"RedHat is looking to long UK schools into their version of Linux, and charge for support later on."
Given that you can get to any company to support you with Linux (Redhat, Linuxcare,...) they certainly aren't trying to force them to use Redhat support (unless he has got the better quality/price ratio with school discounts), it's not as with proprietary software that aren't compatible with other tools and tha need frequent upgrade.
My favorite palindrome: a man a plan a canal panama
Mine is: Esope reste ici et se repose "Esope stay here and take some rest" in English but it doesn't have the same effect:(
Anyway: Amazing how the big Linux companies have brainwashed people into thinking that paying $50 gives you more than just a nice box, support and a printed manual.
Well, I thought that the manual, the nice box and the support was all so i wonder what they are trying to make us believe there is more.
The GPL apply to the case somebody modify a GPL'd software and sell it with/without the sources and try to forbid the user to redistribute it further, but I wonder what the GPL would say in this case. If the NSA asks this company to make a secure Linux and buy it from them they can keep the sources for them but is their a loophole in the GPL allowing the NSA to make them sign a contract not to sell it to anybody else?
I don't say there is such one because I haven't read the GPL inn a long time but I wonder if their is a loophole in the case of the buyer trying to restrict the producer and not the other way around (goal for which the GPL was thought).
If they are more likely to implement it in drivers then it is one more reason to make Free Sftware drivers, where they can't put such troyan horses (because this basically is a sort of troyan horse).
Easter is supposed to be closer to Christ's death since in the Bible it is when he is killed.
Xmas is even older than Pagan cults (also Pagan cults probably indirectly derived these cults from there), it goes as far as Babylon. If you read the Genesis their is a part about the "first" King of what was to be called Babylon, Nimrod (in fact I think his father was the first King). When he died his mother made a cult saying that his soul was living in the tree that didn't die (i.e. Xmas tree still have their needle in winter, they sort of "don't die" during winter).
But of course the Catholic religion (and most Christians inspired religions for that matter) have incorpored a lot of pagan cults, even the trinity can be found in some other form in other religions (Antic Greece, Egypt and even India).
Anyway all dates of Catholic celebrations are wrong because of the calendar, not the difference between Orthodox and Catholic calendar, but the difference between Solar revolution based and Lunar revolution based calendar. The Bible following a Lunar calendar any feast that has fixed dates in this calendar can't have fixed dates in a Solar calendar.
The GPL permits you to do what you've said as long as the new product is also available under an open source license
Nope, with the GPL your derived work MUST be under the GPL, any other license, even Open Source, won't work, otherwise I take Linux, re-license it to the BSD style and then relicense the BSD style version to proprietary, would be too easy.
Micropayment like the Minitel
on
License to Surf
·
· Score: 2
"We've had micropayments in the French Minitel system for 15 years and it is shown to work extremely well," he added.
Arrrgh, it may have worked well but when you see you phone bill you are horrified.
You Americans are lucky not to have a metered phone bill for the Internet. In Europe we generally have a metered one (you pay per minute, the rate per minute depending if it is a peak time or not).
For the Minitel you had special numbers that were more expensive, a part of the price going to the owner of the Minitel server, so when you see an advertisement saying that you can have game X gratuitously by going to 36 17 jeux (games) you go there, they make you wait between the screens so the phone bill goes up and you end up paying more than in a normal store (and you must wait for the game to be delivered). The most useful use for the minitel was teleshopping and the annuaire, the inscriptions in school was cool too.
If they really want to do a micropayment then it should be possible to choose between advertisement or micropayment (I personally don't care about ads, just ignore them most of the time) and it should be per page, not per minute (which is VERY different from the minitel).
Otherwise if they want to suppress the anonymity on the Web then maybe it is time to recreate something else and incorporate the last 10 years of experience.
"I don't think.25% of the market is all that signifigant."
It is not significant on the desktop yet but it is eating NT's lunch, that is Unix companies that would have switched to NT of there wasn't Linux, so it must be very frustrating for MS.
