You're really interested in a fund for that? Well, for now clicking on the ads doesn't hurt. If I get enough feedback saying that people want to fund a project based on my concepts, then I think something could be worked out.:-)
It depends on how much money we're talking. At the moment most of this stuff is $50-$500 dollars total. That breaks down to $5-$100 per donator. If you don't trust them but want to help, make sure that you don't choose a project that requires an excessive amount of money per donator. i.e. Most people wouldn't mind gambling $5 on the chance that they're really helping.
Once the monetary amounts start reaching above $1000, THEN bond backing will become more important.
Indeed. After the recent Ask Slashdot story, one would have expected new life of some sort out of LinuxFund. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case. In the meantime their account is building up hundreds of thousands of dollars.
So it's like Linux Fund except that the users get to donate money directly to projects?
It's actually kind of neat how various funding options have begun appearing. Writing OSS software is a thankless job that takes hundreds (sometimes thousands) of man-hours. I'm curious if there's a possibility in the future of software developers being employed full time on user funded projects.
NASA is in something of a tricky position with this. On one hand they are criticized for not listening to potential dangers. (e.g. Challenger O-Rings, Columbia Foam, etc.) On the other hand they are criticized for not taking enough action when it needs to be taken.
So the question is, should NASA take action and make sure this launch happens, or should they hold back the launch and potentially lose months (perhaps even another year) before a good launch window opens up?
Precisely. Under the terms of the license. It doesn't say, "under this license". You can still use a new license, but it must be compatible with the GPL. Given the difficulty in this, it's much easier to just GPL the derivitive code.
However, the GPL does not take away your copyright, just certain distribution rights. If you want to reuse your copyrighted software in another non-GPLed work, you are free to do so. This gives you an advantage over everyone who's received a licensed copy, because they are forced to follow the GPL for ALL the code.
I'm certainly not arguing your point (although one needs to expect users to exercise their licensing rights to the fullest extent), I'm only arguing that businesses and developers have differing goals.
Where the BSD license really shines is in areas like the Apache project. Businesses donate to the project so that they don't have to reinvent the wheel every other day. They are then free to take the resulting work and bury it deeply inside the code where they don't worry about it any longer.
In the case of GPLed code, a business must make an up front decision to accept the change in business procedures that the GPL requires. This is good for GPL developers because they see a return on their work other than money. It's bad for a business because it may invalidate their business model. (i.e. How they make money.)
As with all things, everyone has to meet in the middle on this stuff.
Furthermore, software containing embedded GPL-based code must be licensed under the GPL.
This is incorrect. The GPL does not require that derivitive works be GPLed. The key is that the restrictions placed on derivitive works (you must give up the source code and exclusive rights to redistribution) makes the resulting code effectively like the GPL. You can still use some other license for the derivitive code, and once you stop redistributing you can stop giving out the source code. Plus, nothing prevents you (as the copyright holder) from reusing the source that is yours in a non-GPL-derived product.
The GPL is one of the most exciting, innovative capitalist tools ever created. The GPL breaks down walls between vendors and customers while enabling strong competitive differentiation.
Buzz word overload! Take cover! Buzzword overload! Take cover! Buzz...
* Robot's head EXPLODES in a shower of sparks!
Would it kill people to speak in normal sentences instead of Market Speak(TM)? This entire article is just silly. Of course businesses prefer the BSD license. It places fewer restrictions on them, and allows them true ownership of derivitive works. That gives them something to later sell or use as a barganing chip.
Of course many OSS authors prefer the GPL. It forces companies and other users to help pay for development by giving back. The benefit to OSS authors is very clear. The benefit to businesses, however, is still questionable in many circumstances.
In the end it comes down to the usefulness of the software. If a business can't build upon BSD licensed software, they'll go with GPLed software. But if they can help it, they'll just go for the public domain stuff.;-)
My first response to this article was a quote from P.T. Barnum:
"There's a sucker born every minute!"
