Reading a little further down the page, if your attention span so allows, will reveal the following:
"At that Q&A session, SCO Senior Vice President Chris Sontag said there are millions of lines of offending code involved and that it's highly unlikely the matter could be resolved by removing that code."
Somebody needs to read the article they are commenting on before deciding to criticise.
Kind of like how DVDs support "optional" encryption?...let me know when you find one without...
How about my Farscape DVDs? Before I had a linux player that supported libcss, Farscape season 3 were the only unencrpyted DVDs I owned that I could actually watch on linux.
Not sure about later seasons, but then it doesn't really matter to me anymore.
The really simple reason is that the DVD Consortium license any DVD player manufacturer has to sign in order to make a player requires that they will not include any digital video signal output from the DVD player.
Sure, most players (in Europe at least) have component RGB output, but the signal is pretty poor compared to running DVI out through to (for example) a plasma screen.
A couple of small outfits in the UK do sell modded players with DVI out, but the cost is prohibitively expensive if you're not obsessive about your home cinema system.
It would appear that, although the original story is still available at the full URL, the Register has taken down all links to it from other areas of the site.
This would be the same site whose journalists often raise an almighty fuss when other publications do exactly the same thing.
I guess they're not double standards when they're your double standards.
You might notice that mplayer supports just about every major codec, as well as DVD playback. Embedding mplayer in a browser would take as long as writing a plugger config file.
I have trouble with the whole "at least 4 times faster" guff, but then, my lecturer at university had trouble with me completing a year's assignments in a couple of weeks. Just because you can't see a way to do something, don't be so arrogant as to assume that everyone else is the same.
I should point out that the judging for the Young Scientist of the Year is pretty rigorous. I would be surprised to find that these claims are entirely without merit if he has won the prize. Assuming, that is, that the journalist involved hasn't just made everything up.
To those that are using the lack of results on the Irish Patent Office database search as evidence that you're right, and this is a steaming pile: did you even read the page you were searching? Really? Allow me to quote:
Note: This search will only return patents that are published.
780kloc isn't that difficult either, espcially if you start counting libraries, headers, etc. Sure, maybe all this kid has done is link together a few common components and create something new out of the combination. So, are you going to wait and find out what it is and come up with something better? Or are you going to trash somebody based on a half-page article because you were too lazy to come up with an idea of your own?
This is already happening. Check out the services offered by Speed Trap who use an applet to monitor mouse movement and keystrokes within the browser window.
So, any site that uses the Prophet applet can capture user details, even if you decide not to submit them. As far as I'm concerned, this is a keystroke log that's equivalent to a wiretap. I'm currently fighting an intense battle with an analyst that I work with who feels this is the best thing since the word demographics was invented.
First, I should point out that I have a reasonable grounding in law, and have been a professional programmer for about six years. I have never practiced law (and as such am not qualified to give legal advice without risk of prosecution =), but I can offer opinion, and lots of it. Oh, and I'm not American, though I do have a great deal of interest in this case and have been examining the legal aspects extremely closely. It seems that as far as technology-related legislature goes, wherever the US leads, the UK follows with a smile and very little consideration.
When I examine code, it is far more than an outline of functionality. The manner in which the code is written tells me a great deal about the level of expertise of the coder, their mindset as they were writing the code, and their artistic flair. As with any language, it is possible to express solutions in a wildly different range of manners. Code can be sloppy, full of errors, and confusing, and can evoke many of the same feelings as examining the scrawl of a young child. Code can be neat, elegant, and thought-provoking, encouraging the reader to examine their own coding style, inspiring the same sense of awe that a well-written doctoral thesis can.
It's true to say that the majority of people will not share my feelings about the expressive nature of computer code. Very few of these people will be coders themselves. There are many langauges that are spoken by only a handful of people scattered across the world. To me, lack of comprehension of these languages means that I cannot enjoy the diversity of expression that they allow others, but this does not mean that their expressive nature is reduced. It is my failing, not that of the language.
Further, an anecdotal example. Several years ago I moved to Paris, unable to speak a single word of the language. The people that I worked with spoke only rudimentary English, and the majority of communication in the first several weeks consisted of a shared understanding of code and code-related humour. (Interestingly, computer humour seems to translate far better than most humour which is dependent of local social context.)