The desktop will follow soon. Last year (Xmas 98) I was explaining to some friends what Linux was and I was telling them that it wasn't ready for the desktop yet but in two years time it very probably would be. This year I think that we are very close to the desktop level, we just need some more polishing, an easier config, USB supported more broadly and a few more killer applications (like Gnucash, KOffice,...).
I can't believe people can moderate this bullshit to 5 with *interesting*. Ok, we are not supposed to moderate because we agree or disagree but because it is interesting or stupid, so let me show you why this is stupid with a parody of his post:
The EULA, by its very nature, creates conflicts between closed source developers and honest businesses -- large and small -- by putting them at odds with one another. It doesn't take more than a few minutes' reading at MS's Web site -- in which Bill Gates repeatedly issues a call to arms against "free" software (i.e. software which one can make money by selling a service) to see the antagonism. (His essay in which he asks hobbyists not tocopy his software is an especially good example of this attitude.) A movement whose focus is the destruction of people's businesses and livelihoods can only lead to a battle -- no, rather, to a war consisting of many battles and many casualties.
Everyone -- businesses and the open source community -- would be better off if we adopted the win/win, "live and let livee" approach of other software licenses, such as the BSD license, the MIT X license, and the Artistic License.
Open source that's reusable by all -- such as the BSD TCP/IP stack -- is responsible for the growth of the Internet and the success of the World Wide Web. Instead of threatening lawsuits based on overly restrictive licenses such as the EULA, we should say, "Use this code as you will. You can't un-publish what's already been published for the world to see, so you can't 'take' it; you can only use it to avoid tediously reinventing the wheel. Now, let's see what you can do wih it! If you do not choose to publish the source to what you build with it, good luck to you -- it's not easy to make a living that way. If you are good enough to do it you deserve success."
Do you think Billy boy will throw is EULA and adopt the BSD license because of your rethoric?
No, WHY?
Because different licenses have got different aims. The EULA's aim is to forbid you to copy the software or to use the code, the BSD aim is to allow anybody to use the code, open source developers or close source developers and the aim of the GPL is to allow people that are willing to share code to the GPL'd base to do so, without helping closed source program (the poroblem is that it helps less the non-GPL programs that are Free Software too).
Of course the GPL is more restrictive than the BSD,but it is his aim, and of course the GPL can lead to potentially more lawsuit, but only if people STEAL GPL'd code. You can't steal BSD code because he is given with quite no restrictions but if you use GPL'd code in proprietary product then you STEAL GPL'd code.
You would want us to throw away all our rights to the code, including the right for it to remain open, i won't do it until big corporations (MS in particular, or their heir (in the sense that MS is IBM heir for monopoly things and unethical practices)) do the same thing.
I may do it once in a while but this certainly is not my intent to give them all my code if they don't give me code or money back.
"changes in the patent system in the US cannot be made retroactive in any way that would result in doing away with existing patents. That would be a government taking of private property"
I this isn't possible then when the copyright period was extended from 50 years from the author's death to 70 years to the author's death the then existing copyright shouldn't have retroactively been affected by it, meaning that Mickey and co would be public domain by 20003 or something like that.
I we go one step further, the government took YOUR property (that is, the twenty more years given to the then existing copyrighted material) and should refund you for the amount they stole you, that is for each dollar somebody gave to Disney that was related to Mickey.
Your government owe a VERY big debt to it's citizen, I think you should sue him, you could make a LOT of money (and make the State go bankrupt BTW)
If two individuals or companies apply for patents on the same invention within a short time period neither of them deserves the patent.
If two or more companies apply for a patent of the same invention within a short time isn't it a proof that it was obvious enough that many different people could invent it, therefore making it non patentable.
I think this would be the logic reasoning and would have the same result with a small nuance, in the first case both believe they should have a patent on it, and they are angry not to have one. In the second case it prove that the thing is obvious, then denying any right to patent it AND following the rules of patents.
Well, up to now we believed that they were mythological creatures, but if they really exist and do the fight I explained in my precedent post then they are not a myth, therefore they are a pseudo-mythological creatures, that is real creatures.
