Whatever object is caught in there with you will also be subject to the same laws of physics. IN other words, the rock'll be pinned somewhere too probably. Unless it's a really big rock, in which case, how did it get in?
There will always be those who charge for their proprietary software. The difference will be in the way it is sold. 1) Crap won't be sold. OSS will take care of setting an excellent baseline for software. 2) The term 'Value Added' will once again have meaning. Commercial software will be EXCELLENT compared to OSS (or nobody will buy it!) 3) Licensing of commercial software will be very consumer friendly, not the other way around.
My example for the day: Backup software. If a company provides GOOD backup and archival software for me, that does what *I* need it to do, and has a commitment to supporting *ALL* hardware that comes out, then I have no problem paying for it, provided it gives me real value compared to the OSS alternative. If this company fails to do their job at a fair price, and in an appropriate manner, the OSS world *WILL* catch up with it. This doesn't mean my definition of fair, or yours, but collectively, everyone who works on OSS. What I mean is, if people are happy and content with what they have, they won't seek to re-invent it. The software world today is certainly nothing like this.
First, I don't think corel *intended* to do anything wrong. This whole fiasco has brought up several points that I find very interesting.
Point #1 - more of a fact, I bet that if we analyze *MOST* shrink-wrap licenses, and pretend that we love them dearly, we can find *ALL KINDS* of inconsistencies. Many licenses (including games) state that the license is non-transferrable. So how come there are 'used game' shops and 'trading' shows? This should be largely illegal! (The problem, of course, is stores treat the box itself like a product, and profits are made as such, but the company hides behind a legal 'license', which shouldn't be necessary due to copyright.
Point #2 - GPL question. Let's say *YOU* wrote a piece of software, in it's entirety, and slapped the GPL on it. Now lets' say I get ahold of it, write a bunch of mods, and decide I want to *commercialize* it and don't want to put it under GPL. The only way I can do this is for *YOU* to grant me license to do so with the code. So I want to send you a copy of what I've done so you can see *WHY* I want my own license. *HOW CAN I PREVENT YOU, LEGALLY, FROM JUST TAKING AND DISTRIBUTING MY WORK?*
Point #3 - What if I simply make a DIFF, and send *THAT* to you as a product unto itself? Does the GPL allow this? See... I'm not distributing the original code at all. I am distributing something of my own invention, that when applied to the GPL'd code & compiled, will produce the desired result.
Any company can file an IPO, so long as the proper steps are followed. NO rule says you have to be doing something cool. Now think, as an investor.. is this company worth anything? RedHat is different.. and they made LOTS of noise. how much noise is this company going to make? What are they going to do in order to drive their stock prices up? You can IPO all you want.. who's gonna buy it?
Why the hell would they need $20,000,000 in order to build a linux distro? I can do it in my bedroom.
No, betas certainly should *NOT* be uploaded to FTP sites anywhere. *IF* they are violating the GPL with their license, then they CANNOT DISTRIBUTE THE CHANGES AT ALL, and NEITHER CAN YOU.
BTW.. what constitutes distribution? If I make a change to some GPL code, and compile it to a binary, am I *FORBIDDEN* from letting anyone but myself see or use it unless I am willing to give them the source?
However, what if they also owned the computer? They aren't 'distributing' anything. You don't get any ownership whatsoever. You are simply permitted to 'touch' it.
Your logic is twisted. They do not have to make ANY of their modified GPL code available until the moment they start distributing it. Until they do, YOU have nothing to bitch about.
If a 'mixture' of GPL & other not-quite-oss can not be distributed (wrong), then you would have to kiss goodbye to SUSE, RedHat, Mandrake, Slackware, and EVERY OTHER LINUX DISTRO except possibly (probably) Debian.
GPL applies to *source code* and it's derivitaves, not the Linux distro as a whole.
"Internal use only" Okay.. but no, that doesnt' ad dup. If Me, Mr. IT wizard, makes a special version of the kernel for some reason, I am not obliged to share it with the rest of the world. I HAVE LICENSE to do what I want with it. (so long as I obey the license) This license states that I may not distribute it. Fine. Now, as a company, if I deploy said kernel on the workstation sthat my COMPAY OWNS, I, as the COMPANY, am not distributing anything. I am merely installing it on computers that I own. The fact that employees work there is inconsequential. I have not transferred anything to them.
Good luck. The copyright owners do not grant you permission to use said software unless you follow the license. This is the purpose of the license. The license is not a contract, but an open statement about the terms and conditions under which the software can be used.
