I see what you're saying but I think innovation can continue if potential competitors have the skill and guts to take on the current market leader.
As joked about in the movie Back to the Future III, any products from Japan were considered junk in the 1950's and yet by the 1980's Japan was beating up US car companies despite the fact that the US companies collectively dominated the world market.
Today the iPod is a big hit despite the fact that under the theory the EU believes in, Media Player-based portable players should be dominant.
"It's kind of sad the way Microsoft has convinced some people that not bundling an application that you can't uninstall so that you can use a competing media player is somehow less functional."
Your phrase "so that you can use a competing media player" is wrong. You can use a competing media player in the normal version of Windows and have been able to do so for many years.
"It was the Media Player application that was to be removed, not the APIs it uses."
Well this a recurring problem when courts order functionality removed. They really don't have the knowledge necessary to evaluate the results. Even among people who have that knowledge, it's not all black and white.
"It says in TFA that RealNetworks demonstrates a fully-functioning Media Player-less Windows."
Has RealNetworks provided a detailed description of exactly what they changed? How do we know that this is legitimate? Surely they're not an independent party here.
"the commission has to verify the requirement that Microsoft refrain from using any commercial, technological or contractual terms that would have the effect of rendering the unbundled version of Windows less attractive or less functional."
Of course this is impossible to achieve. Removing Media player obviously makes Windows less functional by definition.
Although I can see why companies like Real might benefit from an unbundled version of Windows, it's a lot harder to see how it helps consumers unless there's a very substantial reduction in price.
The commision is so obsessed with making this Media Playerless version of Windows successful, I wonder if they'll require MS to do deceptive advertising to hide it's limitations.
I liked the idea of getting rid of the "switch statement from hell" you need when using the raw Windows API, but MFC didn't seem to be a good choice in the general case. Great if you want to recreate yet another MDI editor though. I never had a reason to create one, however.
"Those millions of Windows developers who move to.NET (wait for it) have also just learned what they need to develop for MONO (Linux)."
This is strategy Sun failed to consider with respect to Java and MS. Had they not sued MS, a lot more Windows developers would have learned and used Java. Sure, they may have used non-pure extensions in their programs, but 90% of what they learned would apply to pure Java as well and those skills could have been applied to other platforms.
The line for products to compete with Windows forms in the back. Lotus Notes, Java, browser-based apps, and network computers are already in line. Desktop 10 will just have to wait its turn.
"With your example of stealing from a shop, that is regulated by normla property laws, which say that you can't take something from someone. That has nothing to do with copyright laws at all."
Ah, but people have been claiming here that copyright gives you the right of use. If it really did, you could take the book. "Normal property" laws as you call them, limit the power of copyright to those situations where the material was obtained legitimately.
I'm getting tired of being at the bottom of this pile-on, so this is my last post on the matter.
"Because they aren't valid contracts, you can answer however you like and not be bound by it."
You guys are living in a fantasy world. Do you really think that large corporations would pay millions of additional dollars in order to comply with the terms of EULA's if they weren't valid?
"Nope. In typical software sales, you never agree to follow the EULA."
So in typical software sales you note the message than indicates opening the seal on the CD means you agree with the EULA and you don't agree with it and return the software for a refund? I guess software companies don't make very much money.
"Making the user sign an EULA to get patched really is no different than the car dealer not being willing to do warranty repairs unless you purchase another service."
Actually, it's very different in several ways.
First, most car purchases include a specific warrenty in writing. Software typically doesn't.
Also agreeing to the EULA online is just a reaffirmation of something you've already agreed to when you installed the software. If you intend to follow the terms of EULA you already agreed to, this is just an inconvenience.
You're right. By using the phrase "really isn't" I meant to convey that there's nothing that most authors would want to do with GPL'd code that they couldn't do with public domain code. I didn't actually say that though, so your critism is valid.
On the other hand, I suspect that there's plenty of public domain code in GPL'd projects. For years, authors have provided sample code for just about every type of software and algorithm possible with the stipulation that the reader can use the code for any purpose.
"As such, ordinary USE can not be copyright infringement. And thus, you don't need any permision, license or any EULA to use something."
So, I can just walk into a bookstore, pick up a book and walk out without paying for it and not break the law?
