You're right. But all that's changed is their search engine has got better to the point where some users might not consider finding google to be worth the hassle. The attempt to drive everyone there is nothing new.
Re:It's like Netscape v. Microsoft in that...
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft leveraged Windows to popularize IE. They'll try to do the same with MSN, leveraging it to promote their search engine.
The difference being that people actually use Windows, but if you're talking about MSN the network provider (rather than the IM client) it doesn't have anywhere near a monopoly.
Sure, anyone can type google.com into their browser, but for the 90% of the population who don't understand how the web works, pressing the Search button on their browser is the only option. The fact that Microsoft's search is getting better doesn't change anything though, as search.msn.com is already the IE default, and those people will be using that.
I assume you are looking at NZ's point system for gaining permanent residency without first spending time living in the country on a work permit, or similar visa, which is the normal route for emmigrating to ANY country. That point system is clearly aimed at affluent, well educated people of about 40 years of age (not 21 as you claim). Not only do you get points for education, but you get points for work experience too, up to a point. New Zealand actually has a reasonably large South Asian population, many of whom have entered as skilled migrants in medical and engineering fields, others have come via Fiji, where they were basically forced out in the early '90s. Unlike yourself, most New Zealanders do not hold any grudges against our South Asian immigrants, though there is some resentment against the recent influx of East Asian immigrants, many of whom appear to be unsupervised rich kids gone wild. Many of the top students when I was at Engineering School were Chinese Malaysians, who were discriminated against by their own country's education system, and chose to study abroad. Once people realised why they chose to study in New Zealand instead of Malaysia, any animosity disappeared. After reading your rant, I am glad that New Zealand turned down your application (if you ever applied, I suspect your rant is purely from ignorance though), we don't need your type here.
If you're talking about work permits, then the company that is hiring you normally pays any fees. But that sounds a little high, more like what an "immigration consultant" would charge than the actual fees the government charges.
Speaking as a non-American who has experienced living in a number of cultures and observed the attitudes of others after returning to my homeland, I can assure you that this is not limited to Americans.
Is movement among those Commonwealth nations made easier?
It used to be, but not really any more. UK's attention is focused on the EU now and most of the ex-colonies stopped giving preferential treatment to immigrants from the UK in the 1970's. Even then it was probably only those colonies with a history of large scale European immigration (NZ, Australia, Canada) that were making it easy for Brits to immigrate.
If he stayed in London, he'd never be able to afford a house to sell. A house in India and a comfortable lifestyle is better than renting a rundown bedsit in the outer suburbs of London for the rest of your life.
The NZ immigration website has a lot of info about obtaining residency visas because the rules for those are simple and clear cut. Work permits have to be considered on a case by case basis, so you don't find so much information about them, and maybe that is why people are so confused. The normal way to get residency in any country is to get a work permit first, then apply for residency once you've been there for some time. Slashdotters seem to be expecting to get instant residency, which for many countries does not exist, or in the US exists only as a lottery process, and in NZ and Australia there are certain qualifications that let you skip the work permit and immigrate directly. When seen in that context, NZ and Australia are in fact lenient compared with most countries.
First of all you are punished if you are older or don't have millions of dollars. If you don't have a degree then you might as well forget it. Finally you need a job offer and nobody in NZ is offering jobs to people who are not citizens.
I can't beleive it. NZ only gives residency visas to people who will contribute positively to the economy? What bastards. Every other country welcomes those who come to sponge off their taxpayers.
</sarcasm>
The requirement is not part of the GPL, and other authors are free to decide their own policy, but in projects administered by the FSF, they do ask that you either assign copyright to them or disclaim all rights over your code (effectively making it public domain) so that the FSF has clear ownership of the code it is distributing.
Huh? You must be smoking the same crack as SCO if you think Caldera did not understand that explicitly releasing software under the GPL and making lots of press releases about the fact that they were doing so would forfeit their rights to keep that code proprietary.
it's pretty much a given that SCO's own rendering of this code as GPL was inadvertent
Since groklaw has been well and truly slashdotted since this article appeared, I can't blame you for not RTFA, but the evidence they have collected pretty much destroys any claim that SCO might make about the release of this code being inadvertent. The evidence includes code released by Caldera under the GPL and PGP signed by Caldera's release key. It includes public statements by the former CEO of Caldera concerning their intentions in releasing the code. The last shaky fragment of SCO's case against Linux users has gone.
Why the last, you ask? Aside from the fact that this amounts to the bulk of "evidence" that SCO has publically produced, the documents SCO have released as part of their case against Novell show that the System V ABI is the only source code they could conceivably claim as theirs, and even that was an extremely shaky claim, as "System V ABI" appeared amongst a list of what was clearly documentation, and was in an appendix listing the copyrights that Novell owned, which may or may not have been transfered to SCO (my interpretation, and that of many others with more legal knowledge is that without an explicit copyright transfer agreement, none of those copyrights have been transfered).
those folks even manage to make slashdotters look level-headed. (For example, your comment referring to Bruce Perens as an authority.)
