It's confusing because the term "open source" probably wasn't used in 1967. If you had the source code it probably meant you had to compile it to run, if not, you didn't. It's not as if you could take the code home and run it on your own mainframe.
As others have pointed out, this was driven by technological limitations of the time along with the fact that software was often bundled with hardware. In that era computers were so expensive customers often leased rather than owned as well.
Once the price of hardware came down and money could be made from software alone, the source was no longer given away. Had RMS actually worked in the real business world he would have realized that things had already changed outside of academia.
What you state is true for the Linux "brand". Unless the I/O capabilities and application code running on the "worlds fastest super computers" can run on your wristwatch, it doesn't matter.
Neither one is making making money from software they originally wrote. IBM continues to be an attractive company from a CYA point of view ("nobody ever got fired by buying from IBM") and Redhat is the CYA company for Linux.
Do you think that a software startup should have the goal of becoming the next IBM?
"Likewise past efforts don't buy you any present-day credibility in such a development environment, you are only as relevant as the changes you are making, and that by and large will always be biased towards large corporations with a vested interest in the kernel's technical direction."
That sounds like a typically bureaucratic philosophy. I suspect that the true pioneers of Linux aren't particularly concerned about the opinions of large corporations - they know what they've accomplished.
I was including Linus in the non-paid developers category. Of course, one could argue that the country of Finland deserves some credit for providing a safety net that allows young people to follow their dreams without worrying about survival. Who knows if Linux would exist if Linus had been born in the US - he might of ended up working at MS.
Yes, once Linux was established as a viable OS, companies jumped on the bandwagon.
The real business issue about GPL'd code isn't whether established companies will support it once it is successful, but whether you can start your own for-profit software business if you license your software under the GPL.
"They CAN continue to sell MS Office - so long as they remove support for customized-XML based documents"
No they can't continue to sell MS Office, they CAN sell a new version of Office with that feature removed. That's quite a difference and will be very expensive to do since it involves brick-and-mortar stores, not just updating a download.
There's no money in enforcing a patent against Open Office, so we won't sue you. Should you start making a lot of money, we'll get back to you with our updated policy.
MS Word doesn't have to go away just to allow people to use OOo. Those who want to do it already.
As for buying software and support "from the people who actually develop it", I wasn't aware that somebody other than MS was claiming they developed Word. Even if MS ends up losing this case on appeal, this XML feature represents a tiny fraction of the code and functionality of the product.
Didn't everybody say the Office Open XML was just a ploy so that MS could say they have an open format? If so, why would they "have to have it at any cost"? Sounds like a great way for MS to maintain closed standards while having a great excuse: "We came up with an open format but the courts wouldn't let us continue to use it".
Yes, I know you believe that you understand what our "little Luser brothers" really need, but the courts are unlikely to apply your personal views in deciding this issue.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that the only kind of mail that existed in 1967 was written on paper and that Zawinski was born in 1968 right?
Perhaps they were following the precedent set by the Valerie Plame case and assumed that it was OK to out covert CIA officers.
It's confusing because the term "open source" probably wasn't used in 1967. If you had the source code it probably meant you had to compile it to run, if not, you didn't. It's not as if you could take the code home and run it on your own mainframe.
It's your point that remains unclear. Stolen proprietary source code is open source?
As others have pointed out, this was driven by technological limitations of the time along with the fact that software was often bundled with hardware. In that era computers were so expensive customers often leased rather than owned as well.
Once the price of hardware came down and money could be made from software alone, the source was no longer given away. Had RMS actually worked in the real business world he would have realized that things had already changed outside of academia.
What you state is true for the Linux "brand". Unless the I/O capabilities and application code running on the "worlds fastest super computers" can run on your wristwatch, it doesn't matter.
Since a non-OS can't compete with Windows.
Neither one is making making money from software they originally wrote. IBM continues to be an attractive company from a CYA point of view ("nobody ever got fired by buying from IBM") and Redhat is the CYA company for Linux.
Do you think that a software startup should have the goal of becoming the next IBM?
"Likewise past efforts don't buy you any present-day credibility in such a development environment, you are only as relevant as the changes you are making, and that by and large will always be biased towards large corporations with a vested interest in the kernel's technical direction."
That sounds like a typically bureaucratic philosophy. I suspect that the true pioneers of Linux aren't particularly concerned about the opinions of large corporations - they know what they've accomplished.
I was including Linus in the non-paid developers category. Of course, one could argue that the country of Finland deserves some credit for providing a safety net that allows young people to follow their dreams without worrying about survival. Who knows if Linux would exist if Linus had been born in the US - he might of ended up working at MS.
Want to make a profit? None of the above.
You may be right, but linking to thedailywtf for anything informative? You've got to be kidding.
The point is that Linux would simply not exist except for the efforts of non-paid developers. The same cannot be said of Red Hat, IBM et al.
Yes, once Linux was established as a viable OS, companies jumped on the bandwagon.
The real business issue about GPL'd code isn't whether established companies will support it once it is successful, but whether you can start your own for-profit software business if you license your software under the GPL.
Oh, sure. Once MS removes the feature the number of the patent owner's customers will reach double-digits.
Congratulations on your transition from depression to denial.
"They CAN continue to sell MS Office - so long as they remove support for customized-XML based documents"
No they can't continue to sell MS Office, they CAN sell a new version of Office with that feature removed. That's quite a difference and will be very expensive to do since it involves brick-and-mortar stores, not just updating a download.
"And workers in Sun can be sued as Sun employees because they are officially working on OOo as Sun employees."
Good luck with that. Since when has an employee been successfully sued for patent infringement?
Sun does not own Open Office and soon Oracle will continue to not own it.
There's no money in enforcing a patent against Open Office, so we won't sue you. Should you start making a lot of money, we'll get back to you with our updated policy.
MS Word doesn't have to go away just to allow people to use OOo. Those who want to do it already.
As for buying software and support "from the people who actually develop it", I wasn't aware that somebody other than MS was claiming they developed Word. Even if MS ends up losing this case on appeal, this XML feature represents a tiny fraction of the code and functionality of the product.
Didn't everybody say the Office Open XML was just a ploy so that MS could say they have an open format? If so, why would they "have to have it at any cost"? Sounds like a great way for MS to maintain closed standards while having a great excuse: "We came up with an open format but the courts wouldn't let us continue to use it".
Yes, I know you believe that you understand what our "little Luser brothers" really need, but the courts are unlikely to apply your personal views in deciding this issue.
They can't sell Office as a result of the injunction. I wouldn't call that a "negligible" impact.
Right. As long as you don't get too good at it or know how to "take a dive".