Unisys were well aware of the widespread use of LZW GIF image compression in many vendors software, so it's better to use PNG.
Dangerous Because of Microsoft Patent Claims Trap
on
Mono Ships ASP.NET server
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Microsoft's CEOs have made it "patently" clear that they intend to restrict competing.Net implementations by cultivating Microsoft's patents, such as United States Patent Application #20020059425 "Distributed computing services platform" [uspto.gov] which covers the design and inter-operation of.NET based implementations. Although there is prior art examples of individual technologies such as the JVM etc, Microsoft patents such as the one mentioned, define and claim the interoperation of the components, in such a way that any re-implementations will be sure to be covered by the patents. This remains true even for the Microsoft specs submited to standard
JBoss received the green light last week, after Sun told ComputerWire that it would allow all of the APIs contained in J2EE 1.4 to be open sourced. Fleury had expressed concern that certain critical APIs, including Enterprise Java Beans (EJB) 2.1, would be not be made available to open source organizations.
However, Java Community Process director Onno Kluyt said: "Sun's plan with 1.4 is that although it started before JCP 2.5, by the time it ships it will allow the creation of independent implementations. I don't think the APIs are that interesting, because the license that sits on top of J2EE will allow that [independent implementations]".
There those that claim that.NET is open to re-implementation, but until Microsoft make a simliar public legal declaration to Sun's JSPA, any.NET reimplementation represents a pending legal mindfield.
If your planning on spending most of your time actually developing or deploying rather than administrating open source systems, then do yourself and open source in general a favor and consider becoming a self-employed contractor.
As a contractor, it is easier to avoid getting locked into internal (and infernal) NDAs development agreements, the bane of my current position.
The concept of open source and development is finally gaining ground and it's a lot easier these days to sell your development services, based on open sourced and free licensed software, to other interested parties.
Individual jobs come and go, but GPL and LGPL licensed source is forever.
AC Wrote: "There are plenty of Common Lisp tools (IDEs, web servers, utilities, etc.) available at reasonable prices or free: Allegro Common Lisp "...
Common Lisp vendors, including franz missed the window of oppertunity during the impressionable years from 1983 to 1998. Even with making the tools readly available to universites, the commercial and per-seat licenses where expensive even incomparison to IBM's offerings.
bane, I read your comments and glanced at my copy of the steel jacketed "Franz Inc. Common Lisp, the Reference", gathering dust upon my bookshelf and wept for what might have been.
The problem is that the big players priced the Compiler based Common lisp development frameworks right out of the reach of most business developers. They also failed to take full advantage in the increasing capability of the PC, turning their noses up at in favour of past glories of the Symbolics machines. A good Lisp compiler could factor out the "cons", producing code sometimes surpassing the performance of C++.
The void was filled mostly by C++ and now Java, lesser beasts dispite their current quality standard libraries, overly verbose and fragmented incomparison to Common Lisp elegance.
Today there are open implementation of the lisp compilers, but they still lack a comparable development enviroment to the commercial varients. Sadly, since I started professionally in 1988, I have not had one job or contract were they would consider the adoption of Common lisp, and I have never programed professionally in it. David Betz's XLisp, and later XScheme was the closest I came to using it at work for scripting, and at home for some early AI-planning system hacking that has yet to see the light of day.
In my opinion, IBM's Eclipse IDE has finally comming close to surpassing the old benchmark of the commercial Lisp IDEs, it even has the ability to plug in refactoring tools. But then I can remember when, thanks to the "cons"-ed Lisp, manupulating the source of the program was as easy as mainpulating the data,
g4dget wrote: "If you think that a statement of intent on a web page somewhere is a legally binding contract..." If the Apache foundation lawyers have a signed paper copy of the aformentioned letter, yes.
g4dget wrote: "The open source community should not touch either of them.". Opens source development often follows the very successful strategy of finding a standard that works and re-implementing it and building upon it. It is possible to reimplement standards based on proprietary products but due care should still take place
GNU/Linux is a implementation based on Unix and the Posix standards. Unix was proprietary licensed by AT&T, and early open source BSD386 (what became FreeBSD and NetBSD ) development, which replaced the remaining proprietary AT&T code in BSD, was greatly hampered by threats and lawsuits from AT&T. Early Linux development escaped legal entanglement precisely because the developers took steps to insure no such code mixing with AT&T's source took place. However, this took place before software patents were in widespread use, in fact it was not until 1991 that most software companies took any interest in software patents at all.To quote Bill Gates May 16, 1991 email "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."
Does this mean that the open source development community should avoid any and all frameworks and patented methords? NO - There is a better way.
The solution is to start a negotiation "dialog" with all the parties involved, getting them to actually support open source implementations and licensing based on their proprietary products. How? It's not easy but it is possible. 1) Win-Win: demonstrate how it is in there best interest to work with the open source community - using open source developed code to ad value to there own products 2) Reward : Any relatively good behavour, incomparison to other players, reward - say thank you and promote them. 3) Converted partners : When you have made a "convert" to open source, such as IBM and SAP, them to badger other partners into also adopting open source friendly licenses. 4) Comparison : play one against the other, Get Microsoft to open it's.NET spec and patent licensing by continualy comparing them to Sun's terms.
5) Badger, Badger, Badger them with the truth : Long conversations and confontations are tiring but it forces the other side to truly consider the issues.
In the long term, does it work? Yes. With the X Window System, in 1998 the Open Group releases X11R6.4 under restrictive licensing, after months of haggling and bitter arguing, The Open Group rescinded the restrictive licensing. On November 14th of this year, again after months of similar haggling and bitter arguing, the Patent Policy Working Group of the W3C announced the Royalty-Free Patent Policy.
It's ironic, but the open source friendly licensing model actualy bring about a solution to the software patient problem proposed by Bill Gates himself in the same email, patent exchanges - "The solution to this is patent exchanges with large companies and patenting as much as we can". Since no company can aparently truly trust the competition in long term relationships, open source friendly licensing provides a methord where competing parties can build upon each others patents.
g4dget wrote: "You think everybody who isn't enamored with Sun must be a Microsoft shill?" Well, the tactics you employ under the shear weight of contradictory linked evidence is a tactic I find often applied by members of the Microsoft Shill persuasion. No, I don't work for Sun, IBM or any other vendor in the IT industry, but I do admire and promote postive behavour when I see it.
