My first thought was that this whole set of posts from XaXXon was a troll of some sort. But a quick search of bitkeeper's website leads me to believe that the prices he stated are close to reality. The more "basic" version of the tool costs $400-$800 per seat.
Also this page indicates a pricing of about $2000/year/seat for the real tool.
Consider the following quote from the end of the article:
HHS's Pierce said the committee remains balanced overall, and no prospective member of any advisory committee is subjected to political screenings.
"It's always a matter of qualifications first and foremost," Pierce said. "There's no quotas on any of this stuff. There's no litmus test of any kind."
At least one nationally renowned academic, who was recently called by an administration official to talk about serving on an HHS advisory committee, disagreed with that assessment. To the candidate's surprise, the official asked for the professor's views on embryo cell research, cloning and physician-assisted suicide. After that, the candidate said, the interviewer told the candidate that the position would have to go to someone else because the candidate's views did not match those of the administration.
Asked to reconcile that experience with his previous assurance, Pierce said of the interview questions: "Those are not litmus tests."
This clearly relates to science as practiced in the USA. If one can't hold a science job because of views on physician assisted suicide, I'm not real sure our government is finding the best people to advise it. I'd say something like this belongs on slashdot.
Simply do the following. Have a link to the real site and then after the link include the link to the local copy of that page. So, for example it might look like:
People can get to the real page. If it is hosed, or they don't mind getting the locally cached page, they can click on that. As long as the fine folks at slashdot don't put their own ads on that page (or charge for them via a pageview) I don't think there would be any problem.
For that matter, if it's possible for libraries to take care of this, why isn't libc (or whichever) fixed to handle this itself? It seems like that'd be a great area to spend effort.
A few reasons:
First of all, bounds checking on an array in C would cause some working (but probably poorly written) programs to stop working.
Secondly, the overhead to check bounds could be quite signficant. Right now an array lookup is just bit of math (probably a shift and add) followed by a load or store. This would greatly increase the amount of math required and would add at least one more load (to find the bounds). So every single array access would slow down!
Third, and this one I'm less sure of, I think that in C you often have reasonable code where it would be almost impossible for the compiler to do the bounds check. C just wasn't designed with this in mind.
Forth, I know I've used pointers to into arrays before. Without a great deal of care the same buffer overflow problems could occur due to the pointers.
My point: the way C code is written, as well as the C language itself, makes doing 100% solid bounds checking basically impossible.
I'm writing a big course-pack for a class that I teach. I debated about using Latex or Word and, mainly for "free" reasons, settled on openoffice.org. I'm running this on an XP box and hope to be running it on my Linux box at work also.
So far I'm pretty happy. The UI is okay, and things are pretty nice. However, I've had a lot of problems. (all in OO writer)
I had serious problems with bullets. They all just changed to bullets with the number 10 in them. After spending about an hour on this, I found it as a fixed bug with a workaround.
I've had the program crash once and my machine crash once (due to something else.) Both times I've lost work because there is apparently no crash recovery.
Saving as HTML doesn't seem to work very well. In this directory you can see the HTML file has had some of its graphics messed up pretty badly, while others are just fine. I think that if I group each drawing into one drawing this problem will go away. But still...
The spell checker is nice, but I can't see away to get it to ignore punctuation. So everytime I have two puncutuation marks back-to-back it calls it an error.
You can't change the default bullet that is generated by hitting the "bullet on/off" button. You'd think it would use the list1 style or something, but it doesn't.
If you want to contribute to openoffice.org you have to sign your code over to Sun. As far as I can tell, this means they can use it for whatever they want (StarOffice for example...)
I've also found that the bib. tool needs a lot of help. Also, right-clicking seems to cause menus to pop but based upon cursor position, not mouse position. I guess that is okay, but it seems like I have to click twice to get the right-click menu that I want (once to move the cursor, once to pull up the menu.)
Given all of these complaints I still expect I'll finish this using OOo. It seems to work well enough and I'd like to move away from MS tools if possible.
Exclusive rights and exclusive commercial rights
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 1
I've actually spent a fair amount of time thinking about this. I read
Jessica Litman's book, Digital
Copyright about a year ago. I felt her solution, that free
non-commercial copying between `friends' should be allowed, was too shallow.
I believe it would greatly reduce sales, and therefor the amount of money
spent on development in certain industries. The computer game field is the
most obvious. So I pondered what would really work.
It helps to develop a set of goals. What I think are the goals of
copyright. As an American, I'll start with the US constitution:
"The Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts . . . by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries."
So promoting the progress of science and the useful arts would seem to be
the main goal. I'll call that goal `advancement.' One could furhter argue
that the `limited time' clause indicates that there is some public domain
interest involved. Instead, I'd claim that the wording instead indicates
that the natural
right to exclusive use of works you author does not exist. It is a
right granted by the government for a limited time. Not one inherient in
nature of things.
Will more books or music be created because exclusive rights to the works
will be granted for 75 years past the author's death rather than 50 or 25
years? The answer is probably yes. Someone, somewhere, will write more or
put in extra effort because the effort may support their grandchildren. And
a company, looking into the far future, may feel that 75 years will be
enough time to make a project profitable, while 25 years may not. That
said, less works may also be created. Authors who have written a story
based upon `Lord of the Rings' may be unable to have their work distributed
during their lifetime. It seems clear to me that very long copyright terms will
actually hurt advancement.