Add to the conspiracy the fact that TT is based in Norway and that Linus is Finnishm two north european countries.
The question is, what would we do if such legislation was enacted here? Would we riot in the streets? Or more likely, would we just start a thread on slashdot and rant for a day or so?
The worse part is that as I understand it (correct me if I am wrong) you already have a law that destroy one of your fundamental rights, if not in the letter of the law, at least in the way it is applied.
The law: The DMCA (DIgital Millenium Copyright Act, or maybe with another order for the words)
The right: being considered innocent until proven guilty.
When you can have your free speech reduced without going to court then you ARE told guilty without going to court, and you MUST go to court to prove yourself innocent.
And the most outcry I have heard is in some/. discussion, nobody in the street (or so few that I didn't heard about it in the UK) to complain about it.
I have a qestion about the DMCA anyway. There was a/. comment that said that if your ISP didn't shut your site down at a copyright holder request then he was to be co-defendent not only in this case but in all the foregoing cases. Is it true only if you loose the case (you indeed infringed someone's copyright) or if you win the case the ISP isn't co-defendant to later cases. In the latter case it is already a reason tohave an outcry, but in the former case it really would be outrageous beyond any limit.
Anyway, with the censoring laws in Australia (and this new law), the DMCA in the US, the cryptography law in the UK that deny you the right to remain silent (not passed yet though) I wonder how many violation of human rights will occur in these country in the next few years.
"Everyday the second server (FP_23) in the line would crash."
"I have been using linux / samba on that server for 2 months now and no one has noticed anything."
To be sure that non one EVER notice anything, create a script that shutdown Samba once in a while and restart it after a delay.;)
So they will attribute it to NT's habitual crash and won't ever look after it, but you you won't have to touch it, otherwise they may want to know why it is stable all in a sudden and ask you to reinstall NT... oups, this was valid 3 years ago when everybody was clueless about Linux;)
My computer has come up with a clever means of implementing basic intelligens in patent office officials. As there doesn't seem to be any prior art, I beleive I shouldn't have any problems applying for a patent on behalf of my computer.
Oh, wait a minute, I have to apply at the patent office, don't I? Hmm, could be a problem...
Not exactly, you could probably patent it. If it is obfuscated enough that they don't understand what it means they will not be angry against you and may grant the patent, and if the obfuscation is good enough they will have no idea what this mean, will think that it is obviously an innovation and grant it to you.
The problem will be that after they won't want to pay you licensing fees to improve (create?) their clue level, therefore they will be condemn to stay as clueless:(
The implication would be that there are no Open Source projects that have "died out" for lack of continued development. This is just plain silly. Open Source project will continue as long as people are interested in the effects, but the network effect that he describes is important here. If another alternative is available and better, then the development will stop or never start.
This is a demonsration that Linux (and Free Software in general) is unFUDable. If a project dies it is because of a REAL problem, not because the competing company says that it is dead technology.
Do you know of any Free Software project that dies because his competitors where saying it is dead technology, or it is "hobbyist" software...? Personnaly I can't think of any (but maybe you can).
Would GIMP have started if Photoshop was free (or even dirt cheap) and available on many platforms?
Yep, because Photoshop still wouldn't be free (speech), but the project most probably would have begun at a later date, because there wouldn't have been such a need for it (because of the proprietary alternative).
With your privacy going to the drain thanks to the NSA, your right to knowledge too thanks to the DMCA, your democracy allowing a certain form of corruption called lobbying... shouldn't it be time that Americans stop to be proud that they have still (mostly) the same constitution and change it to give more control back to the peoples?
America: Land of Freedom, my ass, I prefer to stay in Europe.
I was under the impression that Google only returned results containing all search terms. Kind of odd.........probably not some kind of conspiracy.
Google effectively make an automatic AND between the terms but I suppose that if there is no term responding to the AND query he make an OR, so you end up with some responses even if you don't have a page having all these words together.
They *want* other companies to use thier code in closed source programs. The GPL doesn't allow it. Hence, Sun allows other companies to use their code in proprietary applications for a fee.