And Why re-implement either? - Opens source development often follows the successful strategy of finding a standard that works and re-implementing it and building upon it. Linux from Unix, JBoss from Sun's J2EE specs, etc. If it comes to a choice between one of the dominant webservice standards, Java or.NET, who should open source developers choose?
In essence, when your experts join your expert group, they grant the spec lead the right to sublicense the existing intellectual property they bring to developing the JSR. That not only includes patents, but copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets as well. You and your experts can, in turn, choose whatever license form you desire for your output. If you choose the new Open Source License, you steer your technology's users clear of possible infringement on patents, trademarks, or other intellectual property they might not initially be aware of.
Sun will be submitting the updated J2SE, J2EE etc to the new JCP, and therefore are effectively granting open source developer members full rights to re-implement the standard.
Do you need to be cautious, yes. But is it safer to create an open source Java framework than to re-implementing.NET - Hell yes.
You are reaching if you think that combining Sun's statement on the JCP together with some minor revisions of Java2 mean that Sun makes available all their patents for free Java implementations.
Gingell notes that, "When J2SE is available under the terms of JCP 2.5, if someone wanted to implement it from specifications, they could do so without also licensing the reference implementation. They would have to license the TCKs to verify that they'd made a compatible implementation. They would thus have to be a TCK licensee, which would be available for free to qualified nonprofits."
g4dget wrote:"Sun has made no legally binding commitments on keeping Java open.". At least Sun's Robert A. Gingell
Sun Fellow & Vice President has published a Letter of Intent which includes the declration
Again in the interests of meeting the spirit of the requirements, Sun will modify the specification licenses of all the JSRs currently in progress to reflect Apache's requirements as met in the new draft JSPA. And we reaffirm a previous statement that we would work over time to change the licenses of previously completed JSRs to comply with the new JSPA draft. We specifically commit to doing such changes at a minimum for:
As noted in the introductory summary, we believe these changes constitute a full meeting of Apache's requirements both in letter and in spirit.
Which at least is an effectively legally binding commitment for the aformention JSRs.
It's a start, and it's value should not be dismissed lightly. Once again, Where are the equivalent public declarations from Microsoft?
Why will not Sun pull out of this accord? - Because, increasingly, it is not in Sun's self interest to do so.
Sun has adopted the LGPL/GPL licensed GNOME Desktop for both it's Solaris and Linux systems. In fact so much more open sourced software is being deployed on their systems, adding value to the platforms, that it is not in Sun's interest to limit free lisenced code interoperation with the Java frameworks. For similar reasons IBM and other Java licensese are pressuring Sun to further open up the Java enviroment.
In it's comments of the voting for the new JCP IBM even commented:
IBM's vote is based on the technical merits of this JSR and is not a vote on the licensing terms. IBM supports licensing models that create an open and level playing field by allowing third parties to create independent implementations of Java Specifications and that do not allow individuals or companies to exercise unnecessary control for proprietary advantage. We support open source as a licensing model for contributions in the JCP, and would hope others will support this direction. This comment is not necessarily directed at the current business or license terms for this JSR, however, it is a statement of IBM's preferred licensing model.
Forces are moving into place which is going to make it very difficult for Sun to backslide to a close model again.
As for FUD, it seem to me that over time, Microsoft is becoming the sole dominant player in lies based on untruths.
By the way g4dget, are you any relation to John Carroll?
Q: Whats a JSR? A: A JSR is a Java Specification Request. This is the document submitted to the PMO by one or more members to propose the development of a new specification or significant revision to an existing specification. There are currently more than 90 Java technology specifications in development in the JCP program, including the next versions of Java(TM) 2, Micro Edition (J2ME(TM)), Java(TM) 2 Platform Enterprise Edition (J2EE(TM)), and Java(TM) 2 Standard Edition (J2SE(TM)).
But how can you, as a JSR lead, grant that right, where those patents are owned by the companies that make up your expert group? The JCP 2.5 JSPA addresses both in-bound and out-bound intellectual property. In-bound intellectual property is the set of patents, licenses, or other rights that you and your expert group members bring to the table. Out-bound intellectual property signifies the rights of your specification's users, reference implementation, and compatibility test kit.
In essence, when your experts join your expert group, they grant the spec lead the right to sublicense the existing intellectual property they bring to developing the JSR. That not only includes patents, but copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets as well. You and your experts can, in turn, choose whatever license form you desire for your output. If you choose the new Open Source License, you steer your technology's users clear of possible infringement on patents, trademarks, or other intellectual property they might not initially be aware of.
Sun is playing by those new rules. "Prior to the use of JCP 2.0, [Sun's Java licensees] were the only ones to gain access to the technologies needed to implement the things that comprise the Java technology from Sun," explains Gingell. "And licensees typically got all of the specifications, implementations, and conformance tests along with service and support programs as a bundle.
"One way to look at JCP and its evolution is that it's a process of unbundling all of these things. As of JCP 2.5...the specifications, reference implementations, conformance tests are all separately available," adds Gingle. "J2SE is not today available under the terms of JCP 2.5. Sun did commit to making available some of the JSRs it has led under 2.5 terms prior to the adoption of 2.5 by the JCP, and we have committed that all prior JSRs would be available under those terms but on an indefinite schedule. The expectation is that those changes will occur as maintenance on the technology occurs, roughly over the course of a year or so we'd expect."
To facilitate open source J2SE implementations, in August 2002, Sun announced a scholarship program for qualified nonprofit organizations that require access to Sun's compatibility tests to verify their adherence to JSR standards. Nonprofit groups that qualify can obtain Sun's compatibility test kits free of charge.
Gingell notes that, "When J2SE is available under the terms of JCP 2.5, if someone wanted to implement it from specifications, they could do so without also licensing the reference implementation. They would have to license the TCKs to verify that they'd made a compatible implementation. They would thus have to be a TCK licensee, which would be available for free to qualified nonprofits."
At least Sun is making concrete steps towards being more open. Where are the equivalent public declarations from Microsoft?
Remember I stated : Although there is prior art examples of individual technologies such as the JVM etc, Microsoft patents such as the one mentioned, define and claim the interoperation of the components, in such a way that any re-implementations will be sure to be covered by the patents.