So I argue that if the sole goal of copyright is to promote progress, the
real goal is to provide economic modivation of authors while not overly
restricting the rights of others to use those works.
My proposal
I'd claim that a short period of exclusive rights, followed by a longer
period of exclusive commercial rights would best solve this problem. Say
that the author has exclusive rights for 5 years and exclusive commercial
rights for another 30 years. So, for example, a book written 5 years ago
could be distributed for free, with no commercial gain (payment,
advertisements, etc.) but only the author could sell the book or use it in a
commercial situation (using a character from the book to sell soap for
example.) An author who wrote a book dirivative of the first could freely
distribute it 5 years after the original book came out, but could not sell
it until 35 years had passed (without the original authors permission).
Just my thoughts. Let me close with someone else's thoughts:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.
I teach a junior-level computer science class at the Univ. of Michigan. The class, in 3 sections, has about 300 students enrolled.
We run a computer program which tries to detect cheating cases. We then review by hand the top 10-20 of those identified by the computer. For our final project we have identified about 25 people who seemed to have copied code (either as the source or the destination. It is usually really easy to tell which.) We still need to have those teaching the other sections look over the code to see if they agree, but in most cases it is VERY obvious. (Identical code other than an if/then/else structure changing to a switch statement and a few variable names changed!)
A student sent me a link to the article. Here was my response (slightly edited for slashdot):
(I've CCed a few of the faculty I've discussed cheating with recently. You all might find this article worth reading.)
Neil,
It is interesting.
I've spent a fair amount of time thinking about this. The trick, I think, is that we _do_ encourage people to learn the material, and we don't nail people for
"similarities in a few lines of computer code on a very complicated
assignment which he discussed with a friend."
We look for code, in quantity, which was clearly copied. I don't think we have every had the defense "we just talked about it a little" in our cheat cases. We have such a high bar for cheat cases that such an argument is almost impossible to pull off with any degree of believability.
Finally, I'm somewhat familiar with what is taught in that G.T. class. I seriously doubt that the program in question was "very complicated" I believe this class is the equiv. of ENG 101.
Thanks for sending the article, it is useful to have some perspective.
GCC isn't magically going to detect that your for loop could be done 400 times faster using Altivec: you'll need to tell it.
Huh? Compliers certainly detect when to use MMX. It is a bit difficult but not all that hard. The IRC (Intel Reference Complier) does use MXX when it thinks it will help. Because of the overlap with the fp registers it is actually harder to do the trade-off over MMX then it should be vor Altivec. Granted I've not tried to write the code, but I don't see any fundemental problem.
This document is available in three formats: this web page (for browsing content), PDF (comparable to original document formatting), and WordPerfect. To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group.
I realized I'd not seen anyone post anything in WordPerfect in years! Gosh, I wonder why they did that.:-)
To understand why the system works like it does, you need to first understand that Slashdot
is about to start accepting new ad formats. The large ads that you see on many other sites
are coming here.
Put me down as the first to predict the death of slashdot.
Re:Scientology knows how to manipulate Google
on
Search Engine Payola
·
· Score: 1
Actually, Google has operation clam bake (the main opposition site) as link number 4 or so.
But yes, you can tell they have worked long and hard at being on the top.
Not quite true. When you design a processor you do consider your memory type. For example, RAMBUS gives better potential bandwidth and slightly better latency. This will impact the expected memory read time. As modern computer architecture can be summarized as "finding useful things to do while waiting for memory accesses to finish" the memory speed certainly does impact the design of the processor.
That said, the slight differences between the two memory types probably is in the noise margins for this issue. But I promise you that someone on the processor design team was thinking about memory types when designing the P4.
Obvously the credit card model wouldn't work. Instead it would have to be something like:
Each web server documents number of hits by a user and forwards that data to "penny-a-page.com".
pap.com would then charge your credit card for the month or otherwise bill you once per time unit.
All of this is clearly do-able at minimal cost. pap.com could take 20% off the top and pay of all of its costs including servers, bandwidth, investigation of frauduant claims, etc. while still making a good profit.
The real question is if this is a good model or not.
OnMicrosoft's website there is a nice overview of their thoughts. Sadly it is a.doc file. I've included it as text here.
Some Questions Every Business Should Ask
About the GNU General Public License (GPL)
On May 3, 2001, Microsoft publicly described its ``Shared Source'' approach to source code licensing. Shared Source covers Microsoft's spectrum of source access and licensing programs for its customers and partners. Microsoft has contrasted Shared Source with various open source software approaches, highlighting both similarities and differences. We encourage companies and individuals to consider carefully to what degree open source solutions make sense for them. While Microsoft does not oppose the concept of open source development, we do question the advisability of organizations' dependence on the products of a non-commercial community rather than commercially developed products that have a sustainable business model behind them.