Wouldn't a double licensing like the QPL and a proprietary license have the same effect?
1. The Open Source license make sure it is open, but may impose conditions on the maintener (that is what the QPL do it seems to me).
2. The proprietary license allow them to license the code for a fee to companies wanting to include it in proprietary software.
And they would have avoided the problem we have now.
Sometimes I think this is a good thing for Sun's customers that want to look at it and that may want to license Sun's code. And now that Sun seems to be clearer that it is not an Open Source license then it's fine with me, it is better than totally closed source while not being totally Open Source and therefore not for me.
With this POV this is a step in the right direction.
But sometimes the SCSL appears to me like a "sect". That is, it is easy to enter the sect/community but once you are in this is very hard to get out and you are never sure to ever get rid of it.
It is easy to have access to Sun's code but once you have read it you hardly can prove you didn't use it for your own Free Software. This is why I would avoid any code under this license, or any similar license, because I fear (rightly or not) that it may restrain my liberty to code software related to what code I saw.
I don't say that it was Sun's incentive (put people in a dangerous position if they do both SCSL and Open Source) to create the SCSL but it looks like this could be one of the consequences, so I will avoid this kind of license like the plague and if I was an employer I would forbid my employees to look at it and ask new employees on their exposure until their is some clarification of the SCSL made to avoid this problem.
Slashdot Mirror
"RedHat is looking to long UK schools into their version of Linux, and charge for support later on."
Given that you can get to any company to support you with Linux (Redhat, Linuxcare,...) they certainly aren't trying to force them to use Redhat support (unless he has got the better quality/price ratio with school discounts), it's not as with proprietary software that aren't compatible with other tools and tha need frequent upgrade.
My favorite palindrome: a man a plan a canal panama
Mine is:
Esope reste ici et se repose
"Esope stay here and take some rest" in English but it doesn't have the same effect
Anyway:
Amazing how the big Linux companies have brainwashed people into thinking that paying $50 gives you more than just a nice box, support and a printed manual.
Well, I thought that the manual, the nice box and the support was all so i wonder what they are trying to make us believe there is more.
The GPL apply to the case somebody modify a GPL'd software and sell it with/without the sources and try to forbid the user to redistribute it further, but I wonder what the GPL would say in this case.
If the NSA asks this company to make a secure Linux and buy it from them they can keep the sources for them but is their a loophole in the GPL allowing the NSA to make them sign a contract not to sell it to anybody else?
I don't say there is such one because I haven't read the GPL inn a long time but I wonder if their is a loophole in the case of the buyer trying to restrict the producer and not the other way around (goal for which the GPL was thought).
Anyone has got a clue???
If they are more likely to implement it in drivers then it is one more reason to make Free Sftware drivers, where they can't put such troyan horses (because this basically is a sort of troyan horse).
Easter is supposed to be closer to Christ's death since in the Bible it is when he is killed.
Xmas is even older than Pagan cults (also Pagan cults probably indirectly derived these cults from there), it goes as far as Babylon. If you read the Genesis their is a part about the "first" King of what was to be called Babylon, Nimrod (in fact I think his father was the first King). When he died his mother made a cult saying that his soul was living in the tree that didn't die (i.e. Xmas tree still have their needle in winter, they sort of "don't die" during winter).
But of course the Catholic religion (and most Christians inspired religions for that matter) have incorpored a lot of pagan cults, even the trinity can be found in some other form in other religions (Antic Greece, Egypt and even India).
Anyway all dates of Catholic celebrations are wrong because of the calendar, not the difference between Orthodox and Catholic calendar, but the difference between Solar revolution based and Lunar revolution based calendar. The Bible following a Lunar calendar any feast that has fixed dates in this calendar can't have fixed dates in a Solar calendar.
Oh, BTW where is Xmas mentioned in the Bible?
The GPL permits you to do what you've said as long as the new product is also available under an open source license
Nope, with the GPL your derived work MUST be under the GPL, any other license, even Open Source, won't work, otherwise I take Linux, re-license it to the BSD style and then relicense the BSD style version to proprietary, would be too easy.