"JCP 2.5 breaks new ground by making open source licensing possible for those who work on Java specifications and those who create compatible independent implementations of the specifications," said Jason Hunter, vice-president, Apache Software Foundation and JCP Executive Committee member. "In addition the cost structure has been changed to allow smaller developer groups and individual developers to gain broader access to Java specifications, often times free of cost."
It may not be perfect, but at least it is fully open.
Microsoft's CEOs have made it "patently" clear that they intend to restrict competing.Net implementations by cultivating Microsoft's patents, such as United States Patent Application #20020059425 "Distributed computing services platform" which covers the design and inter-operation of.NET based implementations.Although there is prior art examples of individual technologies such as the JVM etc, Microsoft patents such as the one mentioned, define and claim the interoperation of the components, in such a way that any re-implementations will be sure to be covered by the patents. This remains true even for the Microsoft specs submited to standard
There those that claim that.NET is open to re-implementation, but until Microsoft make a simliar public legal declaration to Sun's JSPA, any.NET reimplementation represents a pending legal mindfield.
However, your representation of the piece and Hetzel's position is that government-granted monopolies such as patent and copyright are what allow the creation of business "monopolies".
Thats why my comment to the article reads
Compainies like Microsoft are
sustaining it's dominate position in the markerplace by using a state-constructed and granted monopoly, which gives Microsoft the monopoly over it's protocols, effectively just as restrictive as the East India Trading Company trading zone monopoly of the Orient.
And why Hetzel and Adams stated
Free markets make the formation of monopoly difficult because monopoly requires the adherence of all actual and potential sellers in a market. Self-interest makes achievement of such adherence difficult because each seller has an incentive to undercut the monopoly price in order to increase his share of the market. Monopoly power is increased or made possible if enforced by the government. In the following passage Smith refers to the guilds, or corporations, of his day:
An incorporation...makes the act of the majority binding upon the whole. In a free trade an effectual combination cannot be established but by the unanimous consent of every single trader, and it cannot last longer than every single trader continues of the same mind. The majority of a corporation can enact a bye-law with proper penalties, which will limit the competition more effectually and more durably than any voluntary combination whatever. (p. 129)
These also refer to the "sustaining" of a monopoly.
With apologies to Dr "Suse", to the tune of "Green Eggs and Ham".
Linux can. Linux can.Use Linux
That Linux can! That Linux can! I do not like that Linux can!
Do you like open sourcing plan?
I do not like that Linux can. I do not like the open sourcing plan.
Would you like to free source share?
I would not like to free source share. I would not like it anywhere. I do not like open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Would you like it very stable? Would you like it to enable?
I do not like it very stable. I do not like it to enable. I do not like to free source share. I do not like it anywhere. I do not like the open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Would you use it in a X-Box? Would you use it if it ROCKS?
Not on X-box. Not if it rocks. Not if very stable. Not to enable. I would not let them free source share. I would not let them anywhere. I would not allow open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Would you? Could you? In your biz? Use it! Use it! Here it is.
I would not, could not, in our biz.
You may like it. You will see. You may like it if it's free!
I would not, could not if it's free. Not in our biz! It should never be!
I do not like it on the X-box. I do not like it that it rocks. I do not like it amongst our biz. I do not like it that it is. I do not like they free source share. I do not like that anywhere. I do not like that Linux can. I do not like you Linux man!
service! service! service! service! Could you, would you, as a service?
Not as a service! Not if it's free! Not in my biz! Man! Let not it be! I would not, could not, on a X-box. I could not, would not, if it rocks. I will not use it if its stable. I will not use it even to enable. I will not let them free source share. I will not let them anywhere. I do not like open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Say! if in copyleft? always free copyleft! Would you, could you, copyleft?
I would not, could not, in copyleft.
Would you, could you, why so nervous?
I would not, could not, I'm NOT nervous. Not as copyleft. Not as a service. Not in my biz. Not if it's free. I do not like that it can, you see. Not if it's stable. Not on X-box. Not to enable. Not if it rocks. I will not let them free source share. I do not like it anywhere!
You do not like open sourcing plan?
I do not like that Linux can.
Could you, would you use what we wrote?
I would not, could not, use what you wrote!
Would you, could you, to avoid your bloat?
I could not, would not, avoid bloat. I will not, will not, use what you wrote. I will not compete with them as a service. I will not because it makes us nervous. Not in our biz! Not if it's free! Not if it is! You let me be! I do not like it on the X-Box. I do not like it that it Rocks. I will not use it if it's stable. I do not like that it does enable. I do not like they free source share. I do not like it ANYWHERE
I do not like open sourcing plan!I do not like that, Linux can.
You do not like it. So you say. Try it! Try it! And you may. Try it and you may, I say.
Man! If you will let me be, I will try it. You will see.
Say! I like open sourcing plan! I do! I like that, Linux can! And I would use it because it's stable. And I could use it to enable...
And I could charge for providing a service. And I could copyleft without being nervous. And in my biz. And still source free. For you can still charge for a service fee!
So I will use it on the networked X-box. And I will promote it because it ROCKS. And I will use it because it's stable. And I will use it to enable.
And I will use it here and there.
Say! I can use it ANYWHERE!
I do so like open sourcing plan! Thank you! Thank you, Linux man!
MONOPOLY AND GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES: The principal theme set forth in The Wealth of Nations is that a country most effectively promotes its own wealth by providing a framework of laws that leaves individuals free to pursue the interest they have in their own economic betterment. This self-interest motivates individuals? propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another and thereby leads them to meet the needs of others through voluntary cooperation in the market place:
...man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and shew them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. (p. 14)
Everyone realises and acknowledges that Microsoft is a business, there to make a profit to share with it's marjor stakeholders, from it's shareholders to it's employees. However...
Smith also argues that the harmony between private goals and larger socially desirable goals promoted by voluntary cooperation between individuals in the market place is interfered with by monopoly and government subsidies. In contrast to competition, monopoly and government subsidies cause individuals to devote either too few or too many resources to particular markets:
....the private interests and passions of individuals naturally dispose them to turn their stock towards the employments which in ordinary cases are most advantageous to the society. But if from this natural preference they should turn too much of it towards those employments, the fall of profit in them and the rise of it in all others immediately dispose them to alter this faulty distribution. Without any intervention of law, therefore, the private interests and passions of men naturally lead to divide and distribute the stock of every society, among all the different employments carried on in it, as nearly as possible in the proportion which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society.