The general use of the term ``open source'' describes both the different community development processes and the vastly differing licenses under which these products are developed, modified and distributed. In particular, we are concerned about the GNU General Public License (GPL) which covers some of the most popular open source software such as Linux. The GPL was developed specifically to discourage the development of commercial software and eliminate the creation of any long-term economic value in intellectual property that emerges from a community development process. This license diminishes, or even eliminates, the symbiotic relationship between academic and government research and the entire business community. There are benefits to having both an ``intellectual commons'' and businesses built on the premise of owning and profiting from intellectual property assets.
Microsoft encourages companies to read and evaluate the GPL. Based upon feedback we have received to date, it appears that many businesses do not understand the GPL or its potential implications for important business issues. To highlight those issues, we drafted this document to give businesses interested in GPL software a list of questions to ask themselves and their lawyers, as well as some background that may be useful.
). The comments in this document are based upon the Version 2 GPL, Version 2.1 Lesser General Public License (LGPL) and the GPL FAQ posted as of 5/30/01.
One last introductory note: the GPL is a complicated agreement. To understand your potential rights and obligations, you need to interpret the many provisions of the agreement and apply them to your particular facts. We recommend that you obtain counsel from your lawyer as appropriate. This document does not, and cannot, offer any legal advice.
Have your lawyers read the GPL (and the LGPL)? Because the GPL is so frequently misunderstood and because it attempts, under certain circumstances, to impose significant obligations on licensees and their intellectual property rights, no responsible business should use GPL software without ensuring that its lawyers have read the license and explained the business' rights and obligations. They should also review and explain the Lesser General Public License, or LGPL, a related license that is sometimes used with open source libraries.
How are you using GPL software and what obligations does it impose? The obligations associated with the GPL vary substantially depending upon the way in which GPL code is used. Even limited or relatively obscure uses (e.g., including a few lines of GPL code in a commercial product or linking directly or indirectly to a GPL library) may have a dramatic effect on your legal rights and obligations. To understand the potential implications of the GPL, you need to have a detailed understanding of your use of GPL code. Basing any analysis upon a superficial understanding may present serious risks.
How does your use of GPL software affect your intellectual property rights? One of the most significant impacts of the GPL is its potential effect on your intellectual property rights. The GPL is widely referred to as ``viral'' because it attempts to subject independently-created code (and associated intellectual property) to the terms of the GPL if it is used in certain ways together with GPL code (see Sections 2 and 3 of the GPL). For example, a business that combines and distributes GPL code with its own proprietary code may be obligated to share with the rest of the world valuable intellectual property (including patent) rights in both code bases on a royalty free basis. Other uses of GPL code may also create obligations for the user. It is important to perform a careful legal and technical review of this issue before using GPL software.
What if you are simply a ``customer,'' acquiring GPL software from other businesses? Does the GPL have any effect on your rights and obligations? Section 0 of the GPL says ``[a]ctivities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted.'' So, a customer who only runs the Program should have no obligations to the author of the code under the GPL. As discussed below, however, such a customer also has no rights from the author (e.g., no assurance that the code is even free from ``known'' copyright infringement problems) and may have liabilities to third parties. If, on the other hand, the customer's use of GPL code involves even limited modification, copying or distribution of the code, the GPL arguably does impose obligations to the author, discussed above and below. In assessing this possibility, customers should carefully consider what the GPL means by ``copying, modifying and distribution.''
Can you develop applications for a GPL program, like Linux, without subjecting those applications to the GPL? This is a particularly important question. The answer will almost certainly depend upon a detailed analysis of the way in which the application was developed and distributed and will be subject to caveats regarding the interpretation and enforceability of the GPL. For example, the analysis will presumably involve a careful review of your development team's exposure to and use of GPL code during the development process, especially whether the application incorporated any such code or was otherwise derived from it. The analysis would also likely consider what libraries are used; how are they used (e.g., statically linked or dynamically linked); whether they, in turn, link to other libraries; and which licenses (GPL or LGPL) govern all of these various libraries. Similarly, the analysis would probably consider what header files are used; whether they, in turn, include other headers; and which licenses govern these various headers. In addition, the analysis would presumably consider whether the application is distributed with GPL code and, if so, how it is distributed and by whom.
Can distribution of your code with GPL code require you to license your code under the GPL? Have you combined your own code with code licensed under the GPL? The GPL attempts to address these questions directly. Section 2 of the GPL says that identifiable sections of a work that are not derived from a GPL program and that ``can be reasonably considered independent and separate'' are not subject to the GPL when distributed as separate works. But if these separate sections are distributed ``as part of a whole which is a work based on'' a GPL program, then this distribution of the ``work as a whole'' is subject to the GPL. Section 2 also says that a ``mere aggregation of another work not based on the [GPL] Program on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.'' A licensee is left with the difficult task of deciding whether a particular combination is a ``work as a whole'' (GPL infection apparently intended) or a ``mere aggregation'' (GPL infection disclaimed).
If your software becomes ``infected'' by the GPL, do you have to give it away for free? Section 3 of the GPL says that you can copy and distribute a GPL program (or a work based on such a program) in object code or executable form, subject to several restrictions. You are supposed to make the corresponding source code available, for example, by including the source code with the object code or offering to distribute it to any third party (Section 3). Section 1 says that you ``may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,'' but Section 2 says that you ``must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from [a GPL] Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.'' The net effect is, apparently, that you are able to charge a fee for your software, but that right is significantly undercut by your obligation to give others (including your competitors) the right to distribute your software for free.
