don't worry about the open source thing, publishing under an open source license is very compatible with the spirit of doing science. after all, your peers should be able to use the outcome of your research, and follow up on it, right?
but: who will own the copyright to the software? this is the only thing you need to figure out. all the research i do belongs to my employer (university), which becomes especially important when i would like to make money with it. check whether your institute likes the idea of opensourcing the application. but, judged by the way you asked your question, it appears that you are already developing it, so there's likely no problem there.
so: just write like any other grant application, make it good, and get the money. good luck!
al lot of comments spreading unfounded rumours that MS is at their old game again are modded up extremely insightful etc, while we just don't know the why and what of the whole situation.
we accuse MS of spreading FUD, while we are doing the same thing *all* the time...
really, our admins are 'network nazis' as someone else described, and if we need new software, it's being *bought* with a sufficient amopunt of licences. let them check my dept, and we'll see how right you and parent poster are
talking out of my ass...
now this is very nice and stiumulating discussion...
- a former employee snitches to the BSA - they get a warrant to go look for evidence (apparently the have this power, which is mind boggling to me...) - they find evidence - they go to court to claim money
maybe i'm completely ignorant, but how does this translate into 'guilty before it's been proven'?
about the 'common sense' i completely agree!
and i do hope (since i am a european), that this is not going to happen here... but i'm afraid money rules the world wherever, so i'm more pessimistic than you are...
it does prove the point that i don't know enough about specific details in all licensing, like any layman:)
i'm still convinced: if you agree to a licence you're legally bound to it. no matter how unfair etc it is. i hate it, it's unfair but it's a fact you have to consider when running a business using software that is licenced. invest in knowing *everything*, or bleed when they find out. simple.
"What they were doing, in the example he gives, is handing computers down from one employee to another, which is somehow a violation of some absurd EULA."
wow. i missed that. absurd indeed...
i didn't say ball was handling the situation incorrectly, i think he's handling it great. i just posted a thought on this matter, and i knew it wan't a popular one.
actually, were all the violations the BSA found so ridiculous? maybe in this case, this guy sounds genuine enough, but in many cases people just knowingly install illegal copies. i've seen this a lot at some places i worked, and i think it's plain stupid.
don't forget, this is ball's side of the story, and this is slashdot, so pleased to cheer whenever they hear of the big bad corporations being punished in some way...
hey, i never said it was *fair*. i don't think we disagree that much, we should just try to separate 'reality' from 'what you believe things should be like'.
i think these BSA raids are ab-so-lu-te-ly ridiculous. but ever since you have to agree that you should pay for having a software installed (for windows, you have to click 'agree' before install at least since w95), it's your own fault.
yes of course you have to invest to make sure you are using licensed softwares correctly. it just became more urgent now they are actually doing their best to enforce it.
again, i hate the system. but if you use it, use it well, or bleed. it's like that.
[qoute] If YOU never break the law, kudos to you. I commend you. Hell, run for president. [/quote] not possible for me -> i'm dutch
but seriously, when you run a business you should take care of these things. i know it's not easy. but to say 'well, i don't have contorl over the mistakes my employees make' is essentially saying that you have bad policies regarding IT management. it *is* possible to not make mistakes in this area, essentially it's a no-brainer. it just takes a lot of work.
so it comes down to possibly being screwed by the BSA, or invest a great deal of money/effort making sure that your software is licensed.
or, indeed, use OS software, and it's great they shose this path. as someone else rightfully said in this discussion, perhaps in 10 yrs we can thnak the BSA for helping the OS desktop penetrate the market. kudos to the BSA;)
correct policies can prevent these things. and when tom gives it to berol, it's still in the same company, and they paid a license for tom's windows, didn't they?! and it's actually quite smart to wipe your disks before you transfer them from in or out of your company. for more reasons than license compliance.
anyway, the companies i talk about refresh their hardware rather frequently, with preinstalled windows on dell boxes, and get rid of the old stuff. so that's pretty managable...