In those situations where the author has given you permission to access his copyrighted material without any further restrictions beyond those established by copyright, you have the right to use it. You have no automatic right to use copyrighted material for any purpose.
You can borrow a book from the library and read it soley because the copyrighted material has been purchased by the publisher from the author.
I don't think the phrase "adding rights" appears in the definition of "mutal exchange of consideration", but correct me if I'm wrong.
Consideration is something bargained for in exchange for something else. (It's interesting that as a practical matter, real bargaining rarely takes place between an individual and an organization; neither EULA's or the GPL are bargained)
In the case of closed source software, you pay money and agree to abide by the terms of the EULA. In exchange, the company's allows you to use the software.
So you think if the EULA for the software you bought is found illegal you're just going to get all the rights from simple copyright law for the money you already spent and that's the end of the story?
At best you'd probably get the right to return the software, get your money back and you and the company will part ways. The company will narrowly revise its EULA to address the court's concerns and then it's back to business as usual.
"No, if you look at the subject we were actually talking about, it was whether or not the GPL is enforceable in court. The answer is yes, because it ADDS rights instead of taking them away."
Adding rights is neither necessary nor sufficient to guarantee that a license will be enforceable in court.
"Other EULA's, however, since they REMOVE rights, if they are deemed invalid, users will gain back the rights they lost."
"After all, you can GPL rather than open to the public domain (as many choose to do for good reason) but you can NOT GPL something in the public domain."
That may be true for the orginal work, but you can create a derivative work from a public domain source and license it under any scheme you want. So there really isn't anything you can do with GPL'd code that you can't do with public domain code.
Slashdot Mirror
I see what you're saying but I think innovation can continue if potential competitors have the skill and guts to take on the current market leader.
As joked about in the movie Back to the Future III, any products from Japan were considered junk in the 1950's and yet by the 1980's Japan was beating up US car companies despite the fact that the US companies collectively dominated the world market.
Today the iPod is a big hit despite the fact that under the theory the EU believes in, Media Player-based portable players should be dominant.
"It's kind of sad the way Microsoft has convinced some people that not bundling an application that you can't uninstall so that you can use a competing media player is somehow less functional."
Your phrase "so that you can use a competing media player" is wrong. You can use a competing media player in the normal version of Windows and have been able to do so for many years.
"It was the Media Player application that was to be removed, not the APIs it uses."
Well this a recurring problem when courts order functionality removed. They really don't have the knowledge necessary to evaluate the results. Even among people who have that knowledge, it's not all black and white.
"It says in TFA that RealNetworks demonstrates a fully-functioning Media Player-less Windows."
Has RealNetworks provided a detailed description of exactly what they changed? How do we know that this is legitimate? Surely they're not an independent party here.
"What has Real got to do with this?"
Everything. Lobbying by Real is the only reason the EU is requireing this special version of Windows.
Ok, it's early in the morning and I just used "it's" in the parent for a possessive case. Sorry.
"the commission has to verify the requirement that Microsoft refrain from using any commercial, technological or contractual terms that would have the effect of rendering the unbundled version of Windows less attractive or less functional."
Of course this is impossible to achieve. Removing Media player obviously makes Windows less functional by definition.
Although I can see why companies like Real might benefit from an unbundled version of Windows, it's a lot harder to see how it helps consumers unless there's a very substantial reduction in price.
The commision is so obsessed with making this Media Playerless version of Windows successful, I wonder if they'll require MS to do deceptive advertising to hide it's limitations.
I liked the idea of getting rid of the "switch statement from hell" you need when using the raw Windows API, but MFC didn't seem to be a good choice in the general case. Great if you want to recreate yet another MDI editor though. I never had a reason to create one, however.
"Those millions of Windows developers who move to .NET (wait for it) have also just learned what they need to develop for MONO (Linux)."
This is strategy Sun failed to consider with respect to Java and MS. Had they not sued MS, a lot more Windows developers would have learned and used Java. Sure, they may have used non-pure extensions in their programs, but 90% of what they learned would apply to pure Java as well and those skills could have been applied to other platforms.
Visual Studio didn't provide any automatic linkage between resources such as dialog boxes and C++ code except when you used MFC.
Or did I missunderstand what you were implying?