Until they decide to 'distribute' their binaries, they are under no obligation to let anyone know what they are doing with their code, even if it is GPL.
I don't fault Corel for what they did. I think I understand what they are trying to do.
The Problem: Corel wants to recruit beta-testers. They don't want details of their linux being sold or shown to anyone, as they aren't distributing yet. They don't want to spoil the surprise.
The Problem: They can't use copyright law / licensing stuff to forbid you from distributing GPL software or it's derivatives. They simply CANNOT put a restrictive license on it, period, whether it is internal or external.
Now, it may be possible to have people sign an NDA in which they agree that *ALL* information sahred between corel and them during the course of the beta-test is confidential, including software. Nobody would have a problem with this. (In this way, even if the user distributed part of the code... the code's license would allow it, but the NDA would slap them in the face)
Perhaps they should use some sort of NDA instead of a statement of IP. Rather than try to license the software per-se, they should simply make you promise to give out NONE Of what they give you as part of their beta-testing, period.
In other words, we don't force all other OSS developers to leave their home PC's open to us so we can see every single change they make to the code, whether it works or not... we let them monkey around with it on their own time, however they want, and then see what they give us back. If they want to use a dozen or so "outsiders" as part of this process, fine.
One could also say that, as the changes corel made are 'beta', they are not really changes, and they have not made the choice as to whether to distribute or not.
I think you are mistaken here. Is it distribution if I give a copy to my co-worker so he can debug my code? No. If Corel is licencing you as a beta-tester, then you are working under Corel, and hence, they are not 'distributing'. It stays within the company.
Is this truly a violation? Corel is *not* selling or otherwise distributing a product based on GPL yet. They are TESTING it. Yes, the use of the standard beta-test agreement is probably bad, as it talks about IP and other things that go against the GPL... but they are not distributing anything yet. They are recruiting testers. Though whatever changes they choose to release to the world must be GPL'd, nothing forces them to release every change they consider making. IN other words, they aren't in violation of the GPL until they start distributing a product.
If I take the linux kernel, make huge modifications, and then distribute it, yes, I have to put it under GPL. If I want to use it solely for my own private work in my private business, I don't have to show anyone ANYTHING AT ALL.
Corel possibly should have used some sort of NDA rather than this agreement. Stating that 'The details as to corel's proposed changes are secret until we release the product' so as not to give away their surprises.
IN other words, if I hire you to help me write an addition to samba, because I want my company to be famous, can I not ask you to 'SHUT YOUR MOUTH' about our changes until we decide to release them, even though they will be GPL when released?'
I think many people these days confuse a University degree with a professional designation.
A B.Sc. in Comp. Sci, or chemistry, or engineering, or nursing, or whatever... is just training. Yeah.. it looks great on an exam. yeah it was hard maybe! It's certainly worth a lot.... but, can one all oneself legally a 'Nurse' if one has a B.Sc. In Nursing, but isn't an RN? No.. not really, not as far as government goes (ie: hospitals). Just because you have a Ph.D., doesnt' make you a professor. Just because you have a Ph.D. In medicine, doesn't make you an MD.
Just because you have a B.Sc. in EE, doesn't make you an engineer.
Oh wahh. Oh no, how unfair of them to monitor what the $2000 computer they let you use in your $500 desk on $100/mo of floor space while they are paying you $50,000 a year, using their $2000/mo internet connection and $100,000 in network servers. BOO HOO. Feh.
Because, what appears to have happened is this: 1) Dialed into his Univeristy account with his dreamcast 2) Use the Dreamcast web browser to go to a web page with a CGI that tells you your IP 3) Took the reported IP and ran nmap on it.
Insert: step 2.5, Univeristy network transparently proxies web traffic, therefore the IP reported is that of the proxy server, not the Dreamcast.
So... what probably happened is that the website you accessed to tell you your IP gave you the IP of whatever proxy server (remember, it could be transparent, esp. at a university) you were using. The remote site only tells you the IP of the packets it gets from you.. which probably come from a proxy.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever object is caught in there with you will also be subject to the same laws of physics. IN other words, the rock'll be pinned somewhere too probably.
Unless it's a really big rock, in which case, how did it get in?
There will always be those who charge for their proprietary software. The difference will be in the way it is sold.
1) Crap won't be sold. OSS will take care of setting an excellent baseline for software.
2) The term 'Value Added' will once again have meaning. Commercial software will be EXCELLENT compared to OSS (or nobody will buy it!)
3) Licensing of commercial software will be very consumer friendly, not the other way around.
