I'm not surprised this is a 'WIRED' article. They are such Apple fanboys. I've come so close to canceling my subscription because they go on and on ad nauseum about Apple, Inc.
I think it's kinda funny that we naively go about our business believing that the prison systems cannot afford to implement things like cell phone honeypots or jamming devices locally when they are obviously not as poor as we think. Let's take this recent example of a prison system that spent 77,000 dollars to update the prison with 117 brand new flat screen high definition televisions for their inmates.
Firstly, GPL is not anti-commercial. It is only a software licence that dictates under what circumstances (conditions) the software may be used.
Secondly, commercial companies are welcome to employ people to write GPL code, contribute, modify and enhance GPL software. If they distribute modified works then they are required to distribute the modifications in source form. Just like everyone else.
Thirdly, if Tora is incomplete and GPL anyone is welcome to pick up the project and continue on. That is if there is a need for it. Also, if it's any good.
The commercial companies have embraced GPL software because it is good quality. They are making a profit on the sale of support. RedHat, Novel, Ubuntu, etc.. are contributing to the development but they are also profiting from it. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing "lovey dovey" either.
Like it or not some of the world's most talented coders are thiking individuals too. Many of them are concerned with individual freedom and like the idea of being a part of something bigger than themselves. Not all contributions to GPL software are made by individuals employed by corporations either. It doesn't matter though whether they are or not. Their code is still going to follow the rules of the GPL license if it is GPL licensed software.
Nothing anti-commercial going on here. Better look elsewhere for conspiracies and zealots. Just good 'ol common sense happenin'. Sorry.
As a practical matter, this really isn't true. Unless a "user" is really a developer or wishes to employ one to make changes, the GPL'd software might as well be freeware. This type of user represents a tiny minority now and will get even smaller as GPL'd software becomes more mainstream. Practical or not, the/user/ of software is the one who clicks the little buttons and enters data. Not the person who writes the code that makes the little buttons work. It is the person who uses the printer to print a report that relies on the software to do its job. Not the developer who writes the sometimes buggy code. The developer is only *sometimes* the user. The user is *always* the user.
Of course the GPL doesn't protect against your contributions from being exploited without "giving back" because non-distributed derived works don't require distribution of source. This is true, if the works are enhanced and not distributed improvements don't have to be shared. This is another form of freedom extended to the/user/. However, if the software is distributed, the changes must be too.
Maybe you're not paying attention? Publishing the source code is how TiVO followed the letter of the law. Locking down the hardware is how they've gotten away with using GPL software (other peoples works) for their own financial gain while ensuring that their hardware can continue to data mine and phone home. Individuals cannot modify the free software to stop this behavior on TiVO products. Free software is being used to erode privacy and freedom on TiVO products.
Products do this every day, there's no new news there. We don't have to purchase them if we don't like it, that's true. Many consumers are not aware of these factor though and will continue to purchase products that harm them. That's okay as long as these products don't misuse/our/ (yours and mine) software! This is not what was intended. We are pro-consumer, pro-freedom, pro-people.
TiVO has turned/your/ software against you. I understand you, you love freedom so much and you think you're defending it.
GPL is *NOT* about user freedom because it restricts user freedom; GPLv3 added further restrictions, not new freedoms. Again, GPL is a/user/ license, not a developer license. It is changing to ensure that/user/ freedom continues to be protected.
Why should anyone or any company put money into developing hardware if GPLv3 will force them to give the fruits of their research freely to their competitors? GPL v3 does not do this. Companies are free to keep the fruits of their research. No one is forcing them to use GNU/Linux. In a free market society corporations are free to use whatever software they like. They can even produce their own completely new and proprietary software if they wish. If they have an issue with transferring to others the same freedom they were given then they should probably do this.
Look, it's very simple really. I and hundreds of others have written software which you are free to use. The only requirement we place on you is that you use the software freely and anyone else you give the software to has the same freedom you do. That's all.
If there's any hijacking, it's on the FSF side of things and their demands that hardware running GPL'ed software become GPL'ed itself. GPL is a software license. It dictates what conditions software may be used under. Hardware can not be released under the GPL.
