The ultimate aim of the GPL is to destroy the business model of writing software once and then generating sales from artificial limitations on copying.
No, the ultimate aim is to preserve freedom.
If the proprietary model you describe fails, so be it.
The GPL aims to force programmers to continue working in order to keep getting paid.
No, the GPL has nothing to do with forcing anything. It's all about choice.
There are no 'lawyers for Linux'. The lawyers *supporting* Linux are the lawyers
working for IBM, and I guarantee you, they
are *NOT* working pro-bono.
Yes, there are other lawyers working behind
the scenes, but the major work is being handled
by the firms of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, and Snell & Wilmer LLP, plus IBM in-house legal staff,
and likely hundreds of paralegals.
And they are all deserving of their compensation
in this mess.
This can and will likely create problems.
Once drivers commit to a route, based upon
trafic at time 'X', and at time 'X+Y' an
accident occurs, then at time 'X+Y+Z' the
flow will be messed up potentially worse
that without a recommended route.
That may work in userland, but it's not that simple
in the kernel where bugs can lurk for years and
only appear due to un-related code changes that
effect code path execution and timing.
You may be able to 'break it', but can you
repeatedly 'break it'?
Slashdot Mirror
They bought some assets from oldSCO (Santa Cruz Operation). What was left of oldSCO became Tarentella.
Later, the newSCO was created (the SCO Group).
Those naming machinations are obviously working on confusing the general public (ie, future jurors).
Just imagine how confused a juror could be if SUN buys the newSCO.
Then she can continue to spew her FUD and attacks.
Which is just what SCO would prefer.
Yes, it would be a different attack, but the results could be just as bad.
The enemy would just love to distract PJ that way.
News at 11:00.
Link
it would be mistake to think that the Internet in Canada, the U.S. and Europe will always remain as free as China's is censored.
As I've said before, keep your copper dry.
Those who control the pipes can control the content.
No, the ultimate aim is to preserve freedom.
If the proprietary model you describe fails, so be it.
The GPL aims to force programmers to continue working in order to keep getting paid.
No, the GPL has nothing to do with forcing anything. It's all about choice.
Today.
So far.
Yes, there are other lawyers working behind the scenes, but the major work is being handled by the firms of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, and Snell & Wilmer LLP, plus IBM in-house legal staff, and likely hundreds of paralegals.
And they are all deserving of their compensation in this mess.
But guess what? The Internet (as it has become) can be re-invented, and it will because it will have to be re-invented.
Keep your copper dry.
You may be able to 'break it', but can you repeatedly 'break it'?
Can you predictably reproduce the bug?
No. More than half.