Are your obligations under the GPL ``flexible'' or ``proportional'' to your use of GPL code? Suppose Business A uses a few hundred lines of GPL code in its existing 500,000-line proprietary program and makes copies for its own employees or distributes ten copies of the modified program as a collective work. Suppose Business B combines 500,000 lines of GPL code with an existing 1000-line proprietary program and distributes 500,000 copies of the modified program as a collective work. The GPL may be read as to require both businesses to share the source code for their modified programs (including their existing commercial programs) and allow royalty-free redistribution of those programs. This is true despite the potentially dramatic differences in the volume, value and copies of the GPL code used.
Do you have all of the rights required to use GPL code? Could your use of GPL code cause you to infringe on the intellectual property rights associated with code you have licensed from others? The seemingly obvious answer to the first question is ``yes'' because those rights are provided under the GPL. The correct answer, however, may require more careful analysis. If, for example, you plan to combine and distribute GPL code with pre-existing code, the ``viral'' nature of the GPL may require you to provide source code for the pre-existing code to all third parties and license others to use it on a royalty-free basis (see Section 2). Unfortunately, if you licensed some of the pre-existing code from a third party, you may not even have access to the source code, much less the right to license it to the rest of the world on a royalty-free basis under the terms of the GPL.
Do you have any existing obligations that might preclude your use of GPL software? Could your use of GPL code put you in breach of existing contractual obligations? As noted above, the use of GPL code with code licensed from another party could, under certain circumstances, arguably obligate you to sublicense the other party's code under the GPL. If you expressly agreed not to attempt to sublicense the other party's code, you should consider whether your use of the GPL code presents a risk that breaches your earlier contract. Even if no breach occurs, the GPL includes provisions that may make it impossible for licensees to retain both their GPL rights and rights under other agreements. For example, Section 7 of the GPL says that if ``conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this license, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.'' Suppose Business A has developed a program using trade secret rights that were licensed from Business B under an agreement that prohibited their disclosure. Now assume that A uses GPL code in a way that ``infects'' its program. Section 7 apparently says that use of GPL code in such a program is impermissible. This places A in an untenable situation: unless it persuades B to divulge its trade secrets to the world, A must cease distribution of its program. This may be true even if A's use of GPL code is minimal.
Have you considered the risk that GPL code might infringe on third party intellectual property rights? Although it is always difficult for a business to ensure that acquired products do not infringe on third-party intellectual property rights, the risks associated with the use of GPL software may be substantially higher than those associated with commercial software. For example, given the distributed nature of open source development, you should understand what controls, if any, you have in place to screen unlicensed code or trade secret information from inclusion in the GPL program. This view is perhaps reinforced by the fact that Section 11 of the GPL expressly disclaims any warranties, including presumably a warranty that the program is free from infringements of third-party copyrights or trade secrets known to the contributor. You should also ask yourself if GPL developers may conclude that this disclaimer makes it okay to distribute code under the GPL when they know they don't have the rights required to do so. Developers of commercial software, in contrast, typically have procedures, contractual obligations, and a substantial financial stake in minimizing potential infringements.
What happens if an intellectual property owner, who claims that your use of GPL code infringes its intellectual property rights, sues you? As noted above, Section 11 suggests that you are ``on your own'' with respect to defense of the suit and payment for damages.
What is the extent of your liability for GPL-related infringements? Several provisions of the GPL may be read as requiring a GPL licensee to effectively sublicense its rights to the rest of the world (e.g., Section 2, relating to the modification and distribution of GPL works). GPL licensees should ask themselves whether, and to what extent, they might be responsible for the actions of their sub-licensees. For example, suppose Business A distributes a modified copy of GPL code to Businesses B, C, and D, and each of them further distributes 1000 copies. If Business A is sued for patent infringement relating to its use of GPL software, the patent owner might claim that the business is liable for direct infringement based upon the three copies distributed to Businesses B, C, and D and is further liable for direct, contributory, or induced infringement by the 3000 additional copies distributed by these businesses (and, of course, any and all later distributions by such businesses and their downstream sub-licensees). While actual liability would depend upon a host of factual issues, if Business A has deeper pockets than the other businesses, it should not be surprised to find plaintiff's counsel pursuing such an approach and claiming theoretically unlimited damages caused by Business A's limited initial distribution.
Can the author of a GPL program ``unilaterally'' withdraw your right to distribute the program? Section 8 of the GPL gives ``the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License'' the right to preclude distribution in certain countries based on patents or interface copyrights. It is not clear that a licensee has any right to object to this restriction, which may be solely within the discretion of the original copyright holder. It is also not clear whether this restriction can be imposed retroactively, although Section 8 does say, ``this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.'' Companies relying on GPL code should carefully consider the potential impact such a geographical restriction could have on their business.