Tivo is just a scapegoat and with GPLv3 the FSF has only demonstrated contempt for capitalism. Capitalism is a political and economic system. The GPL license is about end user software freedom.
There are plenty of lemmings who can't -- or won't -- bother to learn the difference. This is not productive discourse.
The GPL License is a/user/ license. It was intended to preserve the freedom of the/user/ of GPL software. It did so fabulously until TiVO found a way to stick to the letter of the GPL while violating the spirit of the license (ie they removed/user/ freedom by locking down the hardware that the free software is running on). TiVO has taken work which people have created in good faith, believing that their work would always ensure/user/ freedom, and hijacked it for commercial gain. They have perverted the spirit of the license while adhering to the letter of the license. TiVO is legally correct but ethically wrong.
Some of the people who've worked on GPL software in the past and some of the people who continue to donate their time and effort in the hope that/user/ freedom will be maintained are not going to get what they've agreed to unless the license can ensure that/user/ freedom will continue to be respected. GPL has never been about commercial interests. GPL has never been about money. GPL is about/user/ freedom.
If you are not about/user/ freedom perhaps you might like to reconsider what type of software you donate your time to. Remeber, the GPL is about/user/ freedom. It is not about developer freedom.
It has become fashionable to describe copyright, patents, and trademarks as "intellectual property". This fashion did not arise by accident--the term systematically distorts and confuses these issues, and its use was and is promoted by those who gain from this confusion. Anyone wishing to think clearly about any of these laws would do well to reject the term.
One effect of the term is a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property rights for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law, but only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to change them to be more so. Since that is the change desired by the companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, these companies have worked to make the term fashionable.
According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School, the widespread use of the term "intellectual property" is a fad that followed the 1967 founding of the World "Intellectual Property" Organization, and only became really common in the past few years. (WIPO is formally a UN organization, but in fact it represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents and trademarks.)
Those who would prefer to judge these issues on their merits should reject a biased term for them. Many have asked me to propose some other name for the category--or proposed alternatives themselves. Suggestions include IMPs, for Imposed Monopoly Privileges, and GOLEMs, for Government-Originated Legally Enforced Monopolies. Some speak of "exclusive rights regimes", but this means referring to restrictions as rights, which is doublethink too.
But it is a mistake to replace "intellectual property" with any other term. A different name could eliminate the bias, but won't address the term's deeper problem: overgeneralization. There is no such unified thing as "intellectual property". It is a mirage, which appears to have a coherent existence only because the term suggests it does.
The term "intellectual property" operates as a catch-all to lump together disparate laws. Non-lawyers who hear the term "intellectual property" applied to these various laws tend to assume they are instances of a common principle, and that they function similarly. Nothing could be further from the case.
These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues. Copyright law was designed to promote authorship and art, and covers the details of a work of authorship or art. Patent law was intended to encourage publication of ideas, at the price of finite monopolies over these ideas--a price that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others. Trademark law was not intended to promote any business activity, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are buying; however, legislators under the influence of "intellectual property" have turned it into a scheme that provides incentives for advertising (without asking the public if we want more advertising).
Since these laws developed independently, they are different in every detail as well as in their basic purposes and methods. Thus, if you learn some fact about copyright law, you had best assume that patent law is different. You'll rarely go wrong that way!
Laymen are not alone in getting confused by this term. I regularly find that experts on patent law, copyright law, and trademark law, even law professors who teach these subjects, have been lured by the seductiveness of the term "intellectual property" into general statements that conflict with the facts they know. The term distracts them from using their own knowledge.
People often say "intellectual property" when they really mean some other category, larger or smaller than "intellectual property". For instance, rich count
I bought each of my boys a PS3 for Christmas this year. One got RFOM and the other got Ridge Racer as gifts too. They play fine in each console. Swapping them back and forth is no problem. The wireless controllers work great and there's no new controls to learn either. We've put some PS2 games (my older son owns 30+ titles) into both machines and I like that I don't have to purchase memory cards anymore because the hard drive creates a memory card to store game data going forward.