My example for the day:
Backup software. If a company provides GOOD backup and archival software for me, that does what *I* need it to do, and has a commitment to supporting *ALL* hardware that comes out, then I have no problem paying for it, provided it gives me real value compared to the OSS alternative. If this company fails to do their job at a fair price, and in an appropriate manner, the OSS world *WILL* catch up with it. This doesn't mean my definition of fair, or yours, but collectively, everyone who works on OSS. What I mean is, if people are happy and content with what they have, they won't seek to re-invent it.
The software world today is certainly nothing like this.
Yes. They can defend their MARK in their TRADE. But WHAT THE HELL does this have to do with being an online service provider?
People take dilution way to far these days. Domain names, etc.....what a bunch of crap.
First, I don't think corel *intended* to do anything wrong. This whole fiasco has brought up several points that I find very interesting.
Point #1 - more of a fact, I bet that if we analyze *MOST* shrink-wrap licenses, and pretend that we love them dearly, we can find *ALL KINDS* of inconsistencies. Many licenses (including games) state that the license is non-transferrable. So how come there are 'used game' shops and 'trading' shows? This should be largely illegal! (The problem, of course, is stores treat the box itself like a product, and profits are made as such, but the company hides behind a legal 'license', which shouldn't be necessary due to copyright.
Point #2 - GPL question.
Let's say *YOU* wrote a piece of software, in it's entirety, and slapped the GPL on it.
Now lets' say I get ahold of it, write a bunch of mods, and decide I want to *commercialize* it and don't want to put it under GPL. The only way I can do this is for *YOU* to grant me license to do so with the code. So I want to send you a copy of what I've done so you can see *WHY* I want my own license. *HOW CAN I PREVENT YOU, LEGALLY, FROM JUST TAKING AND DISTRIBUTING MY WORK?*
Point #3 -
What if I simply make a DIFF, and send *THAT* to you as a product unto itself? Does the GPL allow this? See...
I'm not distributing the original code at all. I am distributing something of my own invention, that when applied to the GPL'd code & compiled, will produce the desired result.
Any company can file an IPO, so long as the proper steps are followed. NO rule says you have to be doing something cool.
Now think, as an investor.. is this company worth anything? RedHat is different.. and they made LOTS of noise. how much noise is this company going to make? What are they going to do in order to drive their stock prices up? You can IPO all you want.. who's gonna buy it?
Why the hell would they need $20,000,000 in order to build a linux distro? I can do it in my bedroom.
No, betas certainly should *NOT* be uploaded to FTP sites anywhere.
*IF* they are violating the GPL with their license, then they CANNOT DISTRIBUTE THE CHANGES AT ALL, and NEITHER CAN YOU.
BTW.. what constitutes distribution? If I make a change to some GPL code, and compile it to a binary, am I *FORBIDDEN* from letting anyone but myself see or use it unless I am willing to give them the source?
However, what if they also owned the computer? They aren't 'distributing' anything. You don't get any ownership whatsoever. You are simply permitted to 'touch' it.
Your logic is twisted.
They do not have to make ANY of their modified GPL code available until the moment they start distributing it. Until they do, YOU have nothing to bitch about.
If a 'mixture' of GPL & other not-quite-oss can not be distributed (wrong), then you would have to kiss goodbye to SUSE, RedHat, Mandrake, Slackware, and EVERY OTHER LINUX DISTRO except possibly (probably) Debian.
GPL applies to *source code* and it's derivitaves, not the Linux distro as a whole.
"Internal use only"
Okay.. but no, that doesnt' ad dup.
If Me, Mr. IT wizard, makes a special version of the kernel for some reason, I am not obliged to share it with the rest of the world. I HAVE LICENSE to do what I want with it. (so long as I obey the license)
This license states that I may not distribute it. Fine.
Now, as a company, if I deploy said kernel on the workstation sthat my COMPAY OWNS, I, as the COMPANY, am not distributing anything. I am merely installing it on computers that I own. The fact that employees work there is inconsequential. I have not transferred anything to them.
Good luck.
The copyright owners do not grant you permission to use said software unless you follow the license. This is the purpose of the license. The license is not a contract, but an open statement about the terms and conditions under which the software can be used.
Until they decide to 'distribute' their binaries, they are under no obligation to let anyone know what they are doing with their code, even if it is GPL.
I don't fault Corel for what they did. I think I understand what they are trying to do.
The Problem: Corel wants to recruit beta-testers. They don't want details of their linux being sold or shown to anyone, as they aren't distributing yet. They don't want to spoil the surprise.