All the different regulations of the mercantile system, necessarily derange more or less this natural and most advantageous distribution of stock. (pp. 594-5) Every derangement of the natural distribution of stock is necessarily hurtful to the society in which it takes place; whether it be by repelling from a particular trade the stock which would otherwise go to it, or by attracting towards a particular trade that which would not otherwise come to it. (p. 597)
.... sometimes, because of the overiding profit motive, the end consumer can be put at a disadvantage, and the natural model can become unbalanced. This often happens in tha case of several types of monopoly...
Smith describes the actions of monopolists as follows:
The monopolists, by keeping the market constantly under-stocked, by never fully supplying the effectual demand, sell their commodities much above the natural price, and raise their emoluments, whether they consist in wages or profit, greatly above their natural rate. (p. 61)
The natural price is the lowest which the sellers can commonly afford to take, and at the same time continue their business. (p. 61) Today we would use the word competitive for natural. The effectual demand is the demand of those who are willing to pay the natural price of the commodity. (p. 56) Monopoly, as well as a governmentally subsidized activity, contrasts with a competitive market where a commodity is...sold precisely for what it is worth, or for what it really costs the person who brings it to market. (p. 55) The Wealth of Nations contains three general kinds of criticism of monopolies. The first is that the higher prices in a monopolized market reduce the welfare of consumers:
If...capital is divided between two different grocers, their competition will tend to make both of them sell cheaper, than if it were in the hands of one only; and if it were divided among twenty, their competition would be just so much the greater, and the chance of their combining together, in order to raise the price, just so much the less. Their competition might perhaps ruin some of themselves; but to take care of this is the business of the parties concerned, and it may safely be trusted to their discretion. It can never hurt either the consumer, or the producer; on the contrary, it must tend to make the retailers both sell cheaper and buy dearer, than if the whole trade was monopolized by one or two persons. (pp. 342-3) In every country it always is and must be the interest of the great body of the people to buy whatever they want of those who sell it cheapest. The proposition is so very manifest, that it seems ridiculous to take any pains to prove it; nor could it ever have been called in question, had not the interest sophistry of merchants and manufacturers confounded the common sense of mankind. Their interest is, in this respect, directly opposite to that of the great body of the people. As it is the interest of the freemen of a corporation to hinder the rest of the inhabitants from employing any workmen but themselves, so it is the interest of the merchants and manufacturers of every country to secure to themselves the monopoly of the home market. (p. 461)
.... like deals made between vendors to set prices, which RAND "reasonable" licensing systems effectively does.
The second criticism of monopoly is that it engenders inefficient management:
Monopoly...is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established but in consequence of that free and universal competition which forces everybody to have recourse to it for the sake of self-defence. (p. 147)
For example, Microsoft's Internet Explorer containscurrently 20 unpatched vulnerabilities, a disproportionately high number in comparison to all the other browers on the market today. Also, because of a general disregard for security in the past, many of those same vulnerabilities are exploitable though other Microsoft applications.
The third criticism of monopoly is that it is inequitable because it increases arbitrarily the inequality in individuals? incomes:
...The policy of Europe occasions a very important inequality in the whole of the advantages and disadvantages of the different employments of labour and stock, by restraining the competition in some employments to a smaller number than might otherwise be disposed to enter into them. (pp. 118-19)
And there is many a CIO discovering that the new Microsoft enterprise licensing agreement is far more expensive than before.
Monopoly has always been a contentious issue in debates on public policy in the United States. It is interesting to examine the way in which the ideas of Smith appear in current debates over monopoly. In general, proponents of government intervention in the market place argue that monopoly is endemic in capitalism and that its elimination requires significant intervention by the government in the market place. An opposing group argues that free markets effectively restrain monopoly power and that it is in fact government intervention in the market place that is chiefly responsible for monopoly. The first group assumes that large size, fewness of firms, and operation over an extensive geographic area automatically imply monopoly power and thus supports its position by citing the existence of industries dominated by a few large firms and the existence of multinational corporations. The opposing group supports its position by trying to show that where monopoly power exists it is made possible by particular governmental actions, e.g., in the United States by marketing orders that fix the price of milk above what it would be otherwise, or FCC regulations restricting the growth of cable TV, thereby preventing competition with the established networks.
The view of the world suggested in The Wealth of Nations is that monopoly power cannot persist without the assistance of government. The specific examples of monopoly that Adam Smith attacked required the police power of the state for their maintenance. These monopolies were of three kinds. One kind of monopoly depended upon the mercantilistic system of laws which England used to monopolize trade with its colonies: Monopoly of one kind or another, indeed, seems to be the sole engine of the mercantile system. (p. 595) Another kind arose from the monopoly power granted guilds (referred to by Smith as corporations), which allowed them exclusive rights to produce a given commodity:
The exclusive privilege of an incorporated trade necessarily restrains the competition, in the town where it is established, to those who are free of the trade. To have served an apprenticeship in the town, under a master properly qualified, is commonly the necessary requisite for obtaining this freedom. The bye-laws of the corporation regulate sometimes the number of apprentices which any master is allowed to have, and almost always the number of years which each apprentice is obliged to serve. The intention of both regulations is to restrain the competition to a much smaller number than might otherwise be disposed to enter into the trade. The limitation of the number of apprentices restrains it directly. A long term of apprenticeship restrains it more indirectly, but as effectually, by increasing the expence of education. (p. 119) The government of towns corporate was altogether in the hands of traders and artificers; and it was the manifest interest of every particular class of them, to prevent the market from being overstocked, as they commonly express it, with their own particular species of industry; which is in reality to keep it always understocked. (p. 124)
A final kind of monopoly depended upon tariffs and quotas that prevented foreign producers from competing with domestic producers:
The superiority which the industry of the towns has every-where in Europe over that of the country, is not altogether owing to corporations and corporation laws. It is supported by many other regulations. The high duties upon foreign manufactures and upon all goods imported by alien merchants, all tend to the same purpose. Corporation laws enable the inhabitants of towns to raise their prices, without fearing to be under-sold by the free competition of their own countrymen. Those other regulations secure them equally against that of foreigners. (p. 127)
Competitive markets restrain monopoly because the above-average profits associated with the exercise of monopoly power attract new producers who increase output and thereby lower prices:
When by an increase in the effectual demand, the market price of some particular commodity happens to rise a good deal above the natural price, those who employ their stocks in supplying that market are generally careful to conceal this change. If it was commonly known, their great profit would tempt so many new rivals to employ their stocks in the same way, that, the effectual demand being fully supplied, the market price would soon be reduced to the natural price.... Secrets of this kind, however, it must be acknowledged, can seldom be long kept; and the extraordinary profit can last very little longer than they are kept. (p. 60)
The next section is very IMPORTANT.