I went to the video rental store and there were already more than 10 titles available on the shelf for rental. I like Sony's game systems because they seem to maintain backward compatability with the stuff I've already purchased in the past.
Personally I think this story is pretty lame. If you think it is too - mod this up!
>>>... but it does not really matter if he is revelant or not. It makes no difference...
Thank you for making my point. I say he's not relevant and you say it doesn't matter if he's relevant? Way to go. Sounds like your saying the same thing I am. Linus' opinion is not relevant. Thanks.
>>>... Don't buy them - nobody FORCES you to buy this stuff, you do it with your own choice.
Let me try to explain it in simpler terms.
I own Linux. You do too and so does everyone else (including Bill Gates, Steve Balmer and George W. Bush, BTW). Our license allows manufacturers to create products using our operating system kernel,etc.. so long as they do not take away our freedom. It goes agains the spirit of the GPL if they can bypass that just by locking the hardware so that it will only operate with their "approved" signed binaries. It's our software and allowing this loophole is stupid. We'd be dumb if we didn't put further restrictions on it in light of the newly arriving Trusted Computing, DRM, call it what you will.
>>>... Yeah. "If {useless assumption}..." - that is an argument. Really. Good, practical, solid point.:)))
No one is arguing that Linus didn't try to set the world on fire. He did though, like it or not. Linux is nothing without GNU and none of this would be possible if it hadn't been started when it was. At least that's the way it appears since Trusted Computing and DRM are going to try to make it impossible to use modified versions of free software in free software powered hardware. I don't think that's the spirit of the gift so many have given to the world. This isn't speculation. TiVo is doing it right now and has been since day one.
I don't think the FSF is overreaching at all. They are simply providing developers that which is required for the fruits of their labor to survive in a potentially hostle environment of selfish interest and greed.
Their goal is the preservation of software freedom against a potential onslaught of patent and digital "rights" management technology. Technology which will no doubt enable business that want to the ability to userp the work others have done, make tons of money and offer nothing back except lock-in.
Remember, it was a proprietary printer driver (software) that started the whole free software movement. Having open source printer drivers and drm protected proprietary hardware that requires a certain "signed" binary would not be any better. If we allow this to happen it will be as if we've learned nothing from the past.
Linus is becoming less and less relevant as time goes by. He probably thinks that the entire community is contributing to GNU/Linux because they like him personally. What good does free software do us if we cannot modify it and continue to run the modified code? We already don't own many of the things we buy - proprietary software, music, movies and many other things. Now we won't own (control) the hardware we purchase either?
If GNU/Linux had started 20 years later than it did this wouldn't even be an issue. DRM would've killed it before it even got off the ground. Linus would just be the name of a Peanuts character.
The BSD/MIT license does not ensure that changes made get shared back. Also, BSD/MIT licenses only require that credit is given to the original authors, NOT that the code that's been added be shared (or even disclosed). Big difference from GPL which ensures that the code always be shared - even enhancements - making it as free after the change/enhancement as it was before.
I find it interesting that Sony has violating consumer's rights in order to protect their own rights. Now for the first time it is actually safer to download and listen to pirated music then it is to purchase and use compact disks and dvds. Piracy will become a matter of self-preservation.
Also, the new shadowy status of $sys$ prepended files opens the door for all kinds of malware - these programs will use this "hole" to create hidden processes on people's home and workplace computer systems - a serious security threat to all the nations of the world. In essence Sony has facilitated a whole new class of malware, virus and worm propagation by assisting them in denying detection.
Once Microsoft has embraced the Open Document format by adding it to Microsoft Office they will have secured their place on the gravy train for years to come. All they have to do is continue to make Office (default) to their latest format but leave the option for Open Document in the Save As... dialog.
Govt. employees will be forced to save documents using the Open Document format. End users (constituents) will receive the documents at home, add smiley faces and doodads to them, save them using MS OFFICE DOCs and email them to their friends.
Microsoft will NEVER default to Open Document. People will never live without smiley faces and 3D cutie things.
