There's a lot of talk about rules for a monopoly around here, but I think everyone is just making up their own list. Certainly the court didn't restrict MS from requiring an MSN icon on the desktop. Despite what AOL says, allowing OEMs to put competitors' icons on the desktop is a significant concession for MS. AOL is just upset that they can't make a deal with OEMs to monopolize the desktop.
"The GPL's definition, or the definition of its authors, of deriviatve work doesn't matter at all. What matters is what copyright law considers to be a derivative work, and therefor what the copyright holder on the original work can apply terms to."
So you're saying that part of the GPL is meaningless. Wouldn't it be better to eliminate it then?
"This is all clearly spelled out on the GNU pages, which no-one involved in this debate seems to have bothered to read."
I suspect that if there was litigation on this matter, the content of the GNU pages would not be admissible.
I wasn't trying to suggest that you wanted to eliminate the "derivative work" language. That was my own idea. The only part that had to do with you was "You're right". Perhaps I should have put the rest in a different paragraph.
On the other hand, I don't see incorporating source as a derivation, it's simply copying. If you eliminate incorporation from derivation you and I pretty much agree on this.
I would be surprised if RMS made such a revision to the GPL since it could slow the growth of GPL'ed code (IMHO).
"What Mr. Mundie fails to note here, is that GPL'd works, being copyrighted, eventually are put into the public domain, at which time companies are perfectly free to create proprietary derived works."
But there's a very long time delay before these works get into the public domain and as we've seen recently, the owners of the work can find ways to extend it even longer.
"This is perhaps a legitimate point, and a clear definition of a derivative work should be incorporated into the next version of the GPL."
You're right. This is the greedy part of the GPL, where it tries to lay claim to work that doesn't belong to it. Eliminating the derivative work clause might make the GPL less pervasive, but it would make it more legitimate.
"Contrary to Microsofts claims, Passport users actually have more control over their personal data when they visit sites that have no privacy policy posted! That's a deceptive trade practice"
Where does MS claim that Passport users will have more control over their personal data when they visit sites that have a privacy policy than those that don't?
First of all they treat Passport, Hailstorm, Wallet and.Net as if they are part of Windows XP, which they are not. All of these initiatives can be used independently of XP.
MS claims that users don't have to sign up for a Passport, which is true. MS claims that product activation doesn't collect personal information which is true. Where is their evidence that MS said XP does "x" and in fact XP actually does "not x"?
I'm curious. Does Linux, KDE and GNOME document their APIs? I'm not talking about source code. Do they provide a database of API calls with descriptions, parameters, comments and examples?
It just goes to show that any company can be labeled a monopolist if you define the market accordingly. No company today has a monopoly in the same league as AT&T's prior to the break-up. The closest today is probably Ticketmaster, although it doesn't have the same scope.
"Today, chromatic reviews a book that can give a boost to Windows administrators learning to step up."
This is a troll. God forbid that anyone suggests that Linux users don't already know everything about the OS already. Political correctness aside, the major consumers of this book will be Linux and Unix users.
"What a crock. Firstly, he beat a bunch of tech journalists. That's like being impressed if an NBA coach beat a bunch of local sports beat writers at making free throws."
I believe Jeff Dunteman came in second in this contest and he's no slouch. He's authored books on Pascal, assembly langage and the power PC. Of course, contests like this are not very meaningful anyway. Nobody agrees on what being a "good coder" consists of anyway.
"I have already told all my family and friends to carefully consider the consequences of upgrading to XP and have sent them links to the tech articles that explain why."
Perhaps you should provide the links here. I don't see any negative consequences of upgrading to XP unless you want to make illegal copies.
"I even bought my dad Neal Stephenson's In the beginning was the command line..."
Well, I guess it depends on what is meant by "In the beginning". Certainly a lot of useful computing was going on before there was a command line interface.
I see a parallel between the command line OSes and black and white movies. Both are now considered to be the most serious form in some circles, but originally movies were B&W just because color wasn't feasible, and OSes used command lines because it was the best they could do with the technology of the time.
"AOL can distribute so many CDs because their customers pay for the service. Do you really want Sun to start changing $23 per month for using Java?"
Well, a lot of those CDs were sent out before AOL had ever made a profit.