'using' was incorrect wording from my side. there's no way to verify whether installed software is being used or not (well, if you try hard...).
the fact remains that the licensing is not talking about using software. it's talking about installing software. *that* it the time when you agree to a license. actually, when you open the box and break the seal, if they have their way.
i know few it companies, and i work at a university
the companies i know indeed have such policies. and it works. they were 100 employees, okay, so it's managable, but it *works* if you take care.
and at my own work, well i run linux all the time:)
the few propr. softwares we have are all correctly used withing the licensing terms. our it dept takes care of this. there's no excuse for being sloppy if you're a professional
yeah, as i wrote, i don't agree with it. unfortunately, the BSA has the law on it's side, so you better scrutinize every piece of hardware you own, and the software installed on it
it sucks, but it's reality nowadays in license-land...
i don't agree with M$/BSA methods. but legally, they have the right, and there's not a real excuse to not follow the terms and conditions of a license if you are running a professional business.
no matter how honest and fair this family business of his might be...
now you can mod me to hell, i know i don't have a popular opinion
[qoute] "I said, 'I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses,'" recalled Ball, who recently addressed the LinuxWorld trade show. "We won't do business with someone who treats us poorly." [/quote]
if you don't agree with the licensing, don't use illegal copies. it's very nice etc that they switched the whole thing to RH, but come on, if you use commercial software you should pay for it.
please, hold your horses, and please don't scream Q&A at me... not very productive.
now to your answers: 1. for most people i would say the price of CDs is the limiting factor. the fact that it's different for you doesn't mean you are right.
2, 3. you seem to think that the mp3s that one can download are all magically created out of nothing. get real, >95% of them are ripped from CDs. you are referring to a niche market (indie labels) compared to a lot of music *you* don't like, but zillions of others do like.
which invalidates your point 4. because this business model works only in a niche market filled with NICE people. the demand for music exceeds what indie labels provide. you might think it's crap music, but there's a demand for it. should i limit myself to a certain kind of music because of the idealism behind it, instead of the music itself? i don't think so.
you claim my questions are so loaded. i think you should be a bit more careful in your response. i tried to pose the question slightly provocative, but at least i'm not being an elitist, but instead a realist. actually, IMO your answers are a heck of a lot more provoking than my questions. so please grow up, and stop flaming someone for having a different opinion then yours. think before you write...
People tend to complain a lot about the profit margins in the music industry, and use this as an argument to not buy CD's but download them. Furthermore, a lot of people complain that copying their collection is just fair use, and they feel restricted in their rights by the recent developments in DRM. Without the music industry however we wouldn't have CDs to rip, or DRM protected tracks to download;)
We (consumer and industry) obviously need each other.
So my question is: Can you think of (a) profitable business model(s) that would *not* use DRM?
well they way i see it, it's an authentic post. i suggest using a more inflaming exoression such as 'genuinity', 'unambiguity', or just straight 'inflammatory';)
why are you assuming that PWS is an "almost failed software"? this isn't about power to the people, this is about a replacement in government departments. if WPS does the job, and is a good enough copy of M$ office for the chinese government, they should switch. hurray for competition: a similar product for less money, and no/hardly any retraining needed!!!
it's not like every citizen is forced to use WPS. and hey, what is the choice you are talking about? do you *really* think that the average chinese can afford M$s license fees? WPS vs. pirated office, i know what i would prefer... especially since M$ is trying harder and harder to fight piracy.
and last, but not least: "the linux mindset" is something different than *your* mindset. open your eyes, man. don't be an elitist. you better choose pragmatism instead. it makes the world go round.