People just don't get it. Until they CARE they won't get it.
This is an excellent idea. The specs are light but it'll give kids a chance to learn about Linux from the shell on up. That's where great programming begins. I won't be surprised to find the future worlds best programmers coming from what are now third world countries. At least their youth aren't being distracted by the day to day burden of consuming consumables, playing PS2/Xbox and forgetting to do their homework, right?
All Microsoft is looking for here is credibility. They will take the data and skew to their liking, pointing out all of Linux's weaknesses and none of Microsofts. They will continue to saturate the web with banner ads touting their dubious strengths using "new and improved data". When the open source community cries foul they'll point to the source of their data as indisputable and non-biased.
The net effect of all this will be a community that's distracted from building the worlds best software. It'll cause us to concentrate on beating Microsoft instead. This isn't our goal - it will happen - but it is *not* our #1 goal.
Historically, those who've survived the Microsoft threat are those who've done WHAT THEY DO and not what Microsoft does. IBM, Apple, Sun.
I can hear outrage from RMS already! Licensing proprietary technology for use with GNU/Linux? Next people will start using the Flash plugin too! It's a slippery sloap.
Many businesses are too smart to download and install warez versions of anything. It is illegal. Most businesses are too worried about liability issues arising from disgruntled ex-employees blowing the whistle on them for stealing software.
OSS versions make it possible for these companies to save money, not suffer lock-in, and not worry about being eaten by their own young.:-)
I agree with you. I don't know the answer to that either but it's not going to succeed or fail based upon what you or I do.
Let's not forget the fact that free software _is_ free and that includes the fact that people will _always_ want to port it to unstable but popular platforms - we can't (thank you GPL) stop it. We don't want to anyway, right? If software is free but only to people who want to use it or port it to particular "approved" platforms, is it really free?
Let's not lose sight of the fact that we aren't here to hurt Microsoft. We're here to help people enjoy better software and to give them the freedom to enjoy it secure in the knowledge that it'll always be there for them, their children and their children's children. The GPL ensures that it always will be.
In the long run I hope you're right about the fact that it'll make popular free OSS windows programs which can save in formats compatible for _all_ users of the program, regardless of their OS.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft is no angel, but they aren't the devil either.
Yeah, I mean ... at least they're not Apple.
I'm not surprised this is a 'WIRED' article. They are such Apple fanboys. I've come so close to canceling my subscription because they go on and on ad nauseum about Apple, Inc.
Novell has supported both netware and linux kernels for a while now. You can decide which one to use during the install.
I think it's kinda funny that we naively go about our business believing that the prison systems cannot afford to implement things like cell phone honeypots or jamming devices locally when they are obviously not as poor as we think. Let's take this recent example of a prison system that spent 77,000 dollars to update the prison with 117 brand new flat screen high definition televisions for their inmates.
Firstly, GPL is not anti-commercial. It is only a software licence that dictates under what circumstances (conditions) the software may be used.
Secondly, commercial companies are welcome to employ people to write GPL code, contribute, modify and enhance GPL software. If they distribute modified works then they are required to distribute the modifications in source form. Just like everyone else.
Thirdly, if Tora is incomplete and GPL anyone is welcome to pick up the project and continue on. That is if there is a need for it. Also, if it's any good.
The commercial companies have embraced GPL software because it is good quality. They are making a profit on the sale of support. RedHat, Novel, Ubuntu, etc.. are contributing to the development but they are also profiting from it. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing "lovey dovey" either.
Like it or not some of the world's most talented coders are thiking individuals too. Many of them are concerned with individual freedom and like the idea of being a part of something bigger than themselves. Not all contributions to GPL software are made by individuals employed by corporations either. It doesn't matter though whether they are or not. Their code is still going to follow the rules of the GPL license if it is GPL licensed software.
Nothing anti-commercial going on here. Better look elsewhere for conspiracies and zealots. Just good 'ol common sense happenin'. Sorry.