Can you use GPL tools in the development of your own software without subjecting your software to the GPL? As noted above, the GPL is sometimes referred to as being ``viral'' because it attempts to subject related third-party code and intellectual property to the GPL. People concerned about this aspect of the GPL are probably careful about modifying GPL programs or combining their code with GPL code, but they may assume that their use of GPL tools cannot ``infect'' the software they are developing. While this is probably true in many cases, it is not necessarily a safe assumption. For example, the ``Bison'' parser developed by Richard Stallman, Robert Corbett and Wilfred Hansen was licensed under the GPL for some time before users realized that the software they were developing with the tool was arguably subject to the GPL. The potential exposure resulted from the parser's inclusion of incidental GPL material in the tool's output. In response to this problem, Bison version 1.24 and later was distributed with a ``special exception'' regarding output files. The implication is that businesses concerned about the possible infection of their software by the GPL should make sure they consider: what, if any, GPL tools are being used by their developers; how those tools are used; and the possibility that such uses might subject their own code to the GPL.
If the GPL requires you to ``contribute'' your modifications to GPL code to ``the community,'' are you sure that your competitors are doing the same? Assuming that two competitors are making similar use of GPL code, their obligations under the GPL should be the same. There are, however, a number of scenarios to consider. Some competitors may not understand their obligations under the GPL and, for that reason, might not share their improvements with competitors. Other competitors' interpretation of the GPL might lead them to conclude that they have no obligation because they might believe the GPL is unenforceable in its entirety. Some competitors may intentionally ignore their obligations under the GPL to obtain a competitive advantage, relying on a variety of factors to avoid compliance. These factors might include obscuring object code to hide use of GPL code and the strength and enforcement of intellectual property laws in the country where they are doing business.
Does the GPL present any special challenges for businesses developing or distributing products with embedded software? The GPL does not expressly impose any ``special'' obligations on embedded software businesses, but embedded businesses should consider whether the GPL presents any unique risks based upon scenarios common to the embedded product space. For example, the manufacturer of a hardware system that includes some embedded GPL software and some of the manufacturer's own proprietary software may find it particularly important to carefully assess whether the GPL and proprietary software form a ``mere aggregation'' (GPL infection disclaimed under Section 2); a ``collective work'' (GPL infection apparently intended); or something else altogether. Some embedded software developers, such as Caldera and Wind River, have publicly expressed concerns about the risks associated with the GPL.
Are your software developers aware of the many development-related issues that may affect GPL risks and obligations? Are you asking (or allowing) them to act as your legal counsel and are you willing to accept that risk? Are you ``betting your business'' on informal or anonymous interpretations of the GPL posted on the Internet? As noted by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), the potential implications of the GPL on software development ultimately depend on the way in which judges will interpret provisions of the GPL. A host of relatively detailed, development-related questions are also likely to be critical. You should probably make sure your developers are asking themselves a number of questions, including:
What is the provenance of the code and tools being used?
What licenses govern that code and tools
What do we do if we can't determine which license governs code included in an open source distribution
What happens if those licensing terms have been clarified or purportedly amended
Does our code use GPL code at runtime, whether through kernel calls, dynamic linkage, static linkage, or other mechanisms; if we are using libraries, do those libraries, in turn, link to other libraries (and, if so, which licenses govern those libraries)?
If we are using headers, do they reference other headers (and, if so, which licenses govern those headers)?
Will our code be distributed, combined or otherwise used with GPL code?
Are we sure about our answers to these questions?
Given the subtle nature of some of the legal issues presented by the GPL, you should also make sure your developers know when to consult legal counsel regarding any potential risks presented by a particular development activity. All businesses would be well advised to avoid taking actions based upon general ``understandings'' of the GPL that are not based on a careful reading of the agreement itself.
Who can you go to if you have a question regarding the GPL's interpretation, want to clarify your risks under the GPL, or amend your obligations? The GPL was developed under the auspices of the FSF. The FSF is not, however, necessarily the owner of any and all intellectual property rights embodied in particular programs licensed under the GPL. Section 10 recognizes this by suggesting that a GPL licensee could write to a program's author (or authors) for permission to distribute the program under different terms. In some cases, no single person or entity may own all of these property rights. As a result, a prospective (or existing) GPL licensee may find it impractical, if not impossible, to negotiate a desired change in its rights and obligations or even obtain a clarification of those rights and obligations. Even if a licensee were somehow able to identify key contributors and reach agreement with all of them regarding a desired change or clarification, presumably those contributors would be unwilling or unable to represent and warrant that they had the entire right and title required to do so.
Are you using any software governed by the Lesser General Public License (LGPL) and, if so, how does that license affect your rights and obligations? The LGPL was developed by the FSF to give library developers an alternative to the GPL. Specifically, although the FSF generally discourages use of the LGPL, it notes that ``using the Library GPL permits use of the library in commercial programs.'' The LGPL retains the ``viral'' provisions of the GPL in the context of modifications to an LGPL library (Section 2). But a different set of obligations are imposed when code is linked to an LGPL library (Sections 5 and 6). If you are developing programs that link to LGPL libraries you should review and understand these obligations. You should also check whether the LGPL libraries used, in turn, link to other libraries and especially consider the implications if the LGPL library links to a GPL library.
