I understand that you were not saying there is a conflict with the GPL.
I just don't see the slap in the face. The GPL built a robust code base that will be adequate for 95% of the people that use the software.
We don't know what the nature of these custom modifications are. They may be something so specific that they would not have generated enough interest to be included in the main body of work.
They may also be interfaces to proprietary systems (like SAP) that couldn't be developed without a change in the license.
Now if the modifications turn out to be something that the general user base could have used and they end up being kept proprietary, then it will be a loss.
I think we have to see how some of these mixed mode projects pan out before we will know for sure. But if companies don't try and discover some profitable synergy between GPL software and other lisences, then we may see a plunge in the availability of new software under such a lisence.
I am going to reserve judgement and see how they handle this situation.
I don't think that is the case. They are proposing making custom modifications for specific client needs. As long as these modifications are for internal use and not for redistribution by the customer, there is not slap in the face to the GPL.
I don't think they are making modifications for say a company that sells a shrink rapped source/project management system. Who will then bundle and resell the product. They are making modifications for a customer who needs X in their own source/project management system to execute their business.
I know this is a bit naive, but it never ceases to amaze me how much large companies end up spending on marketing, lobbying, litigation and now fake grass roots.
If these large companies spent half what they spend trying to protect a market for existing product, and instead develop improved and varied products, they would never be in danger of declining profits.
More and more I believe that large corporations are less examples of free market Darwinism and are more akin to a nice big bureaucracy where you rise to the level of your incompetence.
Actually that's why I used the phrase "default hooks" to imply that any platform extensions facilitating anything resembling web services, available after OS installation would be MS technology not Sun's.
There will be only one default, that's how I arrived at "make room".
Provide the world with questions about a liscense.
Encourage legal departments to carefully consider the ramifications of the vague and viral GPL.
Provide the world with answers to list of questions.
Package it all in a EULA that enjoins the use of liscense.
Force companies to carefully consider if EULA can actually prohibit them from using Open Source Software.
Hope all will give up because EULA brings MS legal threat into the equation.
They are not a monopoly though.
Viewing "shared source" prevents future OSD
on
MS VP Speech Online
·
· Score: 5
By making the source under glass more readily available, is MS undermining a persons ability to work on open source projects.
If more people are allowed to see the source does this increase the likely hood of IP litigation if programmer X has been in the vicinity of MS source and later works on an open source project?
Will this consolidation open the door for object or object/relational databases.
It would seem as choices narrow in relational databases it might be easier to sell alternative technologies.
We use Intersystems Cache, it is an object relational database.
IBM and Oracle products are hardware scalable. This could also open up the door for smaller less feature rich, but nimbler, databases in the mid to low end of the markey.
I don't really think Philip's engineering skills are relevant. Successful companies almost all have their root in a leader that can impose his vision.
There are not to many profitable companies that get their inspiration from Software Engineers.
There seems to be a lot of programmers that place too much weight on their technical skills and not enough on their communication skills.
I guess many who program for a living(myself included) wish for the world where we are mad scientists left alone in a corner, and everyone sits and waits till we yell eureka!
Slashdot Mirror
Not much. They are way behind on this one. Now they will decide on actions that will do little to slow MS.
.Net.
MS is more bold than ever and are making a huge push to get a death grip on subscription services.
Will the remidies deal with
If they don't what is the point. This has gone on to long and MS is poised to turn the corner on the next decade.
The government is to late to help. And I don't know what remedy would work anyway.
Oh well...
I understand that you were not saying there is a conflict with the GPL.
I just don't see the slap in the face. The GPL built a robust code base that will be adequate for 95% of the people that use the software.
We don't know what the nature of these custom modifications are. They may be something so specific that they would not have generated enough interest to be included in the main body of work.
They may also be interfaces to proprietary systems (like SAP) that couldn't be developed without a change in the license.
Now if the modifications turn out to be something that the general user base could have used and they end up being kept proprietary, then it will be a loss.
I think we have to see how some of these mixed mode projects pan out before we will know for sure. But if companies don't try and discover some profitable synergy between GPL software and other lisences, then we may see a plunge in the availability of new software under such a lisence.
I am going to reserve judgement and see how they handle this situation.
Have a nice day.
I don't think that is the case. They are proposing making custom modifications for specific client needs. As long as these modifications are for internal use and not for redistribution by the customer, there is not slap in the face to the GPL.