"We've had micropayments in the French Minitel system for 15 years and it is shown to work extremely well," he added.
Arrrgh, it may have worked well but when you see you phone bill you are horrified.
You Americans are lucky not to have a metered phone bill for the Internet. In Europe we generally have a metered one (you pay per minute, the rate per minute depending if it is a peak time or not).
For the Minitel you had special numbers that were more expensive, a part of the price going to the owner of the Minitel server, so when you see an advertisement saying that you can have game X gratuitously by going to 36 17 jeux (games) you go there, they make you wait between the screens so the phone bill goes up and you end up paying more than in a normal store (and you must wait for the game to be delivered). The most useful use for the minitel was teleshopping and the annuaire, the inscriptions in school was cool too.
If they really want to do a micropayment then it should be possible to choose between advertisement or micropayment (I personally don't care about ads, just ignore them most of the time) and it should be per page, not per minute (which is VERY different from the minitel).
Otherwise if they want to suppress the anonymity on the Web then maybe it is time to recreate something else and incorporate the last 10 years of experience.
"I don't think
It is not significant on the desktop yet but it is eating NT's lunch, that is Unix companies that would have switched to NT of there wasn't Linux, so it must be very frustrating for MS.
The desktop will follow soon. Last year (Xmas 98) I was explaining to some friends what Linux was and I was telling them that it wasn't ready for the desktop yet but in two years time it very probably would be. This year I think that we are very close to the desktop level, we just need some more polishing, an easier config, USB supported more broadly and a few more killer applications (like Gnucash, KOffice,...).
If your motive is to create an alternative OS to take on Microsoft, you can forget about it.
Isn't that what Linux is doing? (you didn't mention making money while taking on MS in this phrase, so it is valid
I can't believe people can moderate this bullshit to 5 with *interesting*. Ok, we are not supposed to moderate because we agree or disagree but because it is interesting or stupid, so let me show you why this is stupid with a parody of his post:
The EULA, by its very nature, creates conflicts between closed source developers and honest businesses -- large and small -- by putting them at odds with one another. It doesn't take more than a few minutes' reading at MS's Web site -- in which Bill Gates repeatedly issues a call to arms against "free" software (i.e. software which one can make money by selling a service) to see the antagonism. (His essay in which he asks hobbyists not tocopy his software is an especially good example of this attitude.) A movement whose focus is the destruction of people's businesses and livelihoods can only lead to a battle -- no, rather, to a war consisting of many battles and many casualties.
Everyone -- businesses and the open source community -- would be better off if we adopted the win/win, "live and let livee" approach of other software licenses, such as the BSD license, the MIT X license, and the Artistic License.
Open source that's reusable by all -- such as the BSD TCP/IP stack -- is responsible for the growth of the Internet and the success of the World Wide Web. Instead of threatening lawsuits based on overly restrictive licenses such as the EULA, we should say, "Use this code as you will. You can't un-publish what's already been published for the world to see, so you can't 'take' it; you can only use it to avoid tediously reinventing the wheel. Now, let's see what you can do wih it! If you do not choose to publish the source to what you build with it, good luck to you -- it's not easy to make a living that way. If you are good enough to do it you deserve success."
Do you think Billy boy will throw is EULA and adopt the BSD license because of your rethoric?
No, WHY?
Because different licenses have got different aims. The EULA's aim is to forbid you to copy the software or to use the code, the BSD aim is to allow anybody to use the code, open source developers or close source developers and the aim of the GPL is to allow people that are willing to share code to the GPL'd base to do so, without helping closed source program (the poroblem is that it helps less the non-GPL programs that are Free Software too).
Of course the GPL is more restrictive than the BSD,but it is his aim, and of course the GPL can lead to potentially more lawsuit, but only if people STEAL GPL'd code. You can't steal BSD code because he is given with quite no restrictions but if you use GPL'd code in proprietary product then you STEAL GPL'd code.