Now there may be some breakthrough that I'm unaware of, but it strikes me that someone is probably selling a bridge to Google on this one. Goldman Sachs I can understand (speculation and all), but Google? My only guess is that they may be hedging their bets "just in case".
You asked (and I quote): "Is there anything OSS that offers WebDAV, Apache support, BSD/Linux support and Active Directory-LDAP authentication with support for Windows and Mac clients?"
The solution I offered has all of those features. What other features are you looking for? (In specific! I'm unfamiliar with Xythos.)
FTP is great, but there are two problems (as far as our organization is concerned) - it requires a client and credentials are sent unencrypted
True enough. I never worried about it because everyone had the same access. I could see how that could be an issue in your case, though.:-)
That's the beauty of it though. Users accessed the FTP server through a bookmark in Netscape. As far as they were concerned, they were looking at an ugly web page! Uploads could be done by just dragging the file onto Netscape.:-)
Internet Explorer is even simpler as it provides a "pretty" Explorer interface to the files.
1. Never underestimate the power of a plain old FTP server. When I worked for a company with a Citrix machine, it was found that the SMB access to the mainframe would only allow for one connection per IP. (Thanks alot Unisys.) So we setup a go between machine that ran an FTP server mapped to the SMB drive. The Citrix users then used the Netscape FTP support to download and upload files.
It just takes one student sys admin with access to the whole freaking library, and there you have it, piracy at it's best.
Isn't that how Napster works anyway? i.e. All you can slurp for a flat rate monthly fee? Stealing it and redistributing it across the campus (which may actually be slightly more difficult due to DRM) would only convince Napster to pull out and leave students to fend for themselves.
I don't know if this has been said before, because I wasn't paying attention the first time it was posted. So here goes:
Christ driving around to see what doors stupid ppl have left open should not be a crime.
Arguably you are stealing service, and that *may be* a crime. However, it may only be a misdemenor considering that no attempt was made to secure the system. (Some people do intentionally offer service to war drivers and the like.)
The more interesting question is how it jives with FCC regulations. AFAIU, anything signal transmitted in the clear is considered free for interception, no matter the content. You can't descramble it if it's protected (another FCC reg), but you can receive it. Similarly, you are free and clear to transmit as long as you are properly licensed for the equipment you use and/or you are operating equipment that falls under unlicensed frequencies and power output.
Since the signal was free and clear, the FCC regs may actually protect this guy. This still leaves the matter of unauthorized use of a system, but as I said, a failure to secure may be construed as offering a service over the open airwaves. The guy would be smart to get a good lawyer on this one. He may be able to get off quite easy.
Let this be a lesson to those who set up wireless networks. Either secure your connection, or expect people to borrow your system. If you can't figure out *how* to secure your system, go get an Apple Airport. It's already configured.
Actually, the movie industry has done a reasonably good job of keeping ahead of the market forces that drive piracy. Depsite all the complaints about movies getting on the Internet early (as if the problem didn't exist with bootlegs prior to the Internet), I haven't seen any evidence that it has been a widespread issue. Your average person seems happy enough to go to the theater, buy a DVD, or sign up with Netflix.
The ones who should really be worried is television. The DVD rehashes of shows have helped, as have PVRs like TIVO. But the general populace is starting to get pretty annoyed about being told when they can and can't watch television. If TV doesn't reinvent itself as an internet business soon, the reprocussions could be of Napster proportions!
He's saying your ideas not only have no monetary value, they have no value whatsoever. Ideas are absolutely 100% worthless.
Poppycock! One must have an idea before they can create a product. If the idea were without value, the product would be as well. Yet we see a thriving economy based on idea! For example: Selling books online is an idea. When it was a novel idea, it had the potential to be heavily monetized. Therefore it was an idea with intrinsic (yet ethereal) value! Translating the ethereal value into cold hard cash is what implementation is all about.
