Perhaps it is not PC on Slashdot to say that MS makes some good products. And you are correct that MS does make some good products. I am personally a big fan of evolution, which models a lot of its UI on MS Outlook. But before you start giving Bill Gates a hummer, know this. MS, like most corporations is driven by greed. They make good software only to the extent that it benefits their bank account. More importantly, they will also not hesitate to subvert users' freedoms to make them more dependant on MS. MS Office file formats are a prime example of this. How can this possibly benefit consumers? Now maybe OO isn't quite up to MS Office in all respects, and that's fine. Why would anyone want to choose a technically inferior product? Because IN THE LONG RUN, Freedom is the more economical choice. I know it, many Slashdot readers know it, and by the looks of things, the Isreali Government knows it too.
So just that you don't argue I'm a victim of Slashdot groupthink, sure, I can concede that MS makes some good products, but please stop parading the around singing the praises of MS and the "benefit to consumers" as if it were some kind of philanthropic company worthy of sainthood. That is so insulting to my intelligence.
Seriously folks, we're not just gonna wake up one day and find that all our favorite OS's have been outlawed.
If everyone had your attitude, then I feel confident that day would come to pass.
It's the paranoid and vigilant who will work to protect freedom. The fact that this discussion is taking place should be a warning to MS that we will not take any such lock out attempt lying down. Should it be the case that EFI is not used for lock out purposes, you'll surely say, "See, you were just paranoid". But however it turns out, paranoia is indisputably the safer option.
BTW, anyone have Linux booting on the all-in-one Gateway 610 Media Center desktop that was mentioned in the article? Perhaps that could give us further insight.
To understand the strength of this authority, it is interesting to read the recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Eldred v. Ashcroft , 123 S.Ct. 769 (2003). In Eldred , key arguments similar to those advanced by the open source movement with respect to copyright laws were fully considered, and rejected, by the U.S.
That's just the tip of the legalese iceburg. I'm sorry, but I looked at McBride's Bio and I don't see a law degree in there. Whatcha wanna bet that this was written my Mr. Boise?
Red Hat has aggressively lobbied Congress to eliminate software patents and copyrights. (see http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html ).
Eliminate software patents? Yes. Eliminate software copyrights? not in this lifetime. I don't work for Redhat, but any moron can see that this quote is a complete mischaracterizations of redhat's views found in the linked article.
I think many people here are implying things that may not be true. First, the article states:
"The two blocks of software, they said, contained as many as 80 lines of identical code, along with identical developers' comments."
Notice that it NEVER STATED that the 80 lines were a sequential unbroken segment. I believe that if it was, they would have said that to strengthen their claim. For all we know, they may have simply taken files and tried to see how many lines were identical. If they found a particularly large file, they could have just found random lines completely out of order that just happen to match up.
You may also be assuming that the 'identical comments' are on the same lines as code. They could be simply on a seprate line. They may also be very short and virtually meaningless comments.
We also don't know their definition of identical. Most of you are probably assuming that they mean the lines match up exactly, character by character. Perhaps SCO's definition is that they simply serve the same function, or that the comments have the same meaning. Even if the lines matched up byte by byte, this may not be as big of a coincidence as it seems since it is very common for people to use code beautifiers such as 'indent' that could easily produce the same spacing results even if the 2 original lines came from completely different sources.
What constitutes a 'line'? perhaps they are also counting single character lines such as an open and close curly bracket. What one coder writes as a single line in C may be broken up in to several lines by another coder.
All in all, 80 lines out of millions is an extremely insignificant amount. And what's more, I find it highly unlikely that those 80 lines contain any information worthy of trade secret protection. I feel fairly confident that your average linux kernel hacker could whip out 80 lines of code in less than a day.
Not automatically. Only as soon as you perform an action which is in violation of the original author's copyright privileges. Which means copying the software for another employee.
Ok, I think our disagreement is not so much about what the GPL says, but whether or not the employees are acting as individuals or agents of the company. My assertion is that when employees do work, all the results of their work belong to the company. So in my view, The company has a copy. The company never gave a copy to Carl, Bob or Sally. Carl doesn't give Sally a copy of the program. The company merely employs Carl to put a copy of the modified software on a company computer which happens to be used by Sally.
Now, from a legal perspective, if I am wrong about employees being able to act purely as agents of a company, then I would agree with you.
However, I think this would have some seriously negative implications for companies, and governments. It would mean that secret software that is derived from GPL'd works, even if it is developed purely for internal use by a company, could be distributed freely by any employee who has physical access to it. It would be legally impossible for a company to employ a team of programmers to create such a modified work and still keep it secret, even if that software is only for internal company use.
Think of the implications that would have for the DoD and the NSA. It would also lend more credit to the FUD Microsoft has been spreading about the GPL.