I'm not quite sure which comment you mean (on slashdot, or on groklaw which has been slashdotted for the last half hour?), but I can assure you that Bruce Perens has a lot more authority on this subject than you, Mr Anonymous Coward.
I suspect SCO will try to argue for unauthorized use of the private key, because that seems to be the only option left open to them. But it needs to be pointed out that not many organizations were cryptographically signing their releases at that time, so those that did do were clued up about crypto issues. I would be very surprised if Caldera were lax in securing their private key, though it wouldn't surprise me so much if a small company made that mistake today, now that the practice is more widespread.
Since when was PJ being so emotional about it? (She's not a techie anyway, she's a paralegal). You clearly have never read groklaw or you would not state so positively that this guy brings up a great point. PJ has stated on numerous occasions that she would welcome contributions from a pro-SCO point of view, but so far SCO has come up with zero genuine evidence that has not been thoroughly refuted by Linus, Perens and others before PJ gets a chance to post it to her site.
The brilliant thing is that Caldera PGP signed the files that they released. So it is going to be extremely hard for SCO to argue that someone else released them, or that they were released by a rogue employee without permission.
It might be compatible with the GPL, if "along with other credits" means that if you don't have credits elsewhere you don't have to include the XFree86 credits.
I suspect though that the XFree86 developers will start demanding that distributions call themselves XFree86/GNU/Linux or XFree86/Linux (since credit for GNU is still optional, however vocal RMS is about it).
If they released XFree86 with all the acknowledgements they want in the documentation, and even a splash screen that came up as X started with their names all over it in lights, chances are that 99% of GNU/Linux distributions would leave all that in there (provided the splash screen was not too obnoxious and could be disabled by the user once they'd seen it once). Any derivatives would probably also give credit where credit was due, just out of respect. By explicitly putting this in the license, they are making it incompatible with the GPL, and XFree86 is going to die and be replaced by another free X server. I think the XFree86 developers haven't thought this through properly.
The GPL v2 talks about the code being re-licensable under later versions of the GPL.
Some authors choose not to include that, but when they do it always says at your option. So even if the FSF is taken over by Microsoft and releases an unreasonable GPL v3, the free software community can choose not to exercise that option. The reason for including it was in case someone thought of a situation the GPL did not cover. It could also be used to reinstate compatibility with the XFree license if the FSF decided that an advertising clause was not so bad after all, and not worth fragmenting the free software community over.
But, what if your first priority is widest possible influence? For instance, you are trying to propagate a new protocol far and wide.
This is what the LGPL is intended for. Others can link your code with their proprietary code, but if they make improvements they cannot "embrace and extend", they have to contribute back to the standard protocol.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet I've noticed a lot of places will sell Coke and 7Up, so its not like its a completely exclusive deal.
You're right. But all that's changed is their search engine has got better to the point where some users might not consider finding google to be worth the hassle. The attempt to drive everyone there is nothing new.
The difference being that people actually use Windows, but if you're talking about MSN the network provider (rather than the IM client) it doesn't have anywhere near a monopoly.
Sure, anyone can type google.com into their browser, but for the 90% of the population who don't understand how the web works, pressing the Search button on their browser is the only option. The fact that Microsoft's search is getting better doesn't change anything though, as search.msn.com is already the IE default, and those people will be using that.
I assume you are looking at NZ's point system for gaining permanent residency without first spending time living in the country on a work permit, or similar visa, which is the normal route for emmigrating to ANY country. That point system is clearly aimed at affluent, well educated people of about 40 years of age (not 21 as you claim). Not only do you get points for education, but you get points for work experience too, up to a point. New Zealand actually has a reasonably large South Asian population, many of whom have entered as skilled migrants in medical and engineering fields, others have come via Fiji, where they were basically forced out in the early '90s. Unlike yourself, most New Zealanders do not hold any grudges against our South Asian immigrants, though there is some resentment against the recent influx of East Asian immigrants, many of whom appear to be unsupervised rich kids gone wild. Many of the top students when I was at Engineering School were Chinese Malaysians, who were discriminated against by their own country's education system, and chose to study abroad. Once people realised why they chose to study in New Zealand instead of Malaysia, any animosity disappeared. After reading your rant, I am glad that New Zealand turned down your application (if you ever applied, I suspect your rant is purely from ignorance though), we don't need your type here.
If you're talking about work permits, then the company that is hiring you normally pays any fees. But that sounds a little high, more like what an "immigration consultant" would charge than the actual fees the government charges.
Speaking as a non-American who has experienced living in a number of cultures and observed the attitudes of others after returning to my homeland, I can assure you that this is not limited to Americans.
Is movement among those Commonwealth nations made easier? It used to be, but not really any more. UK's attention is focused on the EU now and most of the ex-colonies stopped giving preferential treatment to immigrants from the UK in the 1970's. Even then it was probably only those colonies with a history of large scale European immigration (NZ, Australia, Canada) that were making it easy for Brits to immigrate.