Unfortunately, despite having a reasonable education in law (especially that abstract and often abused area dubbed "intellectual property"), my specific knowledge of American law is not yet advanced enough to be able to comment on the specifics of this case. As the US consitution applies to this case, and directly the manner in which computer code can be regarded as speech, some observations of precedent can be applied:
From Ynigue z v. Arizonans for Official English, the court said that "Language is by definition speech, and the regulation of any language is the regulation of speech" and that "...the choice to use a given language may often simply be based on a pragmatic desire to convey information to someone so that they may understand it." Computer code (in all of its various forms) is considered language by its practioners.
In Ward v. Rock Against Racism, the Court said "music, as a form of expression and communication, is protected under the First Amendment." It can be argued that, although music has far more wide-ranging expressive appeal, the ability to communicate information of great complexity is not one of its attributes. Computer code allows both of these apsects.
In United States v. The Progressive, the functional aspects of technical information in the Progressive magazine article about hydrogen weapons were considered speech. It is not the intent behind that publication, nor applications for which such information could be used (all of which would be considered illegal should they be exercised) that influenced the decision, but the fact that scientific knowledge is speech irrespective of its potential applications.
Perhaps the most relevant is Bernstein v. US Department of State, in which Judge Patel stated that computer code is expressive speech, protected by the first amendment. In this case, the Department of state was denied the ability to prevent Bernstein posting an encryption program on the internet.
Finally, I particularly loved this quote that I turned up during some preliminary research. It seems to me that the MPAA have an irrational fear that a simple computer program will allow the rampant destruction of te very industry that they exist to protect. A fact that the existence of deCSS has proven to be false: "Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." - Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting Gitlow v. People of State of New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)
Carr seems to miss out on fundamental aspect of trust, and that's correlation of any information from independent third parties.
It's fine to say that companies might (did he say will) abuse fact and disseminate misinformation about anything they like using the internet as a medium. Well, dishonest companies have been doing that for centuries, as have dishonest individuals. Most countries already have mature legislation to deal with such activities. It's illegal in England for a company to make false representations about (for example) their products, or to present falsity as truth.
Admittedly, the internet as a medium for dissemination of misinformation is allows for vastly more rapid proliferation of data, and recent experience has shown that most people will equally aid propogation of any information, regardless of source. Before the internet came along, such information had names that included "gossip", "rumour-mongering", and "politics". Carr would have us believe that the internet is going to exacerbate these practices to the point of destroying the fabric of our society. (Sorry, my paraphrase.)
Let's not forget though, that pre- (and even post-) internetworked society has shown itself to be as adept at uncovering fiction presented as truth as it has been incautious in perpetuating it.
This is because the basis of trust for the majority of people means that when the integrity of the source is doubted, we seek independent correlation of fact. Despite the best efforts of a television-centric society to encourage us to act otherwise, there will always be people that want to verify information, especially if the source is a corporate entity. Such verification can come from individuals, government agencies, or competitive companies. (Was it my imagination, or did Carr forget about the power of individuals to expose and regulate the behaviour of both companies and governments?)
Anyway, that's far too much ranting. I'll be happy to post to responses below. =)
The long chains of simple and easy reasonings by means of which
geometers are accustomed to reach the conclusions of their most
difficult demonstrations, had led me to imagine that all things,
to the knowledge of which man is competent, are mutually connected
in the same way, and that there is nothing so far removed from us
as to be beyond our reach, or so hidden that we cannot discover it,
provided only we abstain from accepting the false for the true, and
always preserve in our thoughts the order necessary for the deduction
of one truth from another. - Rene Descartes
Bruce, and anyone else involved in the GPL, I hope you're reading this.
I understand the intentions of the GPL, and I believe it to be of incredible value to the open source community. However, your absolute rejection of Corel's clause without reflecting on its purpose seems slightly self-destructive to me.
I asked a lawyer friend in the US to look over the GPL with regards to distribution of a GPL'd product to a minor. She tells me that a minor could take a GPL'd product, take whatever they want out of it, and then redistribute that in a non-GPL'd form. If a minor wanted to, they could even give the material to an adult in a non-GPL'd form. As long as that minor does not break copyright laws, the GPL appears to contain no restrictions to prevent a minor breaching license conditions. This is the same in the UK, where a minor cannot be held to terms of a contract (except in certain conditions for supply of necessities).