"IMHO Java's only useful feature is that it has the best platform portability in computing history"
No. That would be C.
"it plans to compete directly with Windows."
The line for products to compete with Windows forms in the back. Lotus Notes, Java, browser-based apps, and network computers are already in line. Desktop 10 will just have to wait its turn.
"With your example of stealing from a shop, that is regulated by normla property laws, which say that you can't take something from someone. That has nothing to do with copyright laws at all."
Ah, but people have been claiming here that copyright gives you the right of use. If it really did, you could take the book. "Normal property" laws as you call them, limit the power of copyright to those situations where the material was obtained legitimately.
I'm getting tired of being at the bottom of this pile-on, so this is my last post on the matter.
"Because they aren't valid contracts, you can answer however you like and not be bound by it."
You guys are living in a fantasy world. Do you really think that large corporations would pay millions of additional dollars in order to comply with the terms of EULA's if they weren't valid?
"Nope. In typical software sales, you never agree to follow the EULA."
So in typical software sales you note the message than indicates opening the seal on the CD means you agree with the EULA and you don't agree with it and return the software for a refund? I guess software companies don't make very much money.
If you want to eliminate MS Windows from your life, why do you want to connect to it over a terminal server?
"Making the user sign an EULA to get patched really is no different than the car dealer not being willing to do warranty repairs unless you purchase another service."
Actually, it's very different in several ways.
First, most car purchases include a specific warrenty in writing. Software typically doesn't.
Also agreeing to the EULA online is just a reaffirmation of something you've already agreed to when you installed the software. If you intend to follow the terms of EULA you already agreed to, this is just an inconvenience.
You're right. By using the phrase "really isn't" I meant to convey that there's nothing that most authors would want to do with GPL'd code that they couldn't do with public domain code. I didn't actually say that though, so your critism is valid.
On the other hand, I suspect that there's plenty of public domain code in GPL'd projects. For years, authors have provided sample code for just about every type of software and algorithm possible with the stipulation that the reader can use the code for any purpose.
"As such, ordinary USE can not be copyright infringement. And thus, you don't need any permision, license or any EULA to use something."
So, I can just walk into a bookstore, pick up a book and walk out without paying for it and not break the law?
In those situations where the author has given you permission to access his copyrighted material without any further restrictions beyond those established by copyright, you have the right to use it. You have no automatic right to use copyrighted material for any purpose.
You can borrow a book from the library and read it soley because the copyrighted material has been purchased by the publisher from the author.
I don't think the phrase "adding rights" appears in the definition of "mutal exchange of consideration", but correct me if I'm wrong.
Consideration is something bargained for in exchange for something else. (It's interesting that as a practical matter, real bargaining rarely takes place between an individual and an organization; neither EULA's or the GPL are bargained)
In the case of closed source software, you pay money and agree to abide by the terms of the EULA. In exchange, the company's allows you to use the software.
So you think if the EULA for the software you bought is found illegal you're just going to get all the rights from simple copyright law for the money you already spent and that's the end of the story?
At best you'd probably get the right to return the software, get your money back and you and the company will part ways. The company will narrowly revise its EULA to address the court's concerns and then it's back to business as usual.
I wonder if you could legally create a derivative parody of a GPL'd application and distribute it without source?
"No, if you look at the subject we were actually talking about, it was whether or not the GPL is enforceable in court. The answer is yes, because it ADDS rights instead of taking them away."
Adding rights is neither necessary nor sufficient to guarantee that a license will be enforceable in court.
"Other EULA's, however, since they REMOVE rights, if they are deemed invalid, users will gain back the rights they lost."
Gain back what rights?
"In all cases the GPL grants rights because the GPL can only be applied to copyrighted code. You can't GPL code which is in the public domain. "
Obviously, you can't say "I'm putting this code in the public domain and Oh, by the way, I'm licensing it under the GPL too." So what?
The fact is that the GPL isn't the most liberal license or legal arrangement possible. Get used to it.
"After all, you can GPL rather than open to the public domain (as many choose to do for good reason) but you can NOT GPL something in the public domain."
That may be true for the orginal work, but you can create a derivative work from a public domain source and license it under any scheme you want. So there really isn't anything you can do with GPL'd code that you can't do with public domain code.