The Problem: They can't use copyright law / licensing stuff to forbid you from distributing GPL software or it's derivatives. They simply CANNOT put a restrictive license on it, period, whether it is internal or external.
Now, it may be possible to have people sign an NDA in which they agree that *ALL* information sahred between corel and them during the course of the beta-test is confidential, including software. Nobody would have a problem with this.
(In this way, even if the user distributed part of the code... the code's license would allow it, but the NDA would slap them in the face)
Perhaps they should use some sort of NDA instead of a statement of IP.
Rather than try to license the software per-se, they should simply make you promise to give out NONE Of what they give you as part of their beta-testing, period.
In other words, we don't force all other OSS developers to leave their home PC's open to us so we can see every single change they make to the code, whether it works or not... we let them monkey around with it on their own time, however they want, and then see what they give us back. If they want to use a dozen or so "outsiders" as part of this process, fine.
One could also say that, as the changes corel made are 'beta', they are not really changes, and they have not made the choice as to whether to distribute or not.
I think you are mistaken here. Is it distribution if I give a copy to my co-worker so he can debug my code? No. If Corel is licencing you as a beta-tester, then you are working under Corel, and hence, they are not 'distributing'. It stays within the company.
Yes. A beta license agreement should really be an NDA. They aren't distributing anything. They are testing.
Is this truly a violation? Corel is *not* selling or otherwise distributing a product based on GPL yet. They are TESTING it.
Yes, the use of the standard beta-test agreement is probably bad, as it talks about IP and other things that go against the GPL... but they are not distributing anything yet. They are recruiting testers.
Though whatever changes they choose to release to the world must be GPL'd, nothing forces them to release every change they consider making. IN other words, they aren't in violation of the GPL until they start distributing a product.
If I take the linux kernel, make huge modifications, and then distribute it, yes, I have to put it under GPL. If I want to use it solely for my own private work in my private business, I don't have to show anyone ANYTHING AT ALL.
Corel possibly should have used some sort of NDA rather than this agreement. Stating that 'The details as to corel's proposed changes are secret until we release the product' so as not to give away their surprises.
IN other words, if I hire you to help me write an addition to samba, because I want my company to be famous, can I not ask you to 'SHUT YOUR MOUTH' about our changes until we decide to release them, even though they will be GPL when released?'
I think many people these days confuse a University degree with a professional designation.
A B.Sc. in Comp. Sci, or chemistry, or engineering, or nursing, or whatever... is just training. Yeah.. it looks great on an exam. yeah it was hard maybe! It's certainly worth a lot....
but, can one all oneself legally a 'Nurse' if one has a B.Sc. In Nursing, but isn't an RN? No.. not really, not as far as government goes (ie: hospitals).
Just because you have a Ph.D., doesnt' make you a professor.
Just because you have a Ph.D. In medicine, doesn't make you an MD.
Just because you have a B.Sc. in EE, doesn't make you an engineer.
Oh wahh.
Oh no, how unfair of them to monitor what the $2000 computer they let you use in your $500 desk on $100/mo of floor space while they are paying you $50,000 a year, using their $2000/mo internet connection and $100,000 in network servers. BOO HOO.
Feh.
Sure. But given that they largely pass through ANYTHING due to their small size, or whatever, how do you plan to receive the transmission?
I think you have it backwards.
I take 'geek' as an insult. one who is socially disfunctional but very intelligent.
Nerd is a geek with social skills.
Okay. My bad.
I arrogantly thought it connected to EFNET or other popular IRC servers.
Because, what appears to have happened is this:
1) Dialed into his Univeristy account with his dreamcast
2) Use the Dreamcast web browser to go to a web page with a CGI that tells you your IP
3) Took the reported IP and ran nmap on it.
Insert: step 2.5, Univeristy network transparently proxies web traffic, therefore the IP reported is that of the proxy server, not the Dreamcast.
Not hard.
Umm....
this is a reverse DNS issue, not a Sega issue.
The ISP would have NS-XXXXXXXX set as the name for the particular IP you are using.
This is not 'hiding' the 'real' hostname... for all intents and purposes, as far as DNS is concerned.. this *IS* the hostname.
'confused' by NAT'd hosts? No kidding...
If something is hiding behind address translation.. you *cant* scan it...
So... what probably happened is that the website you accessed to tell you your IP gave you the IP of whatever proxy server (remember, it could be transparent, esp. at a university) you were using.
The remote site only tells you the IP of the packets it gets from you.. which probably come from a proxy.