What Corel are doing here is protecting GPL'd material from possible abuse. My understanding of the GPL is to encourage other users to make improvements on open source material without fear of legal retribution. No other idea comes close to achieving what the GPL has done. Please, take a lesson from so many others and recognise when something can be improved. Lack of a clause like this is a gross oversight in the GPL that creates a loophole whereby the license conditions can be changed.
Maybe it's time for you to take back a little instead of being so focussed on giving?
A little clarification over the whole Aussie censorship business.
Current balance of power in the Australian government is held by an independant politician, Senator Harradine. The government is currently pushing to sell of Telstra, a national telco, the sale of which is worth very large amounts of money.
Opposition to the sale of Telstra (who do ISP service stuff like Big Pond) is everywhere, and without Harradine's vote, the sale would be abandoned.
Harradine is a vocal opponent of the internet, a defender of traditional Christian values, and in many ways opposed to the principles of free speech. He has tried on many occasions to propose legislation to either prevent public access to "questionable" material, or to make it an offense to view it. Until now, his proposed legislation has always been thrown out.
Basically, it looks a whole lot like Harradine and the government got together and said "you pass my legislation and I'll pass yours."
The consultation for the feasibility of content blocking was carried out in 1 week, which is on the narrow side of legal, and could be stumbling block if the law is appealed. The legislation was passed against a national outcry from ISPs and internet users.
The law can be appealed, and I would imagine that this is pretty much underway right now. Although the law states that ISPs must block the illegal content, no suggestion is made of how to do so. It is quite possible that an ISP appealing the law could very easily say they carried out a 1 week feasibility study exceeding the government's efforts, and have found that implementing filtering would put them out of business.
One final point is that the law is effective as of 1 Jan 2000, and subject to a review that could last until 2003. Combined with the fact that it bans material that is legitimately available through other sources (video and print for example), it is more than likely to be trashed in the near future.
It's a great comment about people that they complain because doing something actually requires that they exercise their intellect a little. It's one of the sad comments about computers that they're rapidly becoming a disposable commodity, in the same way that fast food requires neither culinary talent nor effort (just more money) a lot of software development has gone to lowering the minimum intelligence requirements for users. Then all those "dumb users" get upset when their software breaks and they don't even know that they can read the manual to find the 10-second fix that it requires.
Computers are not television, but then all that TV does is show images at you. The fact that computing is still in its infancy is never picked up by consumers... they always expect the technology to make up for their own deficiencies.
Traditionally, Microsoft don't sue people for parodying their mistakes. Although I have heard of situations where this might happen, I imagine that the book review about Bill's new masterpiece over on ZDNet is a lot less flattering than anything UF ever hit on.
But look at LucasArts. Recently they've been hitting on fan-sites, fan art, fan everything because they're worried about non-approved material devaluing the Star Wars name. (Can I even say Star Wars without threat of litigation?)
Evil Empire? Death Star? Although I certainly assocaite Empire with Microsoft, this seems not to suggest their presence. And who would argue that a horde of copyright lawyers are anything other than 'The Dark Side' (tm).
Personally, UF and Segfault have my utter support. Hopefully, it won't be necessary, but I can see a situation where this kind of litigious behavious could have the exact opposite effect that the orignators intend.
So, what with www.kipling.com/ being exactly 16 letters, why not use that as a starting base? Now, someone go find the password. I for one wouldn't mind if they have to fork out for a bag for each slashdotter. Even if they are shyte. --Seb.
As far as I see it, the investments in RedHat are only going to bring greater attention to Linux as a viable alternative to Winblows... sure, RedHat are a commercial company. Sure, they charge $50 to get the product on CD. But in the last decade-and-a-bit, who else has managed to bring such attention to Linux?
This kind of petty crap is exactly what counts against the Linux community, because it's perceived by the rest of the world as geeks trying to keep something inside their own little world.
Truth is, if IBM et al are jumping on the Linux bandwagon, that's about the best thing that could happen. The reason that they're jumping on RedHat's flavour of the bandwagon is that RedHat present a viable business model. It's only monopolies can afford to give software away and still expect to make a profit.