You would want us to throw away all our rights to the code, including the right for it to remain open, i won't do it until big corporations (MS in particular, or their heir (in the sense that MS is IBM heir for monopoly things and unethical practices)) do the same thing.
I may do it once in a while but this certainly is not my intent to give them all my code if they don't give me code or money back.
You can keep your bullshit for yourself.
"changes in the patent system in the US cannot be made retroactive in any way that would result in doing away with existing patents. That would be a government taking of private property"
I this isn't possible then when the copyright period was extended from 50 years from the author's death to 70 years to the author's death the then existing copyright shouldn't have retroactively been affected by it, meaning that Mickey and co would be public domain by 20003 or something like that.
I we go one step further, the government took YOUR property (that is, the twenty more years given to the then existing copyrighted material) and should refund you for the amount they stole you, that is for each dollar somebody gave to Disney that was related to Mickey.
Your government owe a VERY big debt to it's citizen, I think you should sue him, you could make a LOT of money (and make the State go bankrupt BTW)
If two individuals or companies apply for patents on the same invention within a short time period neither of them deserves the patent.
If two or more companies apply for a patent of the same invention within a short time isn't it a proof that it was obvious enough that many different people could invent it, therefore making it non patentable.
I think this would be the logic reasoning and would have the same result with a small nuance, in the first case both believe they should have a patent on it, and they are angry not to have one. In the second case it prove that the thing is obvious, then denying any right to patent it AND following the rules of patents.
What do you mean, pseudo-mythological?
Well, up to now we believed that they were mythological creatures, but if they really exist and do the fight I explained in my precedent post then they are not a myth, therefore they are a pseudo-mythological creatures, that is real creatures.
Add to the conspiracy the fact that TT is based in Norway and that Linus is Finnishm two north european countries.
1. Be called Bruce Perens or another proeminent Free Software/Open Source community
2. Make a big mistake (hey, this happen to everybody), big enough that it get caught on
3. Post 10 comments to apologize and explain why you were wrong... so you get moderated up for these explanations.
Bingo, your Karma is much bigger than this morning
Qt is done by TROLL Tech, the desktop competing with KDE is called GNOME.
Are north-european pseudo-mythological creatures fighting a war using the Free Software arena as their battling field???
;)
After W2k beta release there was RC1 and RC2, just another name for Gamma1 and Gamma2, right?
After RC1 and RC2 we should have Win2k, which is another name for Delta, right again?
And after you have the final release, calle dSP something by MS.
The biggest difference between the different alpha/beta/gamma/delta releases is the price of the beta (or gamma, or whatever).
The question is, what would we do if such legislation was enacted here? Would we riot in the streets? Or more likely, would we just start a thread on slashdot and rant for a day or so?
/. discussion, nobody in the street (or so few that I didn't heard about it in the UK) to complain about it.
/. comment that said that if your ISP didn't shut your site down at a copyright holder request then he was to be co-defendent not only in this case but in all the foregoing cases. Is it true only if you loose the case (you indeed infringed someone's copyright) or if you win the case the ISP isn't co-defendant to later cases. In the latter case it is already a reason tohave an outcry, but in the former case it really would be outrageous beyond any limit.
The worse part is that as I understand it (correct me if I am wrong) you already have a law that destroy one of your fundamental rights, if not in the letter of the law, at least in the way it is applied.
The law: The DMCA (DIgital Millenium Copyright Act, or maybe with another order for the words)
The right: being considered innocent until proven guilty.
When you can have your free speech reduced without going to court then you ARE told guilty without going to court, and you MUST go to court to prove yourself innocent.
And the most outcry I have heard is in some
I have a qestion about the DMCA anyway. There was a
Anyway, with the censoring laws in Australia (and this new law), the DMCA in the US, the cryptography law in the UK that deny you the right to remain silent (not passed yet though) I wonder how many violation of human rights will occur in these country in the next few years.
"Everyday the second server (FP_23) in the line would crash."
"I have been using linux / samba on that server for 2 months now and no one has noticed anything."