What? You're telling me that my ideas have no monetary value? The shock! The horror!;-)
Actually, I tend to agree with Abrash on this. The usual pattern is:
1. CompSci invents concept. 2. 10 Years later, everyone uses it.
Situations like Google where the concept is taken directly to the market are very rare. As Honeywell (Multics) and Symbolics can tell you, being ahead of your time can really suck.
That being said, it's not that ideas have no value. The problem is that their value is ethereal and cannot translate directly into dollars. If your ideas are good enough for the market, then you can make money by using them as a form of entertainment and educations. (e.g. Books, Websites with ads, etc.) Alternatively, you can implement them and see if they give you a competitive advantage. (This is what patents are intended for. Things went downhill after the Patent Office stops requiring prototypes.) Either way you do have to do a smidge more than just think up ideas. You must create an actual product out of them and monetize *that*.
"This guy" has indeed tried Debian and Knoppix. I love Knoppix because It Just Works(TM). However, it also Just Doesn't Install Software(TM). I haven't tried the DVD version, but have you ever tried installing VLC on it? Ugh.
The last time I tried Debian, I broke it coming out of the gate. I was just trying to install KDE from an "official" repository and got stuck in Dependency Hell.
In either case, I'm not arguing that Linux is unusable as a Desktop. I'm arguing that it has not, and will not catch on in its current form. I then offer up suggestions as to how the system might be catapulted WAY ahead of the competition. If that's a bad thing, I'd hate to see what you guys think is good!;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Whichever you prefer. I'm not picky.
;-P
Wait, how do you know my name?
Well, you'd have to get a nice team of developers behind it first...
;-)
Hi, how you doing? I'm AKAImBatman, crack engineer. I'll have this thing whipped up for you in no time flat!
Seriously, me, myself, and I isn't a bad start to a team. After a little work gets done there shouldn't be any difficulties in getting things going.
You're really interested in a fund for that? Well, for now clicking on the ads doesn't hurt. If I get enough feedback saying that people want to fund a project based on my concepts, then I think something could be worked out. :-)
It depends on how much money we're talking. At the moment most of this stuff is $50-$500 dollars total. That breaks down to $5-$100 per donator. If you don't trust them but want to help, make sure that you don't choose a project that requires an excessive amount of money per donator. i.e. Most people wouldn't mind gambling $5 on the chance that they're really helping.
Once the monetary amounts start reaching above $1000, THEN bond backing will become more important.
Except that LinuxFund is pretty much dead.
Indeed. After the recent Ask Slashdot story, one would have expected new life of some sort out of LinuxFund. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case. In the meantime their account is building up hundreds of thousands of dollars.
So it's like Linux Fund except that the users get to donate money directly to projects?
It's actually kind of neat how various funding options have begun appearing. Writing OSS software is a thankless job that takes hundreds (sometimes thousands) of man-hours. I'm curious if there's a possibility in the future of software developers being employed full time on user funded projects.
NASA is in something of a tricky position with this. On one hand they are criticized for not listening to potential dangers. (e.g. Challenger O-Rings, Columbia Foam, etc.) On the other hand they are criticized for not taking enough action when it needs to be taken.
:-/
So the question is, should NASA take action and make sure this launch happens, or should they hold back the launch and potentially lose months (perhaps even another year) before a good launch window opens up?
I do not envy those in charge of NASA.
Precisely. Under the terms of the license. It doesn't say, "under this license". You can still use a new license, but it must be compatible with the GPL. Given the difficulty in this, it's much easier to just GPL the derivitive code.
However, the GPL does not take away your copyright, just certain distribution rights. If you want to reuse your copyrighted software in another non-GPLed work, you are free to do so. This gives you an advantage over everyone who's received a licensed copy, because they are forced to follow the GPL for ALL the code.
A Symbolics Machine running vi.
* Me waits for the heads to explode
I'm certainly not arguing your point (although one needs to expect users to exercise their licensing rights to the fullest extent), I'm only arguing that businesses and developers have differing goals.