Monopolists can preserve their favorable position only if the government prevents potential competitors from entering the monopolized activity:
The exclusive privileges of corporations, statutes of apprenticeship, and all those laws which restrain, in particular employments, the competition to a smaller number than might otherwise go into them, have the same tendency...They...may frequently, for ages together, and in whole classes of employments, keep up the market price of particular commodities above the natural price, and maintain both the wages of the labour and the profits of the stock employed about them somewhat above their natural rate.
Such enhancements of the market price may last as long as the regulations of police which give occasion to them. (pp. 61-2)
In fact, the term "intellectual property" is a misnomer, a more correct term would be intellectual monopoly. Patents, Copyrights and even Trademarks are a government granted monopoly, they do not occur naturally. That does not mean that they are a bad thing per-say, but their use should be dictated by the benefit to socitety in general, with approprate limits so their use cannot be abused. These statutes give the power that the ol' Mercantile laws gave to those monopolies. There is no true effective choice in the market. Compainies like Microsoft are sustaining it's dominate position in the markerplace by using a state-constructed and granted monopoly, which gives Microsoft the monopoly over it's protocols, effectively just as restrictive as the East India Trading Company trading zone monopoly of the Orient.
Free markets make the formation of monopoly difficult because monopoly requires the adherence of all actual and potential sellers in a market. Self-interest makes achievement of such adherence difficult because each seller has an incentive to undercut the monopoly price in order to increase his share of the market. Monopoly power is increased or made possible if enforced by the government. In the following passage Smith refers to the guilds, or corporations, of his day:
An incorporation...makes the act of the majority binding upon the whole. In a free trade an effectual combination cannot be established but by the unanimous consent of every single trader, and it cannot last longer than every single trader continues of the same mind. The majority of a corporation can enact a bye-law with proper penalties, which will limit the competition more effectually and more durably than any voluntary combination whatever. (p. 129)
Smith?s ideas appear in current public debate over monopoly. Advocates of deregulating the transportation and communications industries by eliminating or reducing the power of Federal regulatory agencies argue that these agencies promote monopoly by limiting the entry of new firms and by fixing prices for all producers. Government regulations enforced upon all firms in an industry have the effect of allowing producers to eliminate competition and to raise prices. At the same time, lack of competition reduces incentives for efficient production.
And validation of the street performer protocol
on
Blender Is GPL
·
· Score: 2
This precedent also represents the potental validation of the many forms of street performer protocol. Open source and Commons preserving Free licensing is growing up.
Horace Greeley (1811-1872), Editor of the New York Tribune in
an editorial in 1841 said:
Do not lounge in the cities! There is room and health in the
country, away from the crowds of idlers and imbeciles. Go west,
before you are fitted for no life but that of the factory.
In the same way, I urge you to...
Do not lounge on the Microsoft platform! There is room and scope
on Linux, away from the crowds of idlers and imbeciles, Go open,
before you are fitted for no life but that of the helpdesk.
But more importantly, by 1871 Horace Greeley also wrote:
"This Daniel Boone business is about played out."
In the same way, the last decade's Linux customer base can be seen
as the self reliant pioneers. The "Do It Yourself" attitude and habit
was learned from a time when "doing for themselves" was the only option.
This is no longer the case, there are plenty new settlers
and far many more willing to migrate, who are all too willing to
pay for hardware, support, customization, collective development
and even quality proprietary licensed products.
It's envitable that the same laws requiring accessibility will eventually be applied to software as well.
From Bill Haneman:
I am delighted to relay the news that the
"GNOME Accessibility Architecture" has been singled out in this year's "Helen Keller Achievement Award in Technology", one of the annual "Helen Keller Awards" presented by the American Foundation for the Blind.
Although the award is officially being awarded to Sun Microsystems for its "leadership in universal design", it is the work of GNOME Accessibility that is specifically called out by the award presenters."
Samuel Plimsoll, M.P.
(1824-1898)
Samuel Plimsoll brought about one of the greatest shipping revolutions ever known by shocking the British nation into making reforms which have saved the lives of countless seamen. By the mid-1800's, the overloading of English ships had become a national problem. Plimsoll took up as a crusade the plan of James Hall to require that vessels bear a load line marking indicating when they were overloaded, hence ensuring the safety of crew and cargo. His violent speeches aroused the House of Commons; his book, Our Seamen, shocked the people at large into clamorous indignation. His book also earned him the hatred of many shipowners who set in train a series of legal battles against Plimsoll. Through this adversity and personal loss, Plimsoll clung doggedly to his facts. He fought to the point of utter exhaustion until finally, in 1876, Parliament was forced to pass the Unseaworthy Ships Bill into law, requiring that vessels bear the load line freeboard marking. It was soon known as the "Plimsoll Mark" and was eventually adopted by all maritime nations of the world.
The risks,issues and solutions for providing a more secure operating and application enviroment have been known for decades. Those who do not already comprehend the issues and are willing to learn, should take some time out to listen to some of the speeches at Dr. Dobbs Journal's Technetcast security archives, starting with Meeting Future Security Challenges by Dr. Blaine Burnam, Director, Georgia Tech Information Security Center (GTISC) and previously with the National Security Agency (NSA)
The "security rules" for Unix based system and application development are well known, although not widely taught. See Secure Programming for Linux and Unix by David Wheeler. Although Microsoft's NT,2000 and XP are not Unix based, a lot of the core above "rules" apply or have direct or indirect equivalents
Because some developers ignore similar above rules, the design and implementation of some applications and servers are just too unsafe to use in the "open ocean" of the internet.
Numerous security experts have railed against Microsoft's lack of security, best summed up by Bruce Schneier Founder and CTO Counterpane Internet Security, Inc who rightly stated...
Honestly, security experts don't pick on Microsoft because we have some fundamental dislike for the company. Indeed, Microsoft's poor products are one of the reasons we're in business. We pick on them because they've done more to harm Internet security than anyone else, because they repeatedly lie to the public about their products' security, and because they do everything they can to convince people that the problems lie anywhere but inside Microsoft. Microsoft treats security vulnerabilities as public relations problems. Until that changes, expect more of this kind of nonsense from Microsoft and its products. (Note to Gartner: The vulnerabilities will come, a couple of them a week, for years and years...until people stop looking for them. Waiting six months isn't going to make this OS safer.)