Maybe you're not paying attention? Publishing the source code is how TiVO followed the letter of the law. Locking down the hardware is how they've gotten away with using GPL software (other peoples works) for their own financial gain while ensuring that their hardware can continue to data mine and phone home. Individuals cannot modify the free software to stop this behavior on TiVO products. Free software is being used to erode privacy and freedom on TiVO products.
/our/ (yours and mine) software! This is not what was intended. We are pro-consumer, pro-freedom, pro-people.
/your/ software against you. I understand you, you love freedom so much and you think you're defending it.
Products do this every day, there's no new news there. We don't have to purchase them if we don't like it, that's true. Many consumers are not aware of these factor though and will continue to purchase products that harm them. That's okay as long as these products don't misuse
TiVO has turned
Mull it over a little longer - you'll get there.
Look, it's very simple really. I and hundreds of others have written software which you are free to use. The only requirement we place on you is that you use the software freely and anyone else you give the software to has the same freedom you do. That's all. If there's any hijacking, it's on the FSF side of things and their demands that hardware running GPL'ed software become GPL'ed itself. GPL is a software license. It dictates what conditions software may be used under. Hardware can not be released under the GPL. Tivo is just a scapegoat and with GPLv3 the FSF has only demonstrated contempt for capitalism. Capitalism is a political and economic system. The GPL license is about end user software freedom. There are plenty of lemmings who can't -- or won't -- bother to learn the difference. This is not productive discourse.
The GPL License is a /user/ license. It was intended to preserve the freedom of the /user/ of GPL software. It did so fabulously until TiVO found a way to stick to the letter of the GPL while violating the spirit of the license (ie they removed /user/ freedom by locking down the hardware that the free software is running on). TiVO has taken work which people have created in good faith, believing that their work would always ensure /user/ freedom, and hijacked it for commercial gain. They have perverted the spirit of the license while adhering to the letter of the license. TiVO is legally correct but ethically wrong.
/user/ freedom will be maintained are not going to get what they've agreed to unless the license can ensure that /user/ freedom will continue to be respected. GPL has never been about commercial interests. GPL has never been about money. GPL is about /user/ freedom.
/user/ freedom perhaps you might like to reconsider what type of software you donate your time to. Remeber, the GPL is about /user/ freedom. It is not about developer freedom.
Some of the people who've worked on GPL software in the past and some of the people who continue to donate their time and effort in the hope that
If you are not about
by Richard M. Stallman
It has become fashionable to describe copyright, patents, and trademarks as "intellectual property". This fashion did not arise by accident--the term systematically distorts and confuses these issues, and its use was and is promoted by those who gain from this confusion. Anyone wishing to think clearly about any of these laws would do well to reject the term.
One effect of the term is a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property rights for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law, but only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to change them to be more so. Since that is the change desired by the companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, these companies have worked to make the term fashionable.
According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School, the widespread use of the term "intellectual property" is a fad that followed the 1967 founding of the World "Intellectual Property" Organization, and only became really common in the past few years. (WIPO is formally a UN organization, but in fact it represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents and trademarks.)
Those who would prefer to judge these issues on their merits should reject a biased term for them. Many have asked me to propose some other name for the category--or proposed alternatives themselves. Suggestions include IMPs, for Imposed Monopoly Privileges, and GOLEMs, for Government-Originated Legally Enforced Monopolies. Some speak of "exclusive rights regimes", but this means referring to restrictions as rights, which is doublethink too.
But it is a mistake to replace "intellectual property" with any other term. A different name could eliminate the bias, but won't address the term's deeper problem: overgeneralization. There is no such unified thing as "intellectual property". It is a mirage, which appears to have a coherent existence only because the term suggests it does.
The term "intellectual property" operates as a catch-all to lump together disparate laws. Non-lawyers who hear the term "intellectual property" applied to these various laws tend to assume they are instances of a common principle, and that they function similarly. Nothing could be further from the case.
These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues. Copyright law was designed to promote authorship and art, and covers the details of a work of authorship or art. Patent law was intended to encourage publication of ideas, at the price of finite monopolies over these ideas--a price that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others. Trademark law was not intended to promote any business activity, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are buying; however, legislators under the influence of "intellectual property" have turned it into a scheme that provides incentives for advertising (without asking the public if we want more advertising).