I think it's up to Sun to figure out how it wants to distribute its proprietary software and if it wants to charge for it. If Sun doesn't want to take responsibility for it, why should anyone else?
That's a half a competition at best. Sun's primary competitors are IBM and HP because they play in the same market - Unix machines. Secondary competitors are the PC vendors+MS and Apple.
To be a competitor you must offer a product that can be reasonably substituted for another companies product. If a customer has historically used PCs or Apples, it requires a lot of trouble and training to switch to Unix. If a customer has historically used Unix it's difficult to switch to PCs or Apples. You can see how big the cultural issues are just by reading slashdot posts. That's why I think MS and Sun are not significant competitors.
"Solaris on the server, Sun clients running Solaris on the desktop, vs Windows. iPlanet servers on the server, vs IIS. There are probably a couple more, though."
What about the marketing part of my question? Has Sun promoted Solaris and iPlanet running on the PC? It's interesting to note that iPlanet can run on the PC under Windows NT 4, but not on the PC under Solaris. If they were serious about competing against Windows on the PC, would they have done that? In any case, if they want iPlanet to compete with IIS on the PC, they better update it for Windows 2000 or XP.
If Sun really wants Java to be supported, they should do the work. Why not send out CDs with the Java JRE on them. This would solve the downloading problem. AOL has been mailing CDs for years, why can't Sun?
"You company doesn't directly compete with Sun in the virtual-machine market and would lose no buisness if you included the JRE."
Just because PC OEMs don't compete in the virtual-machine market doesn't mean they want to promote Sun as a company. They do compete as computer manufacturers (although not as directly as HP and IBM).
The thing that fascinates me is how Sun sees itself as a big competitor to MS. Prior to Star Office, what software products did Sun sell and market for the PC? Even with Star Office, I don't see a lot of promotion on Sun's part. I think the real competition is between Gates and McNealy, not between MS and Sun.
"It would indeed be seriously helpful if there was a clear (or even a hazy) definition in law as to how far you could go in terms of trashing other companies' business by sticking more bits onto and together within your products but, as the appeals court said, right now there isn't."
So it sounds to me like the court is not only making the law up as it goes along, but doesn't even understand what law it's making.
"Syntax? Capitilazations? This is what coding standards are for, and any good _team_ will have a well-defined standard for things like that precisely for this reason."
While I find some people's coding style annoying (since it isn't my style), it's never affected my ability to understand their code. I think coding standards are mostly a symptom of our compulsive nature as programmers to try to instill order where none is required. It also provides us something easier to do during a code review than analyze the logic.
"My thinking is that if you teach a kid how to use Gnome and/or KDE in grade school and then teach them how to use the command line in middle and high school, they'll come out of it with a pretty good knowledge of the workings of PCs."
I think this relationship you speak of between the command line and "knowledge of the workings of PCs" is just praise by association. Presumably you use some version of Unix with its command line interface and I also presume that you have interest in the internal details of a PC. The two are not directly related. Your "knowledge of the workings of PCs" is not something you learned because you use "ls" instead of a GUI file manager.
"Why would they not learn anything under Linux/BSD/etc? In fact, I think it would help them even more, by actually KNOWING what's happening instead of turning into pointy-clicky machines."
Unix/Linux, like Windows, is based on abstractions. The CPU doesn't know any more about command line prompts than it does about mouse clicks. The question is which abstraction is more useful for the majority of children.
"Wall street Journal ran a column today about the Windows XP registration process, which is apparently news to a lot of people who don't read enough Slashdot."
I think most people will be aware of the XP registration process at the time they buy the software. For example, if you buy a computer from Gateway and you choose to have Office XP pre-installed, they warn you about the registration process. No doubt retail Windows XP boxes will clearly state the policy as well.
These days MS can't misspell a word without the press writing about it, so I suspect most people will learn about the registration process at the same time they learn about the existence of XP. After all, the Wall street Journal isn't exactly a geek publication.
Slashdot Mirror
"They can and probably will appeal the new penalties phase of the trial, whenever a judgement comes about. But this right here? This is done."
MS can still appeal the original Court of Appeals ruling to the Supreme Court before it goes back to the district court.