However Microsoft's products are not alone in the presence of vulnerabilities, this is a major issue for Linux/BSD and Unix as well as any other OS and vendor.
In a recent speech Fixing Network Security by Hacking the Business Climate Bruce Schneier claimed that for change to occur, the software industry must become libel for damages from "unsecure" software, however historically, this has not always been the case, since most businesses can insure against damages and pass the cost along to the consumer.
The Ford Pinto and more recently the Ford Explorer's tires are two examples of public and media pressure being more successful than just threat of lawsuits. Even so, eventually though public pressure the governments around the world have to step in and pass regulations that set up a minimum set of requirements an automobile has to meet to be deemed "road worthy". This includes crash testing as well as the inclusion of safety equipment on all models. The requirement are not constant and change to meet the expectations and demands of the public and lawmakers.
The onus is not only on the automotive industry itself but also on the users. Most countries require that all automobiles undergo regular inspection and maintain an up to date "Warrant of Fitness".
In the same way, if you want a secure IT infrastructure, eventually the software design, implementation and each deployment will have to undergo the same type of regulation and scrutiny.
For paid software distributions, this could mean just a tick list of security features and security tests to the other extreme of requiring the source code to be fully audited for government/secure deployments.
For users, this would require running a program that checks to make sure that all the required software security update/patches have been installed to the other extreme of requiring an audited deployment for government/secure deployments.
Users and vendors should be taking a more active approach, including lobbying government, to
1) set up a minimum set of expectations, in the design and implementation of internet "accessing" software ; and
2) ensure that all deployments are more securely implemented ; and/or
3) remove inherently unsecure products from the marketplace.
IMO the above three are preferable to all software vendors, including Microsoft, than attempts to allow liability lawsuits against vendors for deployments which the software vendors have very little control over.
If your a developer who wishes to distribute binary packages then you should consider targeting Linux Standard Base C libraries. Be prepared to provide binaries of any non-LSB based libraries, either static linked or make sure that all binaries are called via shell scripts that set the LD_LIBRARY_PATH to a directory containing the unpacked dynamic libraries. Thank RMS, the licensing of almost all of the Libraries in Linux distributions make this a breeze. GNOME2 is heading towards a consistant ABI interface, expect a LSB style spec and toolkits next year.
If you develop in C++, make the effort to upgrade to GCC 3.2 and the new style standard C++ library style of programming. Believe me it's worth the effort. The only execption to this is if your interacting/recompiling with older KDE or Mozilla. The latter needs GCC-2.96 to load plugins.
With Redhat 7.x, Redhat began to ship with most default package configerations "secure by default". Maybe it is time for all the distributions to consider shipping with external services such as Apache configured to run under chroot. Eventualy dedicated servers will require a LSM/SE Linux type enviroment to run exposed services.
I know the Java JVM is alreasy stack based , but is is far too complex to for the generated code to be verified. Stick with a very simple FORTH based stack with three data stack, long (64) int, Floating point ( 80/128? ). Note, no strings at all, all object/Array access via int syscalls.
Slashdot Mirror
Unisys were well aware of the widespread use of LZW GIF image compression in many vendors software, so it's better to use PNG.
Although there is prior art examples of individual technologies such as the JVM etc, Microsoft patents such as the one mentioned, define and claim the interoperation of the components, in such a way that any re-implementations will be sure to be covered by the patents. This remains true even for the Microsoft specs submited to standard
In comparison, Sun has granted the Apache and all open source developers FULL access to the specs, test kits and granted the full rights to develop competing products under the JSPA . Sun has also fully pened up the Java development standards process under the new Java Community Process (JCP). Even to the point of granting full open source re-implentations of J2EE such as JBoss...
There those that claim that .NET is open to re-implementation, but until Microsoft make a simliar public legal declaration to Sun's JSPA, any .NET reimplementation represents a pending legal mindfield.
As a contractor, it is easier to avoid getting locked into internal (and infernal) NDAs development agreements, the bane of my current position.
The concept of open source and development is finally gaining ground and it's a lot easier these days to sell your development services, based on open sourced and free licensed software, to other interested parties.
Individual jobs come and go, but GPL and LGPL licensed source is forever.
Common Lisp vendors, including franz missed the window of oppertunity during the impressionable years from 1983 to 1998. Even with making the tools readly available to universites, the commercial and per-seat licenses where expensive even incomparison to IBM's offerings.
The problem is that the big players priced the Compiler based Common lisp development frameworks right out of the reach of most business developers. They also failed to take full advantage in the increasing capability of the PC, turning their noses up at in favour of past glories of the Symbolics machines. A good Lisp compiler could factor out the "cons", producing code sometimes surpassing the performance of C++.
The void was filled mostly by C++ and now Java, lesser beasts dispite their current quality standard libraries, overly verbose and fragmented incomparison to Common Lisp elegance.
Today there are open implementation of the lisp compilers, but they still lack a comparable development enviroment to the commercial varients. Sadly, since I started professionally in 1988, I have not had one job or contract were they would consider the adoption of Common lisp, and I have never programed professionally in it. David Betz's XLisp, and later XScheme was the closest I came to using it at work for scripting, and at home for some early AI-planning system hacking that has yet to see the light of day.
In my opinion, IBM's Eclipse IDE has finally comming close to surpassing the old benchmark of the commercial Lisp IDEs, it even has the ability to plug in refactoring tools. But then I can remember when, thanks to the "cons"-ed Lisp, manupulating the source of the program was as easy as mainpulating the data,
If the Apache foundation lawyers have a signed paper copy of the aformentioned letter, yes.
g4dget wrote: "The open source community should not touch either of them.".
Opens source development often follows the very successful strategy of finding a standard that works and re-implementing it and building upon it. It is possible to reimplement standards based on proprietary products but due care should still take place
GNU/Linux is a implementation based on Unix and the Posix standards. Unix was proprietary licensed by AT&T, and early open source BSD386 (what became FreeBSD and NetBSD ) development, which replaced the remaining proprietary AT&T code in BSD, was greatly hampered by threats and lawsuits from AT&T. Early Linux development escaped legal entanglement precisely because the developers took steps to insure no such code mixing with AT&T's source took place. However, this took place before software patents were in widespread use, in fact it was not until 1991 that most software companies took any interest in software patents at all.To quote Bill Gates May 16, 1991 email "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today."