Slashdot Mirror
Reading a little further down the page, if your attention span so allows, will reveal the following:
"At that Q&A session, SCO Senior Vice President Chris Sontag said there are millions of lines of offending code involved and that it's highly unlikely the matter could be resolved by removing that code."
Somebody needs to read the article they are commenting on before deciding to criticise.
Kind of like how DVDs support "optional" encryption? ...let me know when you find one without...
How about my Farscape DVDs? Before I had a linux player that supported libcss, Farscape season 3 were the only unencrpyted DVDs I owned that I could actually watch on linux.
Not sure about later seasons, but then it doesn't really matter to me anymore.
The really simple reason is that the DVD Consortium license any DVD player manufacturer has to sign in order to make a player requires that they will not include any digital video signal output from the DVD player.
Sure, most players (in Europe at least) have component RGB output, but the signal is pretty poor compared to running DVI out through to (for example) a plasma screen.
A couple of small outfits in the UK do sell modded players with DVI out, but the cost is prohibitively expensive if you're not obsessive about your home cinema system.
It would appear that, although the original story is still available at the full URL, the Register has taken down all links to it from other areas of the site.
This would be the same site whose journalists often raise an almighty fuss when other publications do exactly the same thing.
I guess they're not double standards when they're your double standards.
No really, it's a little known fact that the moon is a kitten's favourite thing.
Proof? Here's all the proof you need.
Tell me, have you stopped by the mplayer site recently?
You might notice that mplayer supports just about every major codec, as well as DVD playback. Embedding mplayer in a browser would take as long as writing a plugger config file.
I have trouble with the whole "at least 4 times faster" guff, but then, my lecturer at university had trouble with me completing a year's assignments in a couple of weeks. Just because you can't see a way to do something, don't be so arrogant as to assume that everyone else is the same.
I should point out that the judging for the Young Scientist of the Year is pretty rigorous. I would be surprised to find that these claims are entirely without merit if he has won the prize. Assuming, that is, that the journalist involved hasn't just made everything up.
To those that are using the lack of results on the Irish Patent Office database search as evidence that you're right, and this is a steaming pile: did you even read the page you were searching? Really? Allow me to quote:
Note: This search will only return patents that are published.780kloc isn't that difficult either, espcially if you start counting libraries, headers, etc. Sure, maybe all this kid has done is link together a few common components and create something new out of the combination. So, are you going to wait and find out what it is and come up with something better? Or are you going to trash somebody based on a half-page article because you were too lazy to come up with an idea of your own?
... but without an actual 3G network in place in the entire western world, it seems like a fairly pointless technology.
Besides, who really wants people sending video-spam to their phones?
With all the effort that you must put into improving other people's experience of the web, what do you do to relax when you're not working?
So, any site that uses the Prophet applet can capture user details, even if you decide not to submit them. As far as I'm concerned, this is a keystroke log that's equivalent to a wiretap. I'm currently fighting an intense battle with an analyst that I work with who feels this is the best thing since the word demographics was invented.
And to think, people laughed at Scott McNealy...
First, I should point out that I have a reasonable grounding in law, and have been a professional programmer for about six years. I have never practiced law (and as such am not qualified to give legal advice without risk of prosecution =), but I can offer opinion, and lots of it. Oh, and I'm not American, though I do have a great deal of interest in this case and have been examining the legal aspects extremely closely. It seems that as far as technology-related legislature goes, wherever the US leads, the UK follows with a smile and very little consideration.
When I examine code, it is far more than an outline of functionality. The manner in which the code is written tells me a great deal about the level of expertise of the coder, their mindset as they were writing the code, and their artistic flair. As with any language, it is possible to express solutions in a wildly different range of manners. Code can be sloppy, full of errors, and confusing, and can evoke many of the same feelings as examining the scrawl of a young child. Code can be neat, elegant, and thought-provoking, encouraging the reader to examine their own coding style, inspiring the same sense of awe that a well-written doctoral thesis can.
It's true to say that the majority of people will not share my feelings about the expressive nature of computer code. Very few of these people will be coders themselves. There are many langauges that are spoken by only a handful of people scattered across the world. To me, lack of comprehension of these languages means that I cannot enjoy the diversity of expression that they allow others, but this does not mean that their expressive nature is reduced. It is my failing, not that of the language.