Does the use of GPL software reduce the acquisition value of your company (as a start-up) or a particular business unit (as a spin-off)? As noted above, the GPL attempts, under certain circumstances, to subject licensees' code and related intellectual property to the terms of the GPL (see, e.g., Section 3). Once your software is ``infected'' by the GPL, it is not clear whether and how this process can be reversed. So, while GPL code may seem like an inexpensive, convenient and useful way for a start-up to develop a new product quickly, it may also have costly and long-term consequences for the start-up. Parties interested in acquiring the business are likely to conclude, as a part of any acquisition due diligence, that the business has already effectively given away most of the commercial value in its code.
Does your use of GPL code present any issues re shareholder value and exposure to suit? In the context of initial public offerings, at least some businesses based upon GPL software have concluded that such software introduces risks that should be disclosed as part of the offering. These risks include: the companies ``inability'' to offer warranties and indemnities because the code is developed by independent parties over whom the offering business has no control or supervision; the uncertain future of the code base (will further development occur and, if so, in what direction); the availability of the same code from other sources for free; and concerns about negative reactions from the open source community. (These issues are discussed in the ``10Ks'' of several of the publicly traded companies that distribute GPL programs). If you are beginning to use GPL code, you should ask whether this presents similar risks to your business.
Do you have a process for reviewing and approving prospective uses of GPL software? Are you willing to use precious developer resources required to assess the impact of prospective uses of GPL code that you will depend on? Most businesses that are engaged in software development establish procedures to avoid tainting their development process with software that is subject to other people's intellectual property rights. Although GPL code is often described as ``free,'' as noted above it may impose severe obligations on users and is perhaps even more deserving of a company-wide process regarding review and approval before use.
Do you have or need any special procedures regarding potential GPL issues created by your licensing of third-party software and or acquisitions of software? Given the potential effect that the GPL may have on code and intellectual property acquired by (or licensed into) a company, it may make sense for businesses to develop procedures to ensure that such acquisitions and licenses are reviewed for GPL issues. For example, many companies have established ``due diligence'' procedures to help them identify and evaluate potential issues associated with the acquisition of businesses, product lines, and intellectual property rights. Companies pursuing software-related acquisitions or investments should probably consider whether their due diligence procedures
I'm not quite sure what your argument is. It seems to be ``MS is not a monopoly as you have other OSes to choose from.'' Although it could also be ``so what if it is a monopoly, why should that restrict what they can bundle?'' I'll try to address both.
Do I have any choice about using MS's products? No, my job effectively requires it. Mainly the ability to read and edit MS word documents, but also, quite frankly, the ability to edit them. No non-MS editor I know of can do that. Why is this a requirement? Because so many people send me these.doc files (and.ppt files). So my employeer had to spend some $400. Including an OS I don't want or use or need.
Because of their market position, I must have MS-office. This is true for all of my co-workers. We have no choice but to give money to MS. Lots of money.
Now, IE has become the defacto web browser. My wife, who hates MS, is a web developer. She hates having to deal with anything other than IE because the other browswers (mainly Netscape) suck. Netscape has effectively been forced out of the market by the bundling of IE to Windows. They did't get the revenue (and there is money made by controlling the (free!) browswer market) that comes with a large market share even when they had the better product. Because people had to work to get something other than IE.
Thus, MS used its OS domanance to push its browser. They control the browsers now. At one time it was thought that browsers (and Java) would actulally be compitition for MS windows. Instead it is just a part of windows. And don't get me started on how it killed Java.
MS uses its market power to kill competition in the OS arena and to extend its domanace into other markets. This extended domanance, in turn, can be used to maintain its monopoly.
Face it, if you wrote a wonderful free OS, and paid people to use it, they would still have to use Windows because of MS office. To get mainstream acceptance of a new OS you would have to include:
An office suite
A UI which is somehow easier for people to use than Windows (which they have probably been using for years!)
A development enviornment
A set of networking and admin tools which are easier for an MSCE to use than those for Windows (Which they have been trained on)
Quite frankly no one can afford to try this.
From the above I claim that MS is an effective monopoly. And further that regulation is needed to prevent them from becoming even more entrenched in the OS market and from using that OS monopoly to gain control of other markets. Those conserns don't exist for Linux, or Mac OS, or really anything else.
Futher, I claim such a monopoly is bad. In the end, if Microsoft doesn't do it in the markets they control, it won't happen. Having Java as the defacto language might have been a good thing. But it went against MS's interests and so is dead. MS's interests cannot be the determing factor as to which features the users get...
To sum up. MS is a monopoly. Monopoly's need to be regulated. Therefor MS needs to be regulated.
If Microsoft has to lower its price as a result, then they never really had a true monopoly to begin with. In my opinion, the only monopoly
they have is a monopoly on Microsoft software.
Say the government grants a monopoly on the sale of bananas. Only FruitCo may sell bananas in the US. Do they have a monopoly? Sure, by definition. Can they set any price point they choose? No. If they charge $100.00 a pound, they will make less money then they will at $0.75 a pound. People will eat other fruit or go without.