Does this mean that the open source development community should avoid any and all frameworks and patented methords? NO - There is a better way.
The solution is to start a negotiation "dialog" with all the parties involved, getting them to actually support open source implementations and licensing based on their proprietary products. How? It's not easy but it is possible. .NET spec and patent licensing by continualy comparing them to Sun's terms.
1) Win-Win: demonstrate how it is in there best interest to work with the open source community - using open source developed code to ad value to there own products
2) Reward : Any relatively good behavour, incomparison to other players, reward - say thank you and promote them.
3) Converted partners : When you have made a "convert" to open source, such as IBM and SAP, them to badger other partners into also adopting open source friendly licenses.
4) Comparison : play one against the other, Get Microsoft to open it's
5) Badger, Badger, Badger them with the truth : Long conversations and confontations are tiring but it forces the other side to truly consider the issues.
In the long term, does it work? Yes. With the X Window System, in 1998 the Open Group releases X11R6.4 under restrictive licensing, after months of haggling and bitter arguing, The Open Group rescinded the restrictive licensing. On November 14th of this year, again after months of similar haggling and bitter arguing, the Patent Policy Working Group of the W3C announced the Royalty-Free Patent Policy.
It's ironic, but the open source friendly licensing model actualy bring about a solution to the software patient problem proposed by Bill Gates himself in the same email, patent exchanges - "The solution to this is patent exchanges with large companies and patenting as much as we can". Since no company can aparently truly trust the competition in long term relationships, open source friendly licensing provides a methord where competing parties can build upon each others patents.
g4dget wrote: "You think everybody who isn't enamored with Sun must be a Microsoft shill?"
Well, the tactics you employ under the shear weight of contradictory linked evidence is a tactic I find often applied by members of the Microsoft Shill persuasion. No, I don't work for Sun, IBM or any other vendor in the IT industry, but I do admire and promote postive behavour when I see it.
And Why re-implement either? - Opens source development often follows the successful strategy of finding a standard that works and re-implementing it and building upon it. Linux from Unix, JBoss from Sun's J2EE specs, etc. .NET, who should open source developers choose?
If it comes to a choice between one of the dominant webservice standards, Java or
Sun will be submitting the updated J2SE, J2EE etc to the new JCP, and therefore are effectively granting open source developer members full rights to re-implement the standard.
Do you need to be cautious, yes. But is it safer to create an open source Java framework than to re-implementing .NET - Hell yes.
Your ignoring the last paragraph quoted from Effort on the edge, Part 1
g4dget wrote:"Sun has made no legally binding commitments on keeping Java open.".
At least Sun's Robert A. Gingell Sun Fellow & Vice President has published a Letter of Intent which includes the declration
Which at least is an effectively legally binding commitment for the aformention JSRs.
It's a start, and it's value should not be dismissed lightly. Once again, Where are the equivalent public declarations from Microsoft?
Why will not Sun pull out of this accord? - Because, increasingly, it is not in Sun's self interest to do so.
Sun has adopted the LGPL/GPL licensed GNOME Desktop for both it's Solaris and Linux systems. In fact so much more open sourced software is being deployed on their systems, adding value to the platforms, that it is not in Sun's interest to limit free lisenced code interoperation with the Java frameworks.
For similar reasons IBM and other Java licensese are pressuring Sun to further open up the Java enviroment.
In it's comments of the voting for the new JCP IBM even commented:
Forces are moving into place which is going to make it very difficult for Sun to backslide to a close model again.
As for FUD, it seem to me that over time, Microsoft is becoming the sole dominant player in lies based on untruths.
By the way g4dget, are you any relation to John Carroll?
From Effort on the edge, Part 1
At least Sun is making concrete steps towards being more open.
Where are the equivalent public declarations from Microsoft?
Go to the US Patent Office's website and do a search yourself ( hint "AN/Microsoft" ), there are plenty of examples of patents to be concerned about.
The DOJ negotated Microsoft Communications Protocol Program effectivly grants Microsoft the ability to boycott GPL/LGPL licensed implementations.
It may not be perfect, but at least it is fully open.
In comparison, Sun has granted the Apache and all open source developers FULL access to the specs, test kits and granted the full rights to develop competing products under the JSPA. Sun mhas also fully opened up the Java development standards process under the new Java Community Process (JCP).
There those that claim that .NET is open to re-implementation, but until Microsoft make a simliar public legal declaration to Sun's JSPA, any .NET reimplementation represents a pending legal mindfield.
I've got a flying combine harvester
Thats why my comment to the article reads
And why Hetzel and Adams statedThese also refer to the "sustaining" of a monopoly.
With apologies to Dr "Suse", to the tune of "Green Eggs and Ham".
Linux can. Linux can .Use Linux
That Linux can! That Linux can! I do not like that Linux can!
Do you like open sourcing plan?
I do not like that Linux can. I do not like the open sourcing plan.
Would you like to free source share?
I would not like to free source share. I would not like it anywhere. I do not like open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Would you like it very stable? Would you like it to enable?
I do not like it very stable. I do not like it to enable. I do not like to free source share. I do not like it anywhere. I do not like the open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Would you use it in a X-Box? Would you use it if it ROCKS?
Not on X-box. Not if it rocks. Not if very stable. Not to enable. I would not let them free source share. I would not let them anywhere. I would not allow open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Would you? Could you? In your biz? Use it! Use it! Here it is.
I would not, could not, in our biz.
You may like it. You will see. You may like it if it's free!
I would not, could not if it's free. Not in our biz! It should never be!
I do not like it on the X-box. I do not like it that it rocks. I do not like it amongst our biz. I do not like it that it is. I do not like they free source share. I do not like that anywhere. I do not like that Linux can. I do not like you Linux man!
service! service! service! service! Could you, would you, as a service?
Not as a service! Not if it's free! Not in my biz! Man! Let not it be! I would not, could not, on a X-box. I could not, would not, if it rocks. I will not use it if its stable. I will not use it even to enable. I will not let them free source share. I will not let them anywhere. I do not like open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.
Say! if in copyleft? always free copyleft! Would you, could you, copyleft?