Yes, the GPL says you "may". It doesn't say you "must". Just because you can, doesn't mean you have to. If a company makes a modification to that GPL'd program, the company still owns the copyright on the modifications. If the company decides to license those mods to someone, then they are compelled by the original copyright license to make those mods available under the GPL. But even though a company is the copyright owner of those modifications, it doesn't imply that its employees are automatically given a personal license.
Just for example, let's say I'm a company under contract to develop some modifications to a GPL'd software package. I anticpate having one customer. We are charging $1,000,000 for the license. The license we are using is the GPL, and therefore we are in compliance with the original copyright. If one of the developers takes that software and posts it on the web, he has stolen company property. Had the employee been granted a license, yes it would have been the GPL. But he wasn't granted a license because that employee never paid the $1,000,000 for the license and therefore he stole company property.
Now, after someone outside the company has a license to the mods, they can post it on a million websites if they choose. But before they have a license, the company can not be compelled to give it to anyone outside the company.
By that logic, if a company gives an employee a copy of MS office to install on a machine owned by the company, then he must also have the right to install it on his computer at home.
Ok, but even if you're right, it doesn't make any difference. The company is copying it internally, and so even if it invokes the GPL, who is that software licenced to? That very same company. That company is not obligated to give copies to it's employees. As a GPL Licensee, I can chose to give out copies, or not. The employees still don't have a right to take it home and post it on the net because the company didn't authorize them to do that.
There is no 'exception' needed since internal copying by a single entity is not considered to be distribution.
Now if an employee takes the modified software home and installs it on his personal machine, he has violated his company's copyright. If his company allows him to install it on his personal machine, then they must license the modifications to him under the GPL.
Simply using propriotary software installed on your company's computer doesn't mean you own a license. The same is true with GPL'd software. However in most cases, that same GPL'd software is available from multiple sources, so it's a non-issue.
The terms of the EULA will state that the license is non-transferable. You'd have to be a complete moron to think this has anything to do with philanthropy.
I can't seem to write a complete sentance today. That should read: It would seem to me that even if SCO is right, then only the original author, i.e. the person who claimed to write the source code would be liable.
That even if SCO is right, then only the original author, i.e. the person who claimed to write the source code. Other distributors such as Redhat would be immune because they were under the impression that it was licensed legally. If secondary distributors are in fact liable, I would think that the fact that SCO themselves distributed the same code would then make that source code legit. Essentially, if "We didn't know" for Redhat is not a sufficient defense, then "We didn't know" for SCO should be equally insufficient.
Maybe it's really the other way around... SCO should tread lightly on this one... wouldn't it be funny if UnixWare was forced to become GPL because it was found that developers unlawfully incorporated Linux kernel code in to UnixWare? That would be a nice trick the SCO developers could play on the SCO Lawyers if they secretly wanted revenge.
I don't know if it's as simple as that. What is the nature of renting? I would think that if I were to rent a DVD to someone, it would be considered a temporary transfer of license. So while they are renting, I don't have the right to use that copyrighted material. Now in the case of the GPL, if you were to "rent" GPL software, nothing prevents them from copying it and re-licensing it to themselves or friends.
I Think that MS realizes that eliminating piracy is a double edged sword, espescially in countries where piracy is rampant. If they are able to eliminate piracy altogether, the prohibitive cost of windows will surely encourage the growth of Linux in these countries. When a single copy of windows costs 2 months of your salary, the investment of time it takes to learn to use Linux and reduce your reliance on propriotary software seems very attractive.
This seems to be a big break in the way they used to do things. "When it's ready!" In the past I have heard that line countless times on the beta maliing lists.
Also, regarding the jump to 9, i think there are certian criteria they define to determine whether it's a.1 increase or an integer release, but i forget what they are.
This sounds like a decent idea. I would propose that there be some kind of time limit as well as a revenue limit. Say, 5 years or $5,000,000 in revenue, whichever comes first.
I would also expect that you get the source to begin with so that you're not SOL when the company "changes their mind".
In general, I rarely purchase any software, but I would be happy to purchase something if I had a guarantee that it's going to be opened up later on.
I hope people will take this opportunity...
on
Office 2003 and XML
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
to switch to a free and open office suite like star office. Seeing as how Office is MS's cash cow, if sales drop, maybe they'll stop using obfuscated formats. It's obvious this is the only way to get them to stop since the DOJ seems to think that a conviction is enough to shame them in to playing fairly. The only way they'll change is if customers make them realize that it's not in their interest to use obfuscated formats. People need to understand that when you buy Microsoft, you are not just giving them money, you are encouraging them to take away your freedom of choice.