Since these laws developed independently, they are different in every detail as well as in their basic purposes and methods. Thus, if you learn some fact about copyright law, you had best assume that patent law is different. You'll rarely go wrong that way!
Laymen are not alone in getting confused by this term. I regularly find that experts on patent law, copyright law, and trademark law, even law professors who teach these subjects, have been lured by the seductiveness of the term "intellectual property" into general statements that conflict with the facts they know. The term distracts them from using their own knowledge.
People often say "intellectual property" when they really mean some other category, larger or smaller than "intellectual property". For instance, rich count
I bought each of my boys a PS3 for Christmas this year. One got RFOM and the other got Ridge Racer as gifts too. They play fine in each console. Swapping them back and forth is no problem. The wireless controllers work great and there's no new controls to learn either. We've put some PS2 games (my older son owns 30+ titles) into both machines and I like that I don't have to purchase memory cards anymore because the hard drive creates a memory card to store game data going forward.
I went to the video rental store and there were already more than 10 titles available on the shelf for rental. I like Sony's game systems because they seem to maintain backward compatability with the stuff I've already purchased in the past.
Personally I think this story is pretty lame. If you think it is too - mod this up!
>>> ... but it does not really matter if he is revelant or not. It makes no difference ...
... Don't buy them - nobody FORCES you to buy this stuff, you do it with your own choice.
... Yeah. "If {useless assumption}..." - that is an argument. Really. Good, practical, solid point. :)))
Thank you for making my point. I say he's not relevant and you say it doesn't matter if he's relevant? Way to go. Sounds like your saying the same thing I am. Linus' opinion is not relevant. Thanks.
>>>
Let me try to explain it in simpler terms.
I own Linux. You do too and so does everyone else (including Bill Gates, Steve Balmer and George W. Bush, BTW). Our license allows manufacturers to create products using our operating system kernel,etc.. so long as they do not take away our freedom. It goes agains the spirit of the GPL if they can bypass that just by locking the hardware so that it will only operate with their "approved" signed binaries. It's our software and allowing this loophole is stupid. We'd be dumb if we didn't put further restrictions on it in light of the newly arriving Trusted Computing, DRM, call it what you will.
>>>
No one is arguing that Linus didn't try to set the world on fire. He did though, like it or not. Linux is nothing without GNU and none of this would be possible if it hadn't been started when it was. At least that's the way it appears since Trusted Computing and DRM are going to try to make it impossible to use modified versions of free software in free software powered hardware. I don't think that's the spirit of the gift so many have given to the world. This isn't speculation. TiVo is doing it right now and has been since day one.
I don't think the FSF is overreaching at all. They are simply providing developers that which is required for the fruits of their labor to survive in a potentially hostle environment of selfish interest and greed.
Their goal is the preservation of software freedom against a potential onslaught of patent and digital "rights" management technology. Technology which will no doubt enable business that want to the ability to userp the work others have done, make tons of money and offer nothing back except lock-in.
Remember, it was a proprietary printer driver (software) that started the whole free software movement. Having open source printer drivers and drm protected proprietary hardware that requires a certain "signed" binary would not be any better. If we allow this to happen it will be as if we've learned nothing from the past.
Linus is becoming less and less relevant as time goes by. He probably thinks that the entire community is contributing to GNU/Linux because they like him personally. What good does free software do us if we cannot modify it and continue to run the modified code? We already don't own many of the things we buy - proprietary software, music, movies and many other things. Now we won't own (control) the hardware we purchase either?
If GNU/Linux had started 20 years later than it did this wouldn't even be an issue. DRM would've killed it before it even got off the ground. Linus would just be the name of a Peanuts character.
Think damn it, think!
The BSD/MIT license does not ensure that changes made get shared back. Also, BSD/MIT licenses only require that credit is given to the original authors, NOT that the code that's been added be shared (or even disclosed). Big difference from GPL which ensures that the code always be shared - even enhancements - making it as free after the change/enhancement as it was before.