Slashdot Mirror
never did this before
/. comment that makes sense
MOD PARENT UP (and me down i don't care)
finally a
writing a good grant! focus on this.
don't worry about the open source thing, publishing under an open source license is very compatible with the spirit of doing science. after all, your peers should be able to use the outcome of your research, and follow up on it, right?
but: who will own the copyright to the software? this is the only thing you need to figure out. all the research i do belongs to my employer (university), which becomes especially important when i would like to make money with it. check whether your institute likes the idea of opensourcing the application. but, judged by the way you asked your question, it appears that you are already developing it, so there's likely no problem there.
so: just write like any other grant application, make it good, and get the money. good luck!
al lot of comments spreading unfounded rumours that MS is at their old game again are modded up extremely insightful etc, while we just don't know the why and what of the whole situation.
we accuse MS of spreading FUD, while we are doing the same thing *all* the time...
hilarious huh?! well, i should...
really, our admins are 'network nazis' as someone else described, and if we need new software, it's being *bought* with a sufficient amopunt of licences. let them check my dept, and we'll see how right you and parent poster are
talking out of my ass...
now this is very nice and stiumulating discussion...
wait... don't get upset now
- a former employee snitches to the BSA
- they get a warrant to go look for evidence (apparently the have this power, which is mind boggling to me...)
- they find evidence
- they go to court to claim money
maybe i'm completely ignorant, but how does this translate into 'guilty before it's been proven'?
about the 'common sense' i completely agree!
and i do hope (since i am a european), that this is not going to happen here... but i'm afraid money rules the world wherever, so i'm more pessimistic than you are...
yep, they're bastards...
yeh somebody else told me this as well
:)
i missed it, sorry about that...
it does prove the point that i don't know enough about specific details in all licensing, like any layman
i'm still convinced: if you agree to a licence you're legally bound to it. no matter how unfair etc it is. i hate it, it's unfair but it's a fact you have to consider when running a business using software that is licenced. invest in knowing *everything*, or bleed when they find out. simple.
"What they were doing, in the example he gives, is handing computers down from one employee to another, which is somehow a violation of some absurd EULA."
wow. i missed that. absurd indeed...
i didn't say ball was handling the situation incorrectly, i think he's handling it great. i just posted a thought on this matter, and i knew it wan't a popular one.
actually, were all the violations the BSA found so ridiculous? maybe in this case, this guy sounds genuine enough, but in many cases people just knowingly install illegal copies. i've seen this a lot at some places i worked, and i think it's plain stupid.
don't forget, this is ball's side of the story, and this is slashdot, so pleased to cheer whenever they hear of the big bad corporations being punished in some way...
hey, i never said it was *fair*. i don't think we disagree that much, we should just try to separate 'reality' from 'what you believe things should be like'.
i think these BSA raids are ab-so-lu-te-ly ridiculous. but ever since you have to agree that you should pay for having a software installed (for windows, you have to click 'agree' before install at least since w95), it's your own fault.
yes of course you have to invest to make sure you are using licensed softwares correctly. it just became more urgent now they are actually doing their best to enforce it.
again, i hate the system. but if you use it, use it well, or bleed. it's like that.
yes, and i was replying to the poster, and not to the article. this can happen in a thread you know, it can wander slightly off-topic
now stop trolling mr AC
yep
by installing it, you agree to the licensing terms. so if software is installed, and you can't show the license, you're fucked
wonderful isn't it?
[qoute]
;)
If YOU never break the law, kudos to you. I commend you. Hell, run for president.
[/quote]
not possible for me -> i'm dutch
but seriously, when you run a business you should take care of these things. i know it's not easy. but to say 'well, i don't have contorl over the mistakes my employees make' is essentially saying that you have bad policies regarding IT management. it *is* possible to not make mistakes in this area, essentially it's a no-brainer. it just takes a lot of work.
so it comes down to possibly being screwed by the BSA, or invest a great deal of money/effort making sure that your software is licensed.
or, indeed, use OS software, and it's great they shose this path. as someone else rightfully said in this discussion, perhaps in 10 yrs we can thnak the BSA for helping the OS desktop penetrate the market. kudos to the BSA
read your comment and think
correct policies can prevent these things. and when tom gives it to berol, it's still in the same company, and they paid a license for tom's windows, didn't they?! and it's actually quite smart to wipe your disks before you transfer them from in or out of your company. for more reasons than license compliance.
anyway, the companies i talk about refresh their hardware rather frequently, with preinstalled windows on dell boxes, and get rid of the old stuff. so that's pretty managable...