This sounds like a nice thing... altho I think what Carmack did was much cooler.. GPL the engine and still charge for the data file. If Rockstar games did this, they might even find plenty of volunteers ready to port this thing to OpenGL.
Slashdot Mirror
So does this mean that Linux distributions will be able to play DVDs out of the box? or are there still patent issues with that?
Perhaps it is not PC on Slashdot to say that MS makes some good products. And you are correct that MS does make some good products. I am personally a big fan of evolution, which models a lot of its UI on MS Outlook. But before you start giving Bill Gates a hummer, know this. MS, like most corporations is driven by greed. They make good software only to the extent that it benefits their bank account. More importantly, they will also not hesitate to subvert users' freedoms to make them more dependant on MS. MS Office file formats are a prime example of this. How can this possibly benefit consumers? Now maybe OO isn't quite up to MS Office in all respects, and that's fine. Why would anyone want to choose a technically inferior product? Because IN THE LONG RUN, Freedom is the more economical choice. I know it, many Slashdot readers know it, and by the looks of things, the Isreali Government knows it too.
So just that you don't argue I'm a victim of Slashdot groupthink, sure, I can concede that MS makes some good products, but please stop parading the around singing the praises of MS and the "benefit to consumers" as if it were some kind of philanthropic company worthy of sainthood. That is so insulting to my intelligence.
If everyone had your attitude, then I feel confident that day would come to pass.
It's the paranoid and vigilant who will work to protect freedom. The fact that this discussion is taking place should be a warning to MS that we will not take any such lock out attempt lying down. Should it be the case that EFI is not used for lock out purposes, you'll surely say, "See, you were just paranoid". But however it turns out, paranoia is indisputably the safer option.
BTW, anyone have Linux booting on the all-in-one Gateway 610 Media Center desktop that was mentioned in the article? Perhaps that could give us further insight.
Actually from what I have seen, China is more dependant on MS than we are here in the states. I really hope that will change in the near future.
That's just the tip of the legalese iceburg. I'm sorry, but I looked at McBride's Bio and I don't see a law degree in there. Whatcha wanna bet that this was written my Mr. Boise?
Eliminate software patents? Yes. Eliminate software copyrights? not in this lifetime. I don't work for Redhat, but any moron can see that this quote is a complete mischaracterizations of redhat's views found in the linked article.
Don't forget to try and outlaw the sale of used CDs. I'm sure half.com and other online used CD sites are responsible for your failing business too.
Could these things be a result of trying to beat Fedora to market?
Notice that it NEVER STATED that the 80 lines were a sequential unbroken segment. I believe that if it was, they would have said that to strengthen their claim. For all we know, they may have simply taken files and tried to see how many lines were identical. If they found a particularly large file, they could have just found random lines completely out of order that just happen to match up.
You may also be assuming that the 'identical comments' are on the same lines as code. They could be simply on a seprate line. They may also be very short and virtually meaningless comments.
We also don't know their definition of identical. Most of you are probably assuming that they mean the lines match up exactly, character by character. Perhaps SCO's definition is that they simply serve the same function, or that the comments have the same meaning. Even if the lines matched up byte by byte, this may not be as big of a coincidence as it seems since it is very common for people to use code beautifiers such as 'indent' that could easily produce the same spacing results even if the 2 original lines came from completely different sources.
What constitutes a 'line'? perhaps they are also counting single character lines such as an open and close curly bracket. What one coder writes as a single line in C may be broken up in to several lines by another coder.
All in all, 80 lines out of millions is an extremely insignificant amount. And what's more, I find it highly unlikely that those 80 lines contain any information worthy of trade secret protection. I feel fairly confident that your average linux kernel hacker could whip out 80 lines of code in less than a day.
Ok, I think our disagreement is not so much about what the GPL says, but whether or not the employees are acting as individuals or agents of the company. My assertion is that when employees do work, all the results of their work belong to the company. So in my view, The company has a copy. The company never gave a copy to Carl, Bob or Sally. Carl doesn't give Sally a copy of the program. The company merely employs Carl to put a copy of the modified software on a company computer which happens to be used by Sally.
Now, from a legal perspective, if I am wrong about employees being able to act purely as agents of a company, then I would agree with you.
However, I think this would have some seriously negative implications for companies, and governments. It would mean that secret software that is derived from GPL'd works, even if it is developed purely for internal use by a company, could be distributed freely by any employee who has physical access to it. It would be legally impossible for a company to employ a team of programmers to create such a modified work and still keep it secret, even if that software is only for internal company use.
Think of the implications that would have for the DoD and the NSA. It would also lend more credit to the FUD Microsoft has been spreading about the GPL.