Got it?
I find it interesting that Sony has violating consumer's rights in order to protect their own rights. Now for the first time it is actually safer to download and listen to pirated music then it is to purchase and use compact disks and dvds. Piracy will become a matter of self-preservation.
Also, the new shadowy status of $sys$ prepended files opens the door for all kinds of malware - these programs will use this "hole" to create hidden processes on people's home and workplace computer systems - a serious security threat to all the nations of the world. In essence Sony has facilitated a whole new class of malware, virus and worm propagation by assisting them in denying detection.
Being sued should be the least of Sony's worries.
Once Microsoft has embraced the Open Document format by adding it to Microsoft Office they will have secured their place on the gravy train for years to come. All they have to do is continue to make Office (default) to their latest format but leave the option for Open Document in the Save As... dialog.
Govt. employees will be forced to save documents using the Open Document format. End users (constituents) will receive the documents at home, add smiley faces and doodads to them, save them using MS OFFICE DOCs and email them to their friends.
Microsoft will NEVER default to Open Document. People will never live without smiley faces and 3D cutie things.
People just don't get it. Until they CARE they won't get it.
This is an excellent idea. The specs are light but it'll give kids a chance to learn about Linux from the shell on up. That's where great programming begins. I won't be surprised to find the future worlds best programmers coming from what are now third world countries. At least their youth aren't being distracted by the day to day burden of consuming consumables, playing PS2/Xbox and forgetting to do their homework, right?
All Microsoft is looking for here is credibility. They will take the data and skew to their liking, pointing out all of Linux's weaknesses and none of Microsofts. They will continue to saturate the web with banner ads touting their dubious strengths using "new and improved data". When the open source community cries foul they'll point to the source of their data as indisputable and non-biased.
The net effect of all this will be a community that's distracted from building the worlds best software. It'll cause us to concentrate on beating Microsoft instead. This isn't our goal - it will happen - but it is *not* our #1 goal.
Historically, those who've survived the Microsoft threat are those who've done WHAT THEY DO and not what Microsoft does. IBM, Apple, Sun.
It's all part of their game. Embrace and Extend.
I've decided to start using my bluetooth earpiece more often. That'll keep the phone away from the side of my head right?
Uh oh... what do we do when they discover that bluetooth rots brains?
Ugh
I can hear outrage from RMS already! Licensing proprietary technology for use with GNU/Linux? Next people will start using the Flash plugin too! It's a slippery sloap.
My friend was trying to install Gimp on Windows because she saw me using it with linux. She sent me the following:
l
which one do I choooose! overchoice!!
help.
http://www.gimp.org/~tml/gimp/win32/downloads.htm
I think this will help solve her problem! I can give her the CD!
Many businesses are too smart to download and install warez versions of anything. It is illegal. Most businesses are too worried about liability issues arising from disgruntled ex-employees blowing the whistle on them for stealing software.
:-)
OSS versions make it possible for these companies to save money, not suffer lock-in, and not worry about being eaten by their own young.
I agree with you. I don't know the answer to that either but it's not going to succeed or fail based upon what you or I do.
Let's not forget the fact that free software _is_ free and that includes the fact that people will _always_ want to port it to unstable but popular platforms - we can't (thank you GPL) stop it. We don't want to anyway, right? If software is free but only to people who want to use it or port it to particular "approved" platforms, is it really free?
Let's not lose sight of the fact that we aren't here to hurt Microsoft. We're here to help people enjoy better software and to give them the freedom to enjoy it secure in the knowledge that it'll always be there for them, their children and their children's children. The GPL ensures that it always will be.
In the long run I hope you're right about the fact that it'll make popular free OSS windows programs which can save in formats compatible for _all_ users of the program, regardless of their OS.
My 2
I was kinda reading some of these replies in amazment.
It doesn't seem like the author or the people commenting to this story "get it". It is precisely because of the altering that make this a concern.
Fuck memory - who cares about that?
Why do you think forensic science captures crime scene photographs on film? Do you think they cannot afford a digital camera? Duh.