There's a lot of talk about rules for a monopoly around here, but I think everyone is just making up their own list. Certainly the court didn't restrict MS from requiring an MSN icon on the desktop. Despite what AOL says, allowing OEMs to put competitors' icons on the desktop is a significant concession for MS. AOL is just upset that they can't make a deal with OEMs to monopolize the desktop.
"The GPL's definition, or the definition of its authors, of deriviatve work doesn't matter at all. What matters is what copyright law considers to be a derivative work, and therefor what the copyright holder on the original work can apply terms to."
So you're saying that part of the GPL is meaningless. Wouldn't it be better to eliminate it then?
"This is all clearly spelled out on the GNU pages, which no-one involved in this debate seems to have bothered to read."
I suspect that if there was litigation on this matter, the content of the GNU pages would not be admissible.
I wasn't trying to suggest that you wanted to eliminate the "derivative work" language. That was my own idea. The only part that had to do with you was "You're right". Perhaps I should have put the rest in a different paragraph.
On the other hand, I don't see incorporating source as a derivation, it's simply copying. If you eliminate incorporation from derivation you and I pretty much agree on this.
I would be surprised if RMS made such a revision to the GPL since it could slow the growth of GPL'ed code (IMHO).
"What Mr. Mundie fails to note here, is that GPL'd works, being copyrighted, eventually are put into the public domain, at which time companies are perfectly free to create proprietary derived works."
But there's a very long time delay before these works get into the public domain and as we've seen recently, the owners of the work can find ways to extend it even longer.
"This is perhaps a legitimate point, and a clear definition of a derivative work should be incorporated into the next version of the GPL."
You're right. This is the greedy part of the GPL, where it tries to lay claim to work that doesn't belong to it. Eliminating the derivative work clause might make the GPL less pervasive, but it would make it more legitimate.
"Contrary to Microsofts claims, Passport users actually have more control over their personal data when they visit sites that have no privacy policy posted! That's a deceptive trade practice"
Where does MS claim that Passport users will have more control over their personal data when they visit sites that have a privacy policy than those that don't?
First of all they treat Passport, Hailstorm, Wallet and .Net as if they are part of Windows XP, which they are not. All of these initiatives can be used independently of XP.
MS claims that users don't have to sign up for a Passport, which is true. MS claims that product activation doesn't collect personal information which is true. Where is their evidence that MS said XP does "x" and in fact XP actually does "not x"?
Essentially their argument is that they don't believe what MS says about XP, so MS must be lying.
I'm curious. Does Linux, KDE and GNOME document their APIs? I'm not talking about source code. Do they provide a database of API calls with descriptions, parameters, comments and examples?
It just goes to show that any company can be labeled a monopolist if you define the market accordingly. No company today has a monopoly in the same league as AT&T's prior to the break-up. The closest today is probably Ticketmaster, although it doesn't have the same scope.
"Today, chromatic reviews a book that can give a boost to Windows administrators learning to step up."
This is a troll. God forbid that anyone suggests that Linux users don't already know everything about the OS already. Political correctness aside, the major consumers of this book will be Linux and Unix users.
"What a crock. Firstly, he beat a bunch of tech journalists. That's like being impressed if an NBA coach beat a bunch of local sports beat writers at making free throws."
I believe Jeff Dunteman came in second in this contest and he's no slouch. He's authored books on Pascal, assembly langage and the power PC. Of course, contests like this are not very meaningful anyway. Nobody agrees on what being a "good coder" consists of anyway.
"I have already told all my family and friends to carefully consider the consequences of upgrading to XP and have sent them links to the tech articles that explain why."
Perhaps you should provide the links here. I don't see any negative consequences of upgrading to XP unless you want to make illegal copies.
"I even bought my dad Neal Stephenson's In the beginning was the command line..."
Well, I guess it depends on what is meant by "In the beginning". Certainly a lot of useful computing was going on before there was a command line interface.
I see a parallel between the command line OSes and black and white movies. Both are now considered to be the most serious form in some circles, but originally movies were B&W just because color wasn't feasible, and OSes used command lines because it was the best they could do with the technology of the time.
"AOL can distribute so many CDs because their customers pay for the service. Do you really want Sun to start changing $23 per month for using Java?"
Well, a lot of those CDs were sent out before AOL had ever made a profit.
I think it's up to Sun to figure out how it wants to distribute its proprietary software and if it wants to charge for it. If Sun doesn't want to take responsibility for it, why should anyone else?
