But I have little faith on the 'loss valuations' put forth like this.
If I have to disinfect all 50 computers in here over the course of a year, I'm not going to claim my company 'lost' any money, even though my time IS worth money. I would have been here, and been paid, regardless of the virus being here or not.
The same goes for cost valuations done because of website defacements 'cracking' etc.... they are rarely rooted in reality, but instead rooted in a numbers game to make it seem worse than it is.
That's the point I think.. many people are under the impression (right or wrong, I don't know) that the community contributed work to this project, therefore their work has been 'stolen'.
Even if they are 'bugfixes', and not technically copyrightable.. one could claim fraud. They would not have worked on it had they not thought it would be GPL.
I can see how sistina can get away with this.. it makes sense, and is perhaps a pitfall of the GPL to watch for.
No, it's not up to the parent. The only reason the parent can use my addition in the first place is because it, too, is released under the GPL. They cannot take it and 're-license' it as their own. I did not give it to them; I simply released it as GPL to them.
If this were not true, any company anywhere could start a project, GPL it for a while, wait for it to be wildly popular and have huge community additions, then say 'this is now ours; we own it all, no more source' and no longer abide by the GPL. WRONG.
If I contribute code to a GPL project, I don't expect ownership of the project, but I am only permitting them to use it under the terms of the GPL; that's why they can continue to use it. The derivateive work *I* have created (their code plus my additions, patches, etc) is then licensed back to them, via GPL, and things continue.
I fail to see how they can then say 'we own all you work'.
Witness linus; can he now turn around and say 'all future versions of the linux kernel are closed-source and licensed by me? NO, because he doesn't hold the copyright on all the code anymore.
The issue is whether it contains work contributed by other authors under the GPL or not. IF it does, they don't have the right to re-license the code. They can only re-license code which they hold the copyright to, regardless of the license.
Did the open community write it for them? That's my question, I don't know about the project. Was it just an internal thing with public 'beta' GPL releases? If so, they can do whatever they like.
They just changed their license on THEIR OWN code. They are free to do so, as long as they hold the copyright.
Just becuase it's GPL doesn't mean it's had hundreds of public contributors.. it just means people are free to use it however they wish, as long as they stick to the terms of the gpl.
I agree, though... 'free for non-profit use' is horrible, and not what it's all about.
1) regarding driveimage or ghost.. that's fine for rolling out machines (Though still a bit clunky)... but what about installing software later? That's the hard part. It's a breeze with unix.
2) Solaris 8 is free and downloadable, but not for commercial use, so that point isn't really valid.
3) Terminal services are available.. but you need machines with serious horsepower, and given the architecture, it's only so scalable. (You can buy MUCh larger sun machines, for example, for doing similar things). Terminal services licensing is also a nightmare.
4) Application installs can be done remotely, but it's still a pain in the ass, and a far cry from simply installing once in unix and allowing everyone to use the software.
Regarding integration....
A bunch of X workstations (thin-client), a big unix server, and then utilize something like citrix & some win2k servers for those windows apps you just can't get away from. Makes licensing centralized, and allows you more control.
One of the 'hidden' costs of using MS products is the amount of time & resources spent simply staying current, in case of the feared 'surprise Audit' where MS basically threatens to ruin you if they so much as find one license out of order.
IT's not the cost of the OS for each workstation... it's the recurring costs in upgrading, new licensing schemes, auditing...
Plus rediculous non-recyclable licences such as those for Terminal Services (From what I recall, if you license one workstatoin to use them, you can't later move it to a new one if tha tworkstation breaks)
Network installation? SUre, it can be done.. but nothing like what you can accomplish simply and easily and *logically* with a unix network.
The problem is a practical one; they are trying to find an easier way to take something, and determine if it is a 'kilogram' or not.
Balancing it against a reference weight is one way.
What they are saying is, doing this electronically is more accurate and easier, using magnetic fields and measured currents and such rather than a classical balance.
The definition of a kilogram of mass isn't going to change. They're just finding a better way to measure it.
Come on. We hear this constantly. The 'Old-world' media and news organizations telling us how the 'New-world' internet has no future, or how (insert threatened business model here) won't work on the internet, blah blah blah.
SO WHAT?
It's not going away; digital music WILL stay, whether the 'old-school' industries like it or not. Same for most other aspects of the net. Just because your old business models don't fit doesn't mean society won't use or accept it.