To be sure that non one EVER notice anything, create a script that shutdown Samba once in a while and restart it after a delay.
So they will attribute it to NT's habitual crash and won't ever look after it, but you you won't have to touch it, otherwise they may want to know why it is stable all in a sudden and ask you to reinstall NT... oups, this was valid 3 years ago when everybody was clueless about Linux
My computer has come up with a clever means of implementing basic intelligens in patent office officials. As there doesn't seem to be any prior art, I beleive I shouldn't have any problems applying for a patent on behalf of my computer.
Oh, wait a minute, I have to apply at the patent office, don't I? Hmm, could be a problem...
Not exactly, you could probably patent it. If it is obfuscated enough that they don't understand what it means they will not be angry against you and may grant the patent, and if the obfuscation is good enough they will have no idea what this mean, will think that it is obviously an innovation and grant it to you.
The problem will be that after they won't want to pay you licensing fees to improve (create?) their clue level, therefore they will be condemn to stay as clueless
The implication would be that there are no Open Source projects that have "died out" for lack of continued development. This is just plain silly.
Open Source project will continue as long as people are interested in the effects, but the network effect that he describes is important here. If another alternative is available and better, then the development will stop or never start.
This is a demonsration that Linux (and Free Software in general) is unFUDable. If a project dies it is because of a REAL problem, not because the competing company says that it is dead technology.
Do you know of any Free Software project that dies because his competitors where saying it is dead technology, or it is "hobbyist" software...? Personnaly I can't think of any (but maybe you can).
Would GIMP have started if Photoshop was free (or even dirt cheap) and available on many platforms?
Yep, because Photoshop still wouldn't be free (speech), but the project most probably would have begun at a later date, because there wouldn't have been such a need for it (because of the proprietary alternative).
With your privacy going to the drain thanks to the NSA, your right to knowledge too thanks to the DMCA, your democracy allowing a certain form of corruption called lobbying... shouldn't it be time that Americans stop to be proud that they have still (mostly) the same constitution and change it to give more control back to the peoples?
America: Land of Freedom, my ass, I prefer to stay in Europe.
I was under the impression that Google only returned results containing all search terms. Kind of odd.........probably not some kind of conspiracy.
Google effectively make an automatic AND between the terms but I suppose that if there is no term responding to the AND query he make an OR, so you end up with some responses even if you don't have a page having all these words together.
And if you consider the version running under VM (VM/Linux? Linux/VM? ye gods..)...
rms will probably ask you to call it VM/Gnu/Linux or Gnu/Linux/VM
;)
They *want* other companies to use thier code in closed source programs. The GPL doesn't allow it. Hence, Sun allows other companies to use their code in proprietary applications for a fee.
Wouldn't a double licensing like the QPL and a proprietary license have the same effect?
1. The Open Source license make sure it is open, but may impose conditions on the maintener (that is what the QPL do it seems to me).
2. The proprietary license allow them to license the code for a fee to companies wanting to include it in proprietary software.
And they would have avoided the problem we have now.
I don't know what to think about the SCSL.
Sometimes I think this is a good thing for Sun's customers that want to look at it and that may want to license Sun's code. And now that Sun seems to be clearer that it is not an Open Source license then it's fine with me, it is better than totally closed source while not being totally Open Source and therefore not for me.
With this POV this is a step in the right direction.
But sometimes the SCSL appears to me like a "sect". That is, it is easy to enter the sect/community but once you are in this is very hard to get out and you are never sure to ever get rid of it.
It is easy to have access to Sun's code but once you have read it you hardly can prove you didn't use it for your own Free Software. This is why I would avoid any code under this license, or any similar license, because I fear (rightly or not) that it may restrain my liberty to code software related to what code I saw.
I don't say that it was Sun's incentive (put people in a dangerous position if they do both SCSL and Open Source) to create the SCSL but it looks like this could be one of the consequences, so I will avoid this kind of license like the plague and if I was an employer I would forbid my employees to look at it and ask new employees on their exposure until their is some clarification of the SCSL made to avoid this problem.