Further, an anecdotal example. Several years ago I moved to Paris, unable to speak a single word of the language. The people that I worked with spoke only rudimentary English, and the majority of communication in the first several weeks consisted of a shared understanding of code and code-related humour. (Interestingly, computer humour seems to translate far better than most humour which is dependent of local social context.)
Unfortunately, despite having a reasonable education in law (especially that abstract and often abused area dubbed "intellectual property"), my specific knowledge of American law is not yet advanced enough to be able to comment on the specifics of this case. As the US consitution applies to this case, and directly the manner in which computer code can be regarded as speech, some observations of precedent can be applied:
From Ynigue z v. Arizonans for Official English, the court said that "Language is by definition speech, and the regulation of any language is the regulation of speech" and that "...the choice to use a given language may often simply be based on a pragmatic desire to convey information to someone so that they may understand it." Computer code (in all of its various forms) is considered language by its practioners.
In Ward v. Rock Against Racism, the Court said "music, as a form of expression and communication, is protected under the First Amendment." It can be argued that, although music has far more wide-ranging expressive appeal, the ability to communicate information of great complexity is not one of its attributes. Computer code allows both of these apsects.
In United States v. The Progressive, the functional aspects of technical information in the Progressive magazine article about hydrogen weapons were considered speech. It is not the intent behind that publication, nor applications for which such information could be used (all of which would be considered illegal should they be exercised) that influenced the decision, but the fact that scientific knowledge is speech irrespective of its potential applications.
Perhaps the most relevant is Bernstein v. US Department of State, in which Judge Patel stated that computer code is expressive speech, protected by the first amendment. In this case, the Department of state was denied the ability to prevent Bernstein posting an encryption program on the internet.
Finally, I particularly loved this quote that I turned up during some preliminary research. It seems to me that the MPAA have an irrational fear that a simple computer program will allow the rampant destruction of te very industry that they exist to protect. A fact that the existence of deCSS has proven to be false: "Men feared witches and burned women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." - Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting Gitlow v. People of State of New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)
I think perhaps that somebody needs more sims in his life.
It's fine to say that companies might (did he say will) abuse fact and disseminate misinformation about anything they like using the internet as a medium. Well, dishonest companies have been doing that for centuries, as have dishonest individuals. Most countries already have mature legislation to deal with such activities. It's illegal in England for a company to make false representations about (for example) their products, or to present falsity as truth.
Admittedly, the internet as a medium for dissemination of misinformation is allows for vastly more rapid proliferation of data, and recent experience has shown that most people will equally aid propogation of any information, regardless of source. Before the internet came along, such information had names that included "gossip", "rumour-mongering", and "politics". Carr would have us believe that the internet is going to exacerbate these practices to the point of destroying the fabric of our society. (Sorry, my paraphrase.)
Let's not forget though, that pre- (and even post-) internetworked society has shown itself to be as adept at uncovering fiction presented as truth as it has been incautious in perpetuating it.
This is because the basis of trust for the majority of people means that when the integrity of the source is doubted, we seek independent correlation of fact. Despite the best efforts of a television-centric society to encourage us to act otherwise, there will always be people that want to verify information, especially if the source is a corporate entity. Such verification can come from individuals, government agencies, or competitive companies. (Was it my imagination, or did Carr forget about the power of individuals to expose and regulate the behaviour of both companies and governments?)
Anyway, that's far too much ranting. I'll be happy to post to responses below. =)
The long chains of simple and easy reasonings by means of which geometers are accustomed to reach the conclusions of their most difficult demonstrations, had led me to imagine that all things, to the knowledge of which man is competent, are mutually connected in the same way, and that there is nothing so far removed from us as to be beyond our reach, or so hidden that we cannot discover it, provided only we abstain from accepting the false for the true, and always preserve in our thoughts the order necessary for the deduction of one truth from another. - Rene Descartes
I understand the intentions of the GPL, and I believe it to be of incredible value to the open source community. However, your absolute rejection of Corel's clause without reflecting on its purpose seems slightly self-destructive to me.
I asked a lawyer friend in the US to look over the GPL with regards to distribution of a GPL'd product to a minor. She tells me that a minor could take a GPL'd product, take whatever they want out of it, and then redistribute that in a non-GPL'd form. If a minor wanted to, they could even give the material to an adult in a non-GPL'd form. As long as that minor does not break copyright laws, the GPL appears to contain no restrictions to prevent a minor breaching license conditions. This is the same in the UK, where a minor cannot be held to terms of a contract (except in certain conditions for supply of necessities).