Are they X terminals or Sunrays? Just curious. The server-load for handling a sunray could be higher than that for an X terminal that can drive it's own desktop.
But that's beside the point; of course you can go that approach; but that doesn't solve problems if you require a windows environment.
Also... are you actually running 25 desktops off that sun enterprise 250?
Well.. an alarm circuit has to be connected to *somewhere*. They call it an 'alarm' circuit because security alarms generally use them to talk back to the security monitoring company.
1) You don't need to reboot to get a new address.
2) This is more about being able to plop down somewhere and use the net, not about driving around in your car. If it were, read up on mobile-IP and such.
Actually, it's entirely possible to do SMD soldering by hand, and at a decent rate (same or better as that of thru-hole stuff. All you need are the right tools.
I was a bit shocked to see the primitive irons they were using... but other than that, this looks 100% legit. (as in, it reminds me of the production lab at my last job, where we definately did lots of SMD by hand)
The pads on those capacitors, for instance, are already solder coated, and so are the pads on the PCB. You just place the component, and tap both pins with a hot iron, and it's done.. it's not as hard as you think.
In principle; I agree. For many office-related tasks.. these new Ghz P-4's are rediculous. Something a quarter of the speed would be adequate. HOWEVER...
Let's say you are setting up a new office. Where, exactly, are you going to buy those machines? You can't. If you buy old, used machines, your costs in maintenance go way up. You want a bunch of machines that are the same, it makes support much easier. A problem in one applies to all, and so does the solution.
So when you go out and buy 100 brand new mid-level dell workstations.. sure, you're buying something faster than you need... but you're buying them because they will WORK.
Cadvision is a great example of this. Too bad they sold out to the man;)
I've also done this completely home-brew several years ago. It's nothing 'new' or 'revealing'... people just don't bother to look beyond the buzzword.
The whole point of ADSL was that it worked over standard copper pairs...
Also.. for those trying to order a 'dry pair' and being told it can't be done.. check regulations, or try asking for an 'alarm circuit'. I believe most phone companies are obliged to sell such a service.
that access to publicly available personal information be allowed, as long as those seeking the information also identify themselves and go on record as having looked at it.
Let's say I download a copy of AtheOS. It is licensed to me under the GPL.
Let's say a year later Kurt closes it, and no longer distributes it under the GPL. He no longer has to distribute it under GPL, of course.
However, that doesn't at all change the fact that I have a copy, licensed to me under the GPL, and all that implies. I can distribute it myself under the GPL, etc.
GPL is not designed so people can 'close up the code, revoke everything else out there, and start charging for it' might be another way to put it.
If you are really concerned about the monetary value of your code, because you think you can sell it, and you think having a closed license is paramount to getting a sale, then you probably shouldn't publish it under GPL.
Well, on one hand, they are Public records... that's pretty clear. Public does mean Public.. why should I have to inconvenience myself by driving 3 counties over to get some files at city hall, when I could just look it up on the internet from anywhere?
Which brings us to the other hand; the fact that said information is somewhat obscure in practice. You have to go out of your way to get it; it's been that way for a long, long time, so putting these records on the internet WILL change the way information is used.. it IS different.
I think the real answer is both a) Yes, if it's on the Public record, it should be available to anyone free, online... and...
b) Given this, we should re-think what should be public record and what shouldn't.
Remember, those in power can find things out about you a lot faster than you can find things out about them simply because they know where to look. This would even the playingfield.
Again... yes, they had the right, as the owner, to rip the CDs.
But they did more than that; they distributed the compressed versions to people.
Yes, I know they required the users to prove they first had the CD. Yes, I know it sounds perfectly fair.
The problem is, under the law, you cannot distribute copies of someone's copyrighted work without permission, ESPECIALLY if you are doing it to make a profit.
You see, although the mechanism was indirect, they are still profiting by distributing copies of someone elses work, without permission.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not going to say viruses don't cost money....
But I have little faith on the 'loss valuations' put forth like this.
If I have to disinfect all 50 computers in here over the course of a year, I'm not going to claim my company 'lost' any money, even though my time IS worth money. I would have been here, and been paid, regardless of the virus being here or not.
The same goes for cost valuations done because of website defacements 'cracking' etc.... they are rarely rooted in reality, but instead rooted in a numbers game to make it seem worse than it is.