Being a monopoly does not mean you can set any arbitrary price point. Rather, it means you can optimize profits by considering demand and igoring the cost of manufacture. And you can do this because no one can possibly undercut you as you are the only (real) product on the market.
In my mind, the real question:
Is it healthy, for society on the whole, if MS uses its market domainance in one area to gain domainance in another area?''
And I feel that the answer is ``usually no.''
Absent a free and competitive market, it is the government's job to jump in. Keep in mind it is government restriction on competition (copyright and patent law) that prevents others from truly competing with MS. Those laws preventing competition either need to be junked (which is probably a bad idea. The promotion of Science and the Useful Arts is a good thing.) or we need to be willing to let government try to restrict the worst effects of those laws.
The various companies will create an encription scheme to protect their IP. Only with a licence will you be able to build a decryptor. Anyone else building such a device would likely be in violation of patent law and the DMCA.
If they are smart, most content providers will not use this feature initially, in the hopes of people not getting into an uproar. And the first step of
The Right to Read will be here.
While I have no doubt Steve gets a lot of flak, I for one have complained to cotse about some of the posts coming from there. As I recall it was when some 3 or 4 posters were posting 10 cut-and-paste messages a day to a certain newsgroup.
(cut-and-paste meaning that the posts were just cut-and-pasted off of a website).
Was I an evil anti-free speach person? Perhaps. But I felt a complaint was appropriate. Especially if those 3 or 4 posters were really just one person (which appeared to be the case) simply trying to drown out other discussion.
Just as a quick check, I decieded to look up Scientology at dmoz. Other than opposing views, almost every single website listed was by the actual church of Scientology itself. Few links to anything not controled by the church. Nothing on those who still practice Scientology outside of the church. Nothing. It would be like looking at a Christianity directory entry that only showed one denomination. Nothing about any contraversy about the church other than attacks on those who have said bad things about the church. (other than the link to opposing views)
And that same editor also is editor for a mental health directory. Strangely (or not if you know much about Scientology) it is almost entirely anti-mental health or alternative treatment stuff. It is under "health and safety" not "oppossing views"
To me, this says that the editor's biases do play a large role. I was happy to see that opposing views _was_ linked to from the Scientology main directory entry. Perhaps that is enough. But I really felt like I was looking at an advertisement for Scientology.
I'll guess this is a troll, or else a very under-informed student. He/she said:
"banned me from the University property. I'm also suspended indefinately, and face immediate
expulsion from the University. (BTW - I'm almost done with my Mechanical Engineering
degree.. so this is not light by any means. If expelled, I'm forced to start over as a freshmen if
I ever get into another school.)"
I can assure you that unless UU would refuse to provide a transcript (which I suspect would be illegal, and would certainly get them in hot water with other Universities) That he/she would not have to start over as a freshman.
I do transfer credit for part of the University of Michigan...
Slashdot Mirror
Also this page indicates a pricing of about $2000/year/seat for the real tool.
The "panties" quote I can't verify
Mark
Cool story link (local)
People can get to the real page. If it is hosed, or they don't mind getting the locally cached page, they can click on that. As long as the fine folks at slashdot don't put their own ads on that page (or charge for them via a pageview) I don't think there would be any problem.A few reasons:
- First of all, bounds checking on an array in C would cause some working (but probably poorly written) programs to stop working.
- Secondly, the overhead to check bounds could be quite signficant. Right now an array lookup is just bit of math (probably a shift and add) followed by a load or store. This would greatly increase the amount of math required and would add at least one more load (to find the bounds). So every single array access would slow down!
- Third, and this one I'm less sure of, I think that in C you often have reasonable code where it would be almost impossible for the compiler to do the bounds check. C just wasn't designed with this in mind.
- Forth, I know I've used pointers to into arrays before. Without a great deal of care the same buffer overflow problems could occur due to the pointers.
My point: the way C code is written, as well as the C language itself, makes doing 100% solid bounds checking basically impossible.Amusingly enough, the submission script doesn't work....
So far I'm pretty happy. The UI is okay, and things are pretty nice. However, I've had a lot of problems. (all in OO writer)
- I had serious problems with bullets. They all just changed to bullets with the number 10 in them. After spending about an hour on this, I found it as a fixed bug with a workaround.
- I've had the program crash once and my machine crash once (due to something else.) Both times I've lost work because there is apparently no crash recovery.
- Saving as HTML doesn't seem to work very well. In this directory you can see the HTML file has had some of its graphics messed up pretty badly, while others are just fine. I think that if I group each drawing into one drawing this problem will go away. But still...
- The spell checker is nice, but I can't see away to get it to ignore punctuation. So everytime I have two puncutuation marks back-to-back it calls it an error.
- You can't change the default bullet that is generated by hitting the "bullet on/off" button. You'd think it would use the list1 style or something, but it doesn't.
- If you want to contribute to openoffice.org you have to sign your code over to Sun. As far as I can tell, this means they can use it for whatever they want (StarOffice for example...)
I've also found that the bib. tool needs a lot of help. Also, right-clicking seems to cause menus to pop but based upon cursor position, not mouse position. I guess that is okay, but it seems like I have to click twice to get the right-click menu that I want (once to move the cursor, once to pull up the menu.)Given all of these complaints I still expect I'll finish this using OOo. It seems to work well enough and I'd like to move away from MS tools if possible.