That's a half a competition at best. Sun's primary competitors are IBM and HP because they play in the same market - Unix machines. Secondary competitors are the PC vendors+MS and Apple.
To be a competitor you must offer a product that can be reasonably substituted for another companies product. If a customer has historically used PCs or Apples, it requires a lot of trouble and training to switch to Unix. If a customer has historically used Unix it's difficult to switch to PCs or Apples. You can see how big the cultural issues are just by reading slashdot posts. That's why I think MS and Sun are not significant competitors.
"Solaris on the server, Sun clients running Solaris on the desktop, vs Windows. iPlanet servers on the server, vs IIS. There are probably a couple more, though."
What about the marketing part of my question? Has Sun promoted Solaris and iPlanet running on the PC? It's interesting to note that iPlanet can run on the PC under Windows NT 4, but not on the PC under Solaris. If they were serious about competing against Windows on the PC, would they have done that? In any case, if they want iPlanet to compete with IIS on the PC, they better update it for Windows 2000 or XP.
If Sun really wants Java to be supported, they should do the work. Why not send out CDs with the Java JRE on them. This would solve the downloading problem. AOL has been mailing CDs for years, why can't Sun?
"You company doesn't directly compete with Sun in the virtual-machine market and would lose no buisness if you included the JRE."
Just because PC OEMs don't compete in the virtual-machine market doesn't mean they want to promote Sun as a company. They do compete as computer manufacturers (although not as directly as HP and IBM).
The thing that fascinates me is how Sun sees itself as a big competitor to MS. Prior to Star Office, what software products did Sun sell and market for the PC? Even with Star Office, I don't see a lot of promotion on Sun's part. I think the real competition is between Gates and McNealy, not between MS and Sun.
From the register story you site:
"It would indeed be seriously helpful if there was a clear (or even a hazy) definition in law as to how far you could go in terms of trashing other companies' business by sticking more bits onto and together within your products but, as the appeals court said, right now there isn't."
So it sounds to me like the court is not only making the law up as it goes along, but doesn't even understand what law it's making.
"Remember a little OS called OS/2?"
...
Compare the marketing dollars spent by MS on Windows 95 vs. IBM on OS/2.
"what happened to"
"word perfect" - They thought Windows was a fad so they didn't get in game until it was too late.
"Corel" - They bought word perfect after it was ditched by two other companies.
"Borland" - They got distracted by buying DBASE.
"Syntax? Capitilazations? This is what coding standards are for, and any good _team_ will have a well-defined standard for things like that precisely for this reason."
While I find some people's coding style annoying (since it isn't my style), it's never affected my ability to understand their code. I think coding standards are mostly a symptom of our compulsive nature as programmers to try to instill order where none is required. It also provides us something easier to do during a code review than analyze the logic.
"My thinking is that if you teach a kid how to use Gnome and/or KDE in grade school and then teach them how to use the command line in middle and high school, they'll come out of it with a pretty good knowledge of the workings of PCs."
I think this relationship you speak of between the command line and "knowledge of the workings of PCs" is just praise by association. Presumably you use some version of Unix with its command line interface and I also presume that you have interest in the internal details of a PC. The two are not directly related. Your "knowledge of the workings of PCs" is not something you learned because you use "ls" instead of a GUI file manager.
"Why would they not learn anything under Linux/BSD/etc? In fact, I think it would help them even more, by actually KNOWING what's happening instead of turning into pointy-clicky machines."
Unix/Linux, like Windows, is based on abstractions. The CPU doesn't know any more about command line prompts than it does about mouse clicks. The question is which abstraction is more useful for the majority of children.
Good thing all the poor people of the world can read English or this idea might not work.
"Wall street Journal ran a column today about the Windows XP registration process, which is apparently news to a lot of people who don't read enough Slashdot."
I think most people will be aware of the XP registration process at the time they buy the software. For example, if you buy a computer from Gateway and you choose to have Office XP pre-installed, they warn you about the registration process. No doubt retail Windows XP boxes will clearly state the policy as well.
These days MS can't misspell a word without the press writing about it, so I suspect most people will learn about the registration process at the same time they learn about the existence of XP. After all, the Wall street Journal isn't exactly a geek publication.