That's the point I think.. many people are under the impression (right or wrong, I don't know) that the community contributed work to this project, therefore their work has been 'stolen'.
Even if they are 'bugfixes', and not technically copyrightable.. one could claim fraud. They would not have worked on it had they not thought it would be GPL.
I can see how sistina can get away with this.. it makes sense, and is perhaps a pitfall of the GPL to watch for.
No, it's not up to the parent. The only reason the parent can use my addition in the first place is because it, too, is released under the GPL. They cannot take it and 're-license' it as their own. I did not give it to them; I simply released it as GPL to them.
If this were not true, any company anywhere could start a project, GPL it for a while, wait for it to be wildly popular and have huge community additions, then say 'this is now ours; we own it all, no more source' and no longer abide by the GPL. WRONG.
Actually.. I'll contest that.
If I contribute code to a GPL project, I don't expect ownership of the project, but I am only permitting them to use it under the terms of the GPL; that's why they can continue to use it. The derivateive work *I* have created (their code plus my additions, patches, etc) is then licensed back to them, via GPL, and things continue.
I fail to see how they can then say 'we own all you work'.
Witness linus; can he now turn around and say 'all future versions of the linux kernel are closed-source and licensed by me? NO, because he doesn't hold the copyright on all the code anymore.
The issue is whether it contains work contributed by other authors under the GPL or not. IF it does, they don't have the right to re-license the code. They can only re-license code which they hold the copyright to, regardless of the license.
Did the open community write it for them? That's my question, I don't know about the project. Was it just an internal thing with public 'beta' GPL releases? If so, they can do whatever they like.
Who said they were trying to 'pull' anything?
They just changed their license on THEIR OWN code. They are free to do so, as long as they hold the copyright.
Just becuase it's GPL doesn't mean it's had hundreds of public contributors.. it just means people are free to use it however they wish, as long as they stick to the terms of the gpl.
I agree, though... 'free for non-profit use' is horrible, and not what it's all about.
1) regarding driveimage or ghost.. that's fine for rolling out machines (Though still a bit clunky)... but what about installing software later? That's the hard part. It's a breeze with unix.
2) Solaris 8 is free and downloadable, but not for commercial use, so that point isn't really valid.
3) Terminal services are available.. but you need machines with serious horsepower, and given the architecture, it's only so scalable. (You can buy MUCh larger sun machines, for example, for doing similar things). Terminal services licensing is also a nightmare.
4) Application installs can be done remotely, but it's still a pain in the ass, and a far cry from simply installing once in unix and allowing everyone to use the software.
Regarding integration....
A bunch of X workstations (thin-client), a big unix server, and then utilize something like citrix & some win2k servers for those windows apps you just can't get away from. Makes licensing centralized, and allows you more control.
One of the 'hidden' costs of using MS products is the amount of time & resources spent simply staying current, in case of the feared 'surprise Audit' where MS basically threatens to ruin you if they so much as find one license out of order.
IT's not the cost of the OS for each workstation... it's the recurring costs in upgrading, new licensing schemes, auditing...
Plus rediculous non-recyclable licences such as those for Terminal Services (From what I recall, if you license one workstatoin to use them, you can't later move it to a new one if tha tworkstation breaks)
Network installation? SUre, it can be done.. but nothing like what you can accomplish simply and easily and *logically* with a unix network.
The problem is a practical one; they are trying to find an easier way to take something, and determine if it is a 'kilogram' or not.
Balancing it against a reference weight is one way.
What they are saying is, doing this electronically is more accurate and easier, using magnetic fields and measured currents and such rather than a classical balance.
The definition of a kilogram of mass isn't going to change. They're just finding a better way to measure it.
That would be defining 'mass', not 'weight'.
Come on. We hear this constantly. The 'Old-world' media and news organizations telling us how the 'New-world' internet has no future, or how (insert threatened business model here) won't work on the internet, blah blah blah.
SO WHAT?
It's not going away; digital music WILL stay, whether the 'old-school' industries like it or not. Same for most other aspects of the net. Just because your old business models don't fit doesn't mean society won't use or accept it.
I thought the actual name was the 'linuxbeerwanderung'.. one word... not the 'linux beer wanderung'. No?
Are they X terminals or Sunrays? Just curious. The server-load for handling a sunray could be higher than that for an X terminal that can drive it's own desktop.