I don't think they are making modifications for say a company that sells a shrink rapped source/project management system. Who will then bundle and resell the product. They are making modifications for a customer who needs X in their own source/project management system to execute their business.
There is no conflict in such a situation.
There is nothing wrong with selling value added extensions, as long as they aren't violating the lisence on the original body of code.
The idea has always been pay for people not software.
Custom modifications and services are the only way Open Source will survive.
Free as in Freedom not Beer. Get it.
I know this is a bit naive, but it never ceases to amaze me how much large companies end up spending on marketing, lobbying, litigation and now fake grass roots.
If these large companies spent half what they spend trying to protect a market for existing product, and instead develop improved and varied products, they would never be in danger of declining profits.
More and more I believe that large corporations are less examples of free market Darwinism and are more akin to a nice big bureaucracy where you rise to the level of your incompetence.
Actually that's why I used the phrase "default hooks" to imply that any platform extensions facilitating anything resembling web services, available after OS installation would be MS technology not Sun's.
There will be only one default, that's how I arrived at "make room".
Have a nice day.
I guess I spoke to loosely for you to understand.
.Net's long term adoption and acceptance.
MS needed to get rid of Java to remove a competative barrier to
How exactly did you apply computer science to the statement anyway. Are you narrowly refering to some type of technical implementation?
Actually they are not crippling XP as relates to running java, they are just removing the default 4 year old JVM.
.Net so it only makes sense that they jettisoned Java.
If OEM's pick up the call and install a JVM on new systems Java will be better off.
The downside for Sun is now they have to pay for this rather than have it done for them by MS. The upside is they can get better JVM's installed.
Besides MS has to make room for default hooks needed by
OEM's already are working on their early August copies of XP and will have systems shipping a month before the official October launch date.
I don't see how the legal system can move fast enough to stop something already in motion.
Microsoft delayed things long enough and have focused on the prerelease while everyone else is concerned with the October ship date.
What are they going to do remove the OS from pc's after the fact. Not likely.
It would seem they have been smarter than the rest of us again.
It would be interesting to see the growth of Java on Linux.
I program with java and linux at work Apache/Tomcat/Cocoon.
I wonder how much of the growth is outside application servers. ( Web logic, Web Sphere )
Where are the breakdowns.
I find it a bit disturbing that a 250 million dollar federal winfall just fell into the lap of whoever is lucky enough to already have stem cells.
Was there any strong political contributions from the beneficiaries?
I hope whoever has the cells are the smartest and most brilliant scientists available.
Doesn't this limit the amount of brain power that will be applied to the research?
I think it was a potential limiting move all around. All for what, to keep the letter of a campaign promise.
I guess it does matter what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Provide the world with questions about a liscense.
Encourage legal departments to carefully consider the ramifications of the vague and viral GPL.
Provide the world with answers to list of questions.
Package it all in a EULA that enjoins the use of liscense.
Force companies to carefully consider if EULA can actually prohibit them from using Open Source Software.
Hope all will give up because EULA brings MS legal threat into the equation.
They are not a monopoly though.
By making the source under glass more readily available, is MS undermining a persons ability to work on open source projects.
If more people are allowed to see the source does this increase the likely hood of IP litigation if programmer X has been in the vicinity of MS source and later works on an open source project?
Will this consolidation open the door for object or object/relational databases.
It would seem as choices narrow in relational databases it might be easier to sell alternative technologies.
We use Intersystems Cache, it is an object relational database.
IBM and Oracle products are hardware scalable. This could also open up the door for smaller less feature rich, but nimbler, databases in the mid to low end of the markey.
I don't really think Philip's engineering skills are relevant. Successful companies almost all have their root in a leader that can impose his vision.
There are not to many profitable companies that get their inspiration from Software Engineers.
There seems to be a lot of programmers that place too much weight on their technical skills and not enough on their communication skills.
I guess many who program for a living(myself included) wish for the world where we are mad scientists left alone in a corner, and everyone sits and waits till we yell eureka!
Sadly I don't see this happening anytime soon.
If Linux will profit from a economic downturn I would expect the concept of network computers should see a resurgence for the same reasons.
Projects like the Linux Terminal Server Project http://www.ltsp.org/index.php are already providing similar solutions.