Yes, the GPL says you "may". It doesn't say you "must". Just because you can, doesn't mean you have to. If a company makes a modification to that GPL'd program, the company still owns the copyright on the modifications. If the company decides to license those mods to someone, then they are compelled by the original copyright license to make those mods available under the GPL. But even though a company is the copyright owner of those modifications, it doesn't imply that its employees are automatically given a personal license.
Just for example, let's say I'm a company under contract to develop some modifications to a GPL'd software package. I anticpate having one customer. We are charging $1,000,000 for the license. The license we are using is the GPL, and therefore we are in compliance with the original copyright. If one of the developers takes that software and posts it on the web, he has stolen company property. Had the employee been granted a license, yes it would have been the GPL. But he wasn't granted a license because that employee never paid the $1,000,000 for the license and therefore he stole company property.
Now, after someone outside the company has a license to the mods, they can post it on a million websites if they choose. But before they have a license, the company can not be compelled to give it to anyone outside the company.
By that logic, if a company gives an employee a copy of MS office to install on a machine owned by the company, then he must also have the right to install it on his computer at home.
Ok, but even if you're right, it doesn't make any difference. The company is copying it internally, and so even if it invokes the GPL, who is that software licenced to? That very same company. That company is not obligated to give copies to it's employees. As a GPL Licensee, I can chose to give out copies, or not. The employees still don't have a right to take it home and post it on the net because the company didn't authorize them to do that.
Now if an employee takes the modified software home and installs it on his personal machine, he has violated his company's copyright. If his company allows him to install it on his personal machine, then they must license the modifications to him under the GPL.
Simply using propriotary software installed on your company's computer doesn't mean you own a license. The same is true with GPL'd software. However in most cases, that same GPL'd software is available from multiple sources, so it's a non-issue.
The terms of the EULA will state that the license is non-transferable. You'd have to be a complete moron to think this has anything to do with philanthropy.
I can't seem to write a complete sentance today. That should read: It would seem to me that even if SCO is right, then only the original author, i.e. the person who claimed to write the source code would be liable.
That even if SCO is right, then only the original author, i.e. the person who claimed to write the source code. Other distributors such as Redhat would be immune because they were under the impression that it was licensed legally. If secondary distributors are in fact liable, I would think that the fact that SCO themselves distributed the same code would then make that source code legit. Essentially, if "We didn't know" for Redhat is not a sufficient defense, then "We didn't know" for SCO should be equally insufficient.
This is a very interesting thought. There may very well be some merit to this argument. I hope IBM considers using it.
Maybe it's really the other way around... SCO should tread lightly on this one... wouldn't it be funny if UnixWare was forced to become GPL because it was found that developers unlawfully incorporated Linux kernel code in to UnixWare? That would be a nice trick the SCO developers could play on the SCO Lawyers if they secretly wanted revenge.
I don't know if it's as simple as that. What is the nature of renting? I would think that if I were to rent a DVD to someone, it would be considered a temporary transfer of license. So while they are renting, I don't have the right to use that copyrighted material. Now in the case of the GPL, if you were to "rent" GPL software, nothing prevents them from copying it and re-licensing it to themselves or friends.
IANAL, blah blah...
I Think that MS realizes that eliminating piracy is a double edged sword, espescially in countries where piracy is rampant. If they are able to eliminate piracy altogether, the prohibitive cost of windows will surely encourage the growth of Linux in these countries. When a single copy of windows costs 2 months of your salary, the investment of time it takes to learn to use Linux and reduce your reliance on propriotary software seems very attractive.
This seems to be a big break in the way they used to do things. "When it's ready!" In the past I have heard that line countless times on the beta maliing lists.
.1 increase or an integer release, but i forget what they are.
Also, regarding the jump to 9, i think there are certian criteria they define to determine whether it's a
This sounds like a decent idea. I would propose that there be some kind of time limit as well as a revenue limit. Say, 5 years or $5,000,000 in revenue, whichever comes first.
I would also expect that you get the source to begin with so that you're not SOL when the company "changes their mind".
In general, I rarely purchase any software, but I would be happy to purchase something if I had a guarantee that it's going to be opened up later on.
to switch to a free and open office suite like star office. Seeing as how Office is MS's cash cow, if sales drop, maybe they'll stop using obfuscated formats. It's obvious this is the only way to get them to stop since the DOJ seems to think that a conviction is enough to shame them in to playing fairly. The only way they'll change is if customers make them realize that it's not in their interest to use obfuscated formats. People need to understand that when you buy Microsoft, you are not just giving them money, you are encouraging them to take away your freedom of choice.
This sounds like a nice thing... altho I think what Carmack did was much cooler.. GPL the engine and still charge for the data file. If Rockstar games did this, they might even find plenty of volunteers ready to port this thing to OpenGL.