If he stayed in London, he'd never be able to afford a house to sell. A house in India and a comfortable lifestyle is better than renting a rundown bedsit in the outer suburbs of London for the rest of your life.
The NZ immigration website has a lot of info about obtaining residency visas because the rules for those are simple and clear cut. Work permits have to be considered on a case by case basis, so you don't find so much information about them, and maybe that is why people are so confused. The normal way to get residency in any country is to get a work permit first, then apply for residency once you've been there for some time. Slashdotters seem to be expecting to get instant residency, which for many countries does not exist, or in the US exists only as a lottery process, and in NZ and Australia there are certain qualifications that let you skip the work permit and immigrate directly. When seen in that context, NZ and Australia are in fact lenient compared with most countries.
I can't beleive it. NZ only gives residency visas to people who will contribute positively to the economy? What bastards. Every other country welcomes those who come to sponge off their taxpayers. </sarcasm>
The requirement is not part of the GPL, and other authors are free to decide their own policy, but in projects administered by the FSF, they do ask that you either assign copyright to them or disclaim all rights over your code (effectively making it public domain) so that the FSF has clear ownership of the code it is distributing.
Huh? You must be smoking the same crack as SCO if you think Caldera did not understand that explicitly releasing software under the GPL and making lots of press releases about the fact that they were doing so would forfeit their rights to keep that code proprietary.
Since groklaw has been well and truly slashdotted since this article appeared, I can't blame you for not RTFA, but the evidence they have collected pretty much destroys any claim that SCO might make about the release of this code being inadvertent. The evidence includes code released by Caldera under the GPL and PGP signed by Caldera's release key. It includes public statements by the former CEO of Caldera concerning their intentions in releasing the code. The last shaky fragment of SCO's case against Linux users has gone.
Why the last, you ask? Aside from the fact that this amounts to the bulk of "evidence" that SCO has publically produced, the documents SCO have released as part of their case against Novell show that the System V ABI is the only source code they could conceivably claim as theirs, and even that was an extremely shaky claim, as "System V ABI" appeared amongst a list of what was clearly documentation, and was in an appendix listing the copyrights that Novell owned, which may or may not have been transfered to SCO (my interpretation, and that of many others with more legal knowledge is that without an explicit copyright transfer agreement, none of those copyrights have been transfered).
I'm not quite sure which comment you mean (on slashdot, or on groklaw which has been slashdotted for the last half hour?), but I can assure you that Bruce Perens has a lot more authority on this subject than you, Mr Anonymous Coward.
I suspect SCO will try to argue for unauthorized use of the private key, because that seems to be the only option left open to them. But it needs to be pointed out that not many organizations were cryptographically signing their releases at that time, so those that did do were clued up about crypto issues. I would be very surprised if Caldera were lax in securing their private key, though it wouldn't surprise me so much if a small company made that mistake today, now that the practice is more widespread.
He was responding to ObviousGuy, saying that he brings up a good point. ObviousGuy's point was about Groklaw, so yes he was talking about PJ.
Since when was PJ being so emotional about it? (She's not a techie anyway, she's a paralegal). You clearly have never read groklaw or you would not state so positively that this guy brings up a great point. PJ has stated on numerous occasions that she would welcome contributions from a pro-SCO point of view, but so far SCO has come up with zero genuine evidence that has not been thoroughly refuted by Linus, Perens and others before PJ gets a chance to post it to her site.
The brilliant thing is that Caldera PGP signed the files that they released. So it is going to be extremely hard for SCO to argue that someone else released them, or that they were released by a rogue employee without permission.
I suspect though that the XFree86 developers will start demanding that distributions call themselves XFree86/GNU/Linux or XFree86/Linux (since credit for GNU is still optional, however vocal RMS is about it).
If they released XFree86 with all the acknowledgements they want in the documentation, and even a splash screen that came up as X started with their names all over it in lights, chances are that 99% of GNU/Linux distributions would leave all that in there (provided the splash screen was not too obnoxious and could be disabled by the user once they'd seen it once). Any derivatives would probably also give credit where credit was due, just out of respect. By explicitly putting this in the license, they are making it incompatible with the GPL, and XFree86 is going to die and be replaced by another free X server. I think the XFree86 developers haven't thought this through properly.
I think you are confusing the license with copyright notices. You cannot remove the copyright notices, but you can relicense the software.
Some authors choose not to include that, but when they do it always says at your option. So even if the FSF is taken over by Microsoft and releases an unreasonable GPL v3, the free software community can choose not to exercise that option. The reason for including it was in case someone thought of a situation the GPL did not cover. It could also be used to reinstate compatibility with the XFree license if the FSF decided that an advertising clause was not so bad after all, and not worth fragmenting the free software community over.
This is what the LGPL is intended for. Others can link your code with their proprietary code, but if they make improvements they cannot "embrace and extend", they have to contribute back to the standard protocol.
IIRC, you only get tax breaks for patents if you donate them to the public domain.