But that's beside the point; of course you can go that approach; but that doesn't solve problems if you require a windows environment.
Also... are you actually running 25 desktops off that sun enterprise 250?
25 instances of netscape? how much memory?
I'm genuinely curious.
Well.. an alarm circuit has to be connected to *somewhere*. They call it an 'alarm' circuit because security alarms generally use them to talk back to the security monitoring company.
You want a circuit from point a to point b...
I just realized this when I woke up this morning (long time after this post). Not sure what I was thinking.. sorry for the bad info.
Not sure why I thought 802.11 included wired sttuff... I was getting mixed up with 802.3 and 802 in general.
are you serious about those dreams? Because I have them too... not every day or week, but regularly enough.
1) You don't need to reboot to get a new address.
2) This is more about being able to plop down somewhere and use the net, not about driving around in your car. If it were, read up on mobile-IP and such.
It's a private establishement, not a public place. You have no god-given right to even be in there; they have the right to refuse anyone.
This is not the government watching for crime; this is a store saying, we caugh you shoplifting here before, so we don't want you back.
Actually, it's entirely possible to do SMD soldering by hand, and at a decent rate (same or better as that of thru-hole stuff. All you need are the right tools.
I was a bit shocked to see the primitive irons they were using... but other than that, this looks 100% legit. (as in, it reminds me of the production lab at my last job, where we definately did lots of SMD by hand)
The pads on those capacitors, for instance, are already solder coated, and so are the pads on the PCB. You just place the component, and tap both pins with a hot iron, and it's done.. it's not as hard as you think.
In principle; I agree. For many office-related tasks.. these new Ghz P-4's are rediculous. Something a quarter of the speed would be adequate. HOWEVER...
Let's say you are setting up a new office. Where, exactly, are you going to buy those machines? You can't. If you buy old, used machines, your costs in maintenance go way up. You want a bunch of machines that are the same, it makes support much easier. A problem in one applies to all, and so does the solution.
So when you go out and buy 100 brand new mid-level dell workstations.. sure, you're buying something faster than you need... but you're buying them because they will WORK.
Cadvision is a great example of this. Too bad they sold out to the man ;)
I've also done this completely home-brew several years ago. It's nothing 'new' or 'revealing'... people just don't bother to look beyond the buzzword.
The whole point of ADSL was that it worked over standard copper pairs...
Also.. for those trying to order a 'dry pair' and being told it can't be done.. check regulations, or try asking for an 'alarm circuit'. I believe most phone companies are obliged to sell such a service.
that access to publicly available personal information be allowed, as long as those seeking the information also identify themselves and go on record as having looked at it.
Let's say I download a copy of AtheOS. It is licensed to me under the GPL.
Let's say a year later Kurt closes it, and no longer distributes it under the GPL. He no longer has to distribute it under GPL, of course.
However, that doesn't at all change the fact that I have a copy, licensed to me under the GPL, and all that implies. I can distribute it myself under the GPL, etc.
GPL is not designed so people can 'close up the code, revoke everything else out there, and start charging for it' might be another way to put it.
If you are really concerned about the monetary value of your code, because you think you can sell it, and you think having a closed license is paramount to getting a sale, then you probably shouldn't publish it under GPL.
Well, on one hand, they are Public records... that's pretty clear. Public does mean Public.. why should I have to inconvenience myself by driving 3 counties over to get some files at city hall, when I could just look it up on the internet from anywhere?
Which brings us to the other hand; the fact that said information is somewhat obscure in practice. You have to go out of your way to get it; it's been that way for a long, long time, so putting these records on the internet WILL change the way information is used.. it IS different.
I think the real answer is both a) Yes, if it's on the Public record, it should be available to anyone free, online... and...
b) Given this, we should re-think what should be public record and what shouldn't.
Remember, those in power can find things out about you a lot faster than you can find things out about them simply because they know where to look. This would even the playingfield.
Again... yes, they had the right, as the owner, to rip the CDs.
But they did more than that; they distributed the compressed versions to people.
Yes, I know they required the users to prove they first had the CD. Yes, I know it sounds perfectly fair.
The problem is, under the law, you cannot distribute copies of someone's copyrighted work without permission, ESPECIALLY if you are doing it to make a profit.
You see, although the mechanism was indirect, they are still profiting by distributing copies of someone elses work, without permission.