Where the BSD license really shines is in areas like the Apache project. Businesses donate to the project so that they don't have to reinvent the wheel every other day. They are then free to take the resulting work and bury it deeply inside the code where they don't worry about it any longer.
In the case of GPLed code, a business must make an up front decision to accept the change in business procedures that the GPL requires. This is good for GPL developers because they see a return on their work other than money. It's bad for a business because it may invalidate their business model. (i.e. How they make money.)
As with all things, everyone has to meet in the middle on this stuff.
Furthermore, software containing embedded GPL-based code must be licensed under the GPL.
This is incorrect. The GPL does not require that derivitive works be GPLed. The key is that the restrictions placed on derivitive works (you must give up the source code and exclusive rights to redistribution) makes the resulting code effectively like the GPL. You can still use some other license for the derivitive code, and once you stop redistributing you can stop giving out the source code. Plus, nothing prevents you (as the copyright holder) from reusing the source that is yours in a non-GPL-derived product.
Clear as mud? Good.
The GPL is one of the most exciting, innovative capitalist tools ever created. The GPL breaks down walls between vendors and customers while enabling strong competitive differentiation.
;-)
Buzz word overload! Take cover! Buzzword overload! Take cover! Buzz...
* Robot's head EXPLODES in a shower of sparks!
Would it kill people to speak in normal sentences instead of Market Speak(TM)? This entire article is just silly. Of course businesses prefer the BSD license. It places fewer restrictions on them, and allows them true ownership of derivitive works. That gives them something to later sell or use as a barganing chip.
Of course many OSS authors prefer the GPL. It forces companies and other users to help pay for development by giving back. The benefit to OSS authors is very clear. The benefit to businesses, however, is still questionable in many circumstances.
In the end it comes down to the usefulness of the software. If a business can't build upon BSD licensed software, they'll go with GPLed software. But if they can help it, they'll just go for the public domain stuff.
My first response to this article was a quote from P.T. Barnum:
"There's a sucker born every minute!"
Now there may be some breakthrough that I'm unaware of, but it strikes me that someone is probably selling a bridge to Google on this one. Goldman Sachs I can understand (speculation and all), but Google? My only guess is that they may be hedging their bets "just in case".
You asked (and I quote): "Is there anything OSS that offers WebDAV, Apache support, BSD/Linux support and Active Directory-LDAP authentication with support for Windows and Mac clients?"
:-)
The solution I offered has all of those features. What other features are you looking for? (In specific! I'm unfamiliar with Xythos.)
FTP is great, but there are two problems (as far as our organization is concerned) - it requires a client and credentials are sent unencrypted
True enough. I never worried about it because everyone had the same access. I could see how that could be an issue in your case, though.
That's the beauty of it though. Users accessed the FTP server through a bookmark in Netscape. As far as they were concerned, they were looking at an ugly web page! Uploads could be done by just dragging the file onto Netscape. :-)
Internet Explorer is even simpler as it provides a "pretty" Explorer interface to the files.
1. Never underestimate the power of a plain old FTP server. When I worked for a company with a Citrix machine, it was found that the SMB access to the mainframe would only allow for one connection per IP. (Thanks alot Unisys.) So we setup a go between machine that ran an FTP server mapped to the SMB drive. The Citrix users then used the Netscape FTP support to download and upload files.
O /
:-)
2. Here's precisely how to do what you're looking for on a standard *nix machine: http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Apache-WebDAV-LDAP-HOWT
First Google result, even.
And the downside is??
The college again starts restricting access, expelling students, and other Bad Things(TM) because they don't want legal trouble from the RIAA.
It just takes one student sys admin with access to the whole freaking library, and there you have it, piracy at it's best.
Isn't that how Napster works anyway? i.e. All you can slurp for a flat rate monthly fee? Stealing it and redistributing it across the campus (which may actually be slightly more difficult due to DRM) would only convince Napster to pull out and leave students to fend for themselves.