It helps to develop a set of goals. What I think are the goals of copyright. As an American, I'll start with the US constitution:
So promoting the progress of science and the useful arts would seem to be the main goal. I'll call that goal `advancement.' One could furhter argue that the `limited time' clause indicates that there is some public domain interest involved. Instead, I'd claim that the wording instead indicates that the natural right to exclusive use of works you author does not exist. It is a right granted by the government for a limited time. Not one inherient in nature of things.Will more books or music be created because exclusive rights to the works will be granted for 75 years past the author's death rather than 50 or 25 years? The answer is probably yes. Someone, somewhere, will write more or put in extra effort because the effort may support their grandchildren. And a company, looking into the far future, may feel that 75 years will be enough time to make a project profitable, while 25 years may not. That said, less works may also be created. Authors who have written a story based upon `Lord of the Rings' may be unable to have their work distributed during their lifetime. It seems clear to me that very long copyright terms will actually hurt advancement.
So I argue that if the sole goal of copyright is to promote progress, the real goal is to provide economic modivation of authors while not overly restricting the rights of others to use those works.
My proposal
I'd claim that a short period of exclusive rights, followed by a longer period of exclusive commercial rights would best solve this problem. Say that the author has exclusive rights for 5 years and exclusive commercial rights for another 30 years. So, for example, a book written 5 years ago could be distributed for free, with no commercial gain (payment, advertisements, etc.) but only the author could sell the book or use it in a commercial situation (using a character from the book to sell soap for example.) An author who wrote a book dirivative of the first could freely distribute it 5 years after the original book came out, but could not sell it until 35 years had passed (without the original authors permission). Just my thoughts. Let me close with someone else's thoughts:
-Thomas JeffersonI teach a junior-level computer science class at the Univ. of Michigan. The class, in 3 sections, has about 300 students enrolled.
We run a computer program which tries to detect cheating cases. We then review by hand the top 10-20 of those identified by the computer. For our final project we have identified about 25 people who seemed to have copied code (either as the source or the destination. It is usually really easy to tell which.) We still need to have those teaching the other sections look over the code to see if they agree, but in most cases it is VERY obvious. (Identical code other than an if/then/else structure changing to a switch statement and a few variable names changed!)
A student sent me a link to the article. Here was my response (slightly edited for slashdot):
(I've CCed a few of the faculty I've discussed cheating with recently.
You all might find this article worth reading.)
Neil,
It is interesting.
I've spent a fair amount of time thinking about this. The trick, I
think, is that we _do_ encourage people to learn the material, and we
don't nail people for
"similarities in a few lines of computer code on a very complicated
assignment which he discussed with a friend."
We look for code, in quantity, which was clearly copied. I don't think
we have every had the defense "we just talked about it a little" in our
cheat cases. We have such a high bar for cheat cases that such an
argument is almost impossible to pull off with any degree of
believability.
Finally, I'm somewhat familiar with what is taught in that G.T. class. I
seriously doubt that the program in question was "very complicated"
I believe this class is the equiv. of ENG 101.
Thanks for sending the article, it is useful to have some
perspective.
Mark
Huh? Compliers certainly detect when to use MMX. It is a bit difficult but not all that hard. The IRC (Intel Reference Complier) does use MXX when it thinks it will help. Because of the overlap with the fp registers it is actually harder to do the trade-off over MMX then it should be vor Altivec. Granted I've not tried to write the code, but I don't see any fundemental problem.
This document is available in three formats: this web page (for browsing content), PDF (comparable to original document formatting), and WordPerfect. To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group.
I realized I'd not seen anyone post anything in WordPerfect in years! Gosh, I wonder why they did that.
is about to start accepting new ad formats. The large ads that you see on many other sites
are coming here.
Put me down as the first to predict the death of slashdot.
Actually, Google has operation clam bake (the main opposition site) as link number 4 or so.
But yes, you can tell they have worked long and hard at being on the top.
Some other complaints about this "invented at Intel" terminalogy can be found at The Register.
Also Toronto has a nice slide show (pdf) on the topic.
For the record I contributed a little tiny bit to this stuff when I was at Intel (I found what I think was the first multi-processor bug for SMT.)
the P4 wasn't designed for any particular memory
Not quite true. When you design a processor you do consider your memory type. For example, RAMBUS gives better potential bandwidth and slightly better latency. This will impact the expected memory read time. As modern computer architecture can be summarized as "finding useful things to do while waiting for memory accesses to finish" the memory speed certainly does impact the design of the processor.
That said, the slight differences between the two memory types probably is in the noise margins for this issue. But I promise you that someone on the processor design team was thinking about memory types when designing the P4.
Mark
- Each web server documents number of hits by a user and forwards that data to "penny-a-page.com".
- pap.com would then charge your credit card for the month or otherwise bill you once per time unit.
All of this is clearly do-able at minimal cost. pap.com could take 20% off the top and pay of all of its costs including servers, bandwidth, investigation of frauduant claims, etc. while still making a good profit.The real question