I would not, could not, in copyleft.
Would you, could you, why so nervous?
I would not, could not, I'm NOT nervous. Not as copyleft. Not as a service. Not in my biz. Not if it's free. I do not like that it can, you see. Not if it's stable. Not on X-box. Not to enable. Not if it rocks. I will not let them free source share. I do not like it anywhere!
You do not like open sourcing plan?
I do not like that Linux can.
Could you, would you use what we wrote?
I would not, could not, use what you wrote!
Would you, could you, to avoid your bloat?
I could not, would not, avoid bloat. I will not, will not, use what you wrote. I will not compete with them as a service. I will not because it makes us nervous. Not in our biz! Not if it's free! Not if it is! You let me be! I do not like it on the X-Box. I do not like it that it Rocks. I will not use it if it's stable. I do not like that it does enable. I do not like they free source share. I do not like it ANYWHERE I do not like open sourcing plan!I do not like that, Linux can.
You do not like it. So you say. Try it! Try it! And you may. Try it and you may, I say.
Man! If you will let me be, I will try it. You will see.
Say! I like open sourcing plan! I do! I like that, Linux can! And I would use it because it's stable. And I could use it to enable...
And I could charge for providing a service. And I could copyleft without being nervous. And in my biz. And still source free. For you can still charge for a service fee!
So I will use it on the networked X-box. And I will promote it because it ROCKS. And I will use it because it's stable. And I will use it to enable.
And I will use it here and there. Say! I can use it ANYWHERE!
I do so like open sourcing plan! Thank you! Thank you, Linux man!
By The Cat with the RedHat
With added commentary by yours truly...
Everyone realises and acknowledges that Microsoft is a business, there to make a profit to share with it's marjor stakeholders, from it's shareholders to it's employees. However
For example, Microsoft's Internet Explorer containscurrently 20 unpatched vulnerabilities, a disproportionately high number in comparison to all the other browers on the market today. Also, because of a general disregard for security in the past, many of those same vulnerabilities are exploitable though other Microsoft applications.
And there is many a CIO discovering that the new Microsoft enterprise licensing agreement is far more expensive than before.
The next section is very IMPORTANT.
In fact, the term "intellectual property" is a misnomer, a more correct term would be intellectual monopoly. Patents, Copyrights and even Trademarks are a government granted monopoly, they do not occur naturally. That does not mean that they are a bad thing per-say, but their use should be dictated by the benefit to socitety in general, with approprate limits so their use cannot be abused.
These statutes give the power that the ol' Mercantile laws gave to those monopolies. There is no true effective choice in the market. Compainies like Microsoft are sustaining it's dominate position in the markerplace by using a state-constructed and granted monopoly, which gives Microsoft the monopoly over it's protocols, effectively just as restrictive as the East India Trading Company trading zone monopoly of the Orient.
Quoting a recent article of mine
Be sure to check out Lawrence Lessig's freeculture speech.
The risks,issues and solutions for providing a more secure operating and application enviroment have been known for decades. Those who do not already comprehend the issues and are willing to learn, should take some time out to listen to some of the speeches at Dr. Dobbs Journal's Technetcast security archives, starting with Meeting Future Security Challenges by Dr. Blaine Burnam, Director, Georgia Tech Information Security Center (GTISC) and previously with the National Security Agency (NSA)
The "security rules" for Unix based system and application development are well known, although not widely taught. See Secure Programming for Linux and Unix by David Wheeler. Although Microsoft's NT,2000 and XP are not Unix based, a lot of the core above "rules" apply or have direct or indirect equivalents
Because some developers ignore similar above rules, the design and implementation of some applications and servers are just too unsafe to use in the "open ocean" of the internet.
Numerous security experts have railed against Microsoft's lack of security, best summed up by Bruce Schneier Founder and CTO Counterpane Internet Security, Inc who rightly stated
However Microsoft's products are not alone in the presence of vulnerabilities, this is a major issue for Linux/BSD and Unix as well as any other OS and vendor.
In a recent speech Fixing Network Security by Hacking the Business Climate Bruce Schneier claimed that for change to occur, the software industry must become libel for damages from "unsecure" software, however historically, this has not always been the case, since most businesses can insure against damages and pass the cost along to the consumer.
The Ford Pinto and more recently the Ford Explorer's tires are two examples of public and media pressure being more successful than just threat of lawsuits. Even so, eventually though public pressure the governments around the world have to step in and pass regulations that set up a minimum set of requirements an automobile has to meet to be deemed "road worthy". This includes crash testing as well as the inclusion of safety equipment on all models. The requirement are not constant and change to meet the expectations and demands of the public and lawmakers.
The onus is not only on the automotive industry itself but also on the users. Most countries require that all automobiles undergo regular inspection and maintain an up to date "Warrant of Fitness".
In the same way, if you want a secure IT infrastructure, eventually the software design, implementation and each deployment will have to undergo the same type of regulation and scrutiny.
For paid software distributions, this could mean just a tick list of security features and security tests to the other extreme of requiring the source code to be fully audited for government/secure deployments.
For users, this would require running a program that checks to make sure that all the required software security update/patches have been installed to the other extreme of requiring an audited deployment for government/secure deployments.
Users and vendors should be taking a more active approach, including lobbying government, to
1) set up a minimum set of expectations, in the design and implementation of internet "accessing" software ; and
2) ensure that all deployments are more securely implemented ; and/or
3) remove inherently unsecure products from the marketplace.
IMO the above three are preferable to all software vendors, including Microsoft, than attempts to allow liability lawsuits against vendors for deployments which the software vendors have very little control over.
If you develop in C++, make the effort to upgrade to GCC 3.2 and the new style standard C++ library style of programming. Believe me it's worth the effort. The only execption to this is if your interacting/recompiling with older KDE or Mozilla. The latter needs GCC-2.96 to load plugins.
With Redhat 7.x, Redhat began to ship with most default package configerations "secure by default".
Maybe it is time for all the distributions to consider shipping with external services such as Apache configured to run under chroot.
Eventualy dedicated servers will require a LSM/SE Linux type enviroment to run exposed services.
I know the Java JVM is alreasy stack based , but is is far too complex to for the generated code to be verified. Stick with a very simple FORTH based stack with three data stack, long (64) int, Floating point ( 80/128? ). Note, no strings at all, all object/Array access via int syscalls.