What Corel are doing here is protecting GPL'd material from possible abuse. My understanding of the GPL is to encourage other users to make improvements on open source material without fear of legal retribution. No other idea comes close to achieving what the GPL has done. Please, take a lesson from so many others and recognise when something can be improved. Lack of a clause like this is a gross oversight in the GPL that creates a loophole whereby the license conditions can be changed.
Maybe it's time for you to take back a little instead of being so focussed on giving?
Flukemeister.
Current balance of power in the Australian government is held by an independant politician, Senator Harradine. The government is currently pushing to sell of Telstra, a national telco, the sale of which is worth very large amounts of money.
Opposition to the sale of Telstra (who do ISP service stuff like Big Pond) is everywhere, and without Harradine's vote, the sale would be abandoned.
Harradine is a vocal opponent of the internet, a defender of traditional Christian values, and in many ways opposed to the principles of free speech. He has tried on many occasions to propose legislation to either prevent public access to "questionable" material, or to make it an offense to view it. Until now, his proposed legislation has always been thrown out.
Basically, it looks a whole lot like Harradine and the government got together and said "you pass my legislation and I'll pass yours."
The consultation for the feasibility of content blocking was carried out in 1 week, which is on the narrow side of legal, and could be stumbling block if the law is appealed. The legislation was passed against a national outcry from ISPs and internet users.
The law can be appealed, and I would imagine that this is pretty much underway right now. Although the law states that ISPs must block the illegal content, no suggestion is made of how to do so. It is quite possible that an ISP appealing the law could very easily say they carried out a 1 week feasibility study exceeding the government's efforts, and have found that implementing filtering would put them out of business.
One final point is that the law is effective as of 1 Jan 2000, and subject to a review that could last until 2003. Combined with the fact that it bans material that is legitimately available through other sources (video and print for example), it is more than likely to be trashed in the near future.
Computers are not television, but then all that TV does is show images at you. The fact that computing is still in its infancy is never picked up by consumers... they always expect the technology to make up for their own deficiencies.
My guess is Lucas Arts.
Traditionally, Microsoft don't sue people for parodying their mistakes. Although I have heard of situations where this might happen, I imagine that the book review about Bill's new masterpiece over on ZDNet is a lot less flattering than anything UF ever hit on.
But look at LucasArts. Recently they've been hitting on fan-sites, fan art, fan everything because they're worried about non-approved material devaluing the Star Wars name. (Can I even say Star Wars without threat of litigation?)
Evil Empire? Death Star? Although I certainly assocaite Empire with Microsoft, this seems not to suggest their presence. And who would argue that a horde of copyright lawyers are anything other than 'The Dark Side' (tm).
Personally, UF and Segfault have my utter support. Hopefully, it won't be necessary, but I can see a situation where this kind of litigious behavious could have the exact opposite effect that the orignators intend.
So, what with www.kipling.com/ being exactly 16 letters, why not use that as a starting base? Now, someone go find the password. I for one wouldn't mind if they have to fork out for a bag for each slashdotter. Even if they are shyte. --Seb.
Cool, now there's going to be Apple Sauce for everyone... Oh, have I missed the point somewhere?
So, like, my desktop is OK but my laptop is yet another device capable of linking me to specific hardware.
Like the poster says, "I want to believe..."
Still, what with all the security holes, any one that steals any of my Intel PCs is seriously screwed. =)
Hello? Alienating the community?
As far as I see it, the investments in RedHat are only going to bring greater attention to Linux as a viable alternative to Winblows... sure, RedHat are a commercial company. Sure, they charge $50 to get the product on CD. But in the last decade-and-a-bit, who else has managed to bring such attention to Linux?
This kind of petty crap is exactly what counts against the Linux community, because it's perceived by the rest of the world as geeks trying to keep something inside their own little world.
Truth is, if IBM et al are jumping on the Linux bandwagon, that's about the best thing that could happen. The reason that they're jumping on RedHat's flavour of the bandwagon is that RedHat present a viable business model. It's only monopolies can afford to give software away and still expect to make a profit.