yes i read it
'using' was incorrect wording from my side. there's no way to verify whether installed software is being used or not (well, if you try hard...).
the fact remains that the licensing is not talking about using software. it's talking about installing software. *that* it the time when you agree to a license. actually, when you open the box and break the seal, if they have their way.
as i said it sucks, but it's reality
well you can be as sarcastic as you like to be
:)
i know few it companies, and i work at a university
the companies i know indeed have such policies. and it works. they were 100 employees, okay, so it's managable, but it *works* if you take care.
and at my own work, well i run linux all the time
the few propr. softwares we have are all correctly used withing the licensing terms. our it dept takes care of this. there's no excuse for being sloppy if you're a professional
yeah, as i wrote, i don't agree with it. unfortunately, the BSA has the law on it's side, so you better scrutinize every piece of hardware you own, and the software installed on it
it sucks, but it's reality nowadays in license-land...
i don't agree with M$/BSA methods. but legally, they have the right, and there's not a real excuse to not follow the terms and conditions of a license if you are running a professional business.
no matter how honest and fair this family business of his might be...
now you can mod me to hell, i know i don't have a popular opinion
[qoute]
"I said, 'I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses,'" recalled Ball, who recently addressed the LinuxWorld trade show. "We won't do business with someone who treats us poorly."
[/quote]
if you don't agree with the licensing, don't use illegal copies. it's very nice etc that they switched the whole thing to RH, but come on, if you use commercial software you should pay for it.
19: Do you plan to support plaform foo? ..etc..etc.. binaries.
:)
Where
It is unlikely that we would ever build a Caldera/SCO version, however.
hehe funny
mr funksaw
please, hold your horses, and please don't scream Q&A at me... not very productive.
now to your answers:
1. for most people i would say the price of CDs is the limiting factor. the fact that it's different for you doesn't mean you are right.
2, 3. you seem to think that the mp3s that one can download are all magically created out of nothing. get real, >95% of them are ripped from CDs. you are referring to a niche market (indie labels) compared to a lot of music *you* don't like, but zillions of others do like.
which invalidates your point 4. because this business model works only in a niche market filled with NICE people. the demand for music exceeds what indie labels provide. you might think it's crap music, but there's a demand for it. should i limit myself to a certain kind of music because of the idealism behind it, instead of the music itself? i don't think so.
you claim my questions are so loaded. i think you should be a bit more careful in your response. i tried to pose the question slightly provocative, but at least i'm not being an elitist, but instead a realist. actually, IMO your answers are a heck of a lot more provoking than my questions. so please grow up, and stop flaming someone for having a different opinion then yours. think before you write...
People tend to complain a lot about the profit margins in the music industry, and use this as an argument to not buy CD's but download them. Furthermore, a lot of people complain that copying their collection is just fair use, and they feel restricted in their rights by the recent developments in DRM. Without the music industry however we wouldn't have CDs to rip, or DRM protected tracks to download ;)
We (consumer and industry) obviously need each other.
So my question is:
Can you think of (a) profitable business model(s) that would *not* use DRM?
well they way i see it, it's an authentic post. i suggest using a more inflaming exoression such as 'genuinity', 'unambiguity', or just straight 'inflammatory' ;)
heh
:)
amusing
tnx
2c worth of nothing IM not so HO
are you trolling or what?
why are you assuming that PWS is an "almost failed software"? this isn't about power to the people, this is about a replacement in government departments. if WPS does the job, and is a good enough copy of M$ office for the chinese government, they should switch. hurray for competition: a similar product for less money, and no/hardly any retraining needed!!!
it's not like every citizen is forced to use WPS. and hey, what is the choice you are talking about? do you *really* think that the average chinese can afford M$s license fees? WPS vs. pirated office, i know what i would prefer... especially since M$ is trying harder and harder to fight piracy.
and last, but not least: "the linux mindset" is something different than *your* mindset. open your eyes, man. don't be an elitist. you better choose pragmatism instead. it makes the world go round.
"give me ambiguity or give me something else"
.sig!
who are you quoting? i really like this