Proprietary information is not. Just because you can stamp out 100 copies of a CD doesn't mean you have the right to distribute it. And you shouldn't, because it is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
SCO is crap, but it is far from dead. Not only do they own the UNIX source, SCO actually leads the UNIX market in sales.
However, in case you didn't know, SCO is pretty much in bed with Microsoft. So much so that an MS VP sits on SCO's board. Sorry, I don't have the name right now, I did a report on this last year in my business law class.
My point is that you cannot justify that all software and other intellectual works should be free by the ease of which they can be copied. That makes no more sense than saying that theft should be legal, as long as you can pull it off without breaking a sweat.
And I am wholesale against patents, software or otherwise. The lack of patents promotes better competition between companies, as it prevents producers from resting on the laurels of a killer product. However, it is imperative for any country that wishes to foster innovation and productivity to guarantee the rights of the producers to their products. Because intellectual works like books, music, and software can be copied with ease, it is necessary to enforce copyrights. If people have nothing to guarantee that they will be able to benefit from their work (assuming it is marketably viable), what the hell makes you think they will pursue such avenues?
Enforcement is the main problem. Especially on the Internet and in the global economy. That's why you have the reactionary thrusts by our government and various private sector interests that border on digital fascism. We've gone from one end of the spectrum, akin to the lawless wild west, and are heading to the other, some Orwellian nightmare where we sport digital thought police processers running the latest version of Windoze CE. So as
we decide exactly how information will be shared between people without trampling the rights of the authors, it is important to vehemently oppose these repulsive affronts to our freedom guised under the tag "protecting proprietary information."
These things are hard to resolve. Throwing up our hands and tossing intellectual property rights out the window is a very uncreative answer to this perplexing problem.
Are you people living in some Star Trek fairy land where you just turn the microwave on and a gourmet dinner magically appears? Or is it something more sinister such as a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" philosophy? Products like your computer, (most ) of the software on it, your clothes, etc. exist because the person that made it expected to get something in exchange for it. Why? Because people have to eat. Because some of us have lives outside of cyberspace and like to do things like drive cars, go on vacations, and buy pretty girls drinks .
Linux exists as a labor of love. The developers who created it wanted to do something special, further their own knowledge, etc. and devoted their spare time to furthering its cause. That is why it exists, not to create some new fanciful order of unlimited something for nothing economy.
The only reason you are seeing commercial companies adopt the OSS model is because it is the last defense against the Microsoft's thundering herd of hype, misinformation and hysteria. If you think that Netscape and Sun are releasing source code to the development community for any other reason, you are fooling yourself.
Companies exist to make money. There are some with more noble aspirations, such as creating a great product, furthering technology, etc., but when the board meets at the end of the month they ask, "what's our gross, and what's our net". Should said figures be $0 revenue and -$10000000 profit because the intrepid CEO has adopted freeware as the marketing strategy, guess who's head is going to roll.
And please don't lump musicians and record companies into "the music industry". They are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Musicians receive an abysmally low portion of the proceeds from their work. Musicians widely regard MP3 as a great tool to help promote their work. It's the record companies who are throwing red flags everywhere, all they see is a repeat of that cassette tape fiasco in the 70's and 80's. However, I do not know one musician (myself included) that wants to spend months toiling away on an album, have it be a national sensation, and not receive a dime for it.
What people do have to realize is that intangibles are not public property. Information is not "free", public information is free. Proprietary information is not. Just because you can stamp out 100 copies of a CD doesn't mean you have the right to distribute it. And you shouldn't, because it is wrong.