I don't know if this has been said before, because I wasn't paying attention the first time it was posted. So here goes:
Christ driving around to see what doors stupid ppl have left open should not be a crime.
Arguably you are stealing service, and that *may be* a crime. However, it may only be a misdemenor considering that no attempt was made to secure the system. (Some people do intentionally offer service to war drivers and the like.)
The more interesting question is how it jives with FCC regulations. AFAIU, anything signal transmitted in the clear is considered free for interception, no matter the content. You can't descramble it if it's protected (another FCC reg), but you can receive it. Similarly, you are free and clear to transmit as long as you are properly licensed for the equipment you use and/or you are operating equipment that falls under unlicensed frequencies and power output.
Since the signal was free and clear, the FCC regs may actually protect this guy. This still leaves the matter of unauthorized use of a system, but as I said, a failure to secure may be construed as offering a service over the open airwaves. The guy would be smart to get a good lawyer on this one. He may be able to get off quite easy.
Let this be a lesson to those who set up wireless networks. Either secure your connection, or expect people to borrow your system. If you can't figure out *how* to secure your system, go get an Apple Airport. It's already configured.
It's called Oil Futures. Just buy a bunch of oil on the market ahead of time, then save money (or make money by reselling).
Three words: It's about time.
Actually, the movie industry has done a reasonably good job of keeping ahead of the market forces that drive piracy. Depsite all the complaints about movies getting on the Internet early (as if the problem didn't exist with bootlegs prior to the Internet), I haven't seen any evidence that it has been a widespread issue. Your average person seems happy enough to go to the theater, buy a DVD, or sign up with Netflix.
The ones who should really be worried is television. The DVD rehashes of shows have helped, as have PVRs like TIVO. But the general populace is starting to get pretty annoyed about being told when they can and can't watch television. If TV doesn't reinvent itself as an internet business soon, the reprocussions could be of Napster proportions!
He's saying your ideas not only have no monetary value, they have no value whatsoever. Ideas are absolutely 100% worthless.
Poppycock! One must have an idea before they can create a product. If the idea were without value, the product would be as well. Yet we see a thriving economy based on idea! For example: Selling books online is an idea. When it was a novel idea, it had the potential to be heavily monetized. Therefore it was an idea with intrinsic (yet ethereal) value! Translating the ethereal value into cold hard cash is what implementation is all about.
What? You're telling me that my ideas have no monetary value? The shock! The horror! ;-)
Actually, I tend to agree with Abrash on this. The usual pattern is:
1. CompSci invents concept.
2. 10 Years later, everyone uses it.
Situations like Google where the concept is taken directly to the market are very rare. As Honeywell (Multics) and Symbolics can tell you, being ahead of your time can really suck.
That being said, it's not that ideas have no value. The problem is that their value is ethereal and cannot translate directly into dollars. If your ideas are good enough for the market, then you can make money by using them as a form of entertainment and educations. (e.g. Books, Websites with ads, etc.) Alternatively, you can implement them and see if they give you a competitive advantage. (This is what patents are intended for. Things went downhill after the Patent Office stops requiring prototypes.) Either way you do have to do a smidge more than just think up ideas. You must create an actual product out of them and monetize *that*.
"This guy" has indeed tried Debian and Knoppix. I love Knoppix because It Just Works(TM). However, it also Just Doesn't Install Software(TM). I haven't tried the DVD version, but have you ever tried installing VLC on it? Ugh.
;-)
The last time I tried Debian, I broke it coming out of the gate. I was just trying to install KDE from an "official" repository and got stuck in Dependency Hell.
In either case, I'm not arguing that Linux is unusable as a Desktop. I'm arguing that it has not, and will not catch on in its current form. I then offer up suggestions as to how the system might be catapulted WAY ahead of the competition. If that's a bad thing, I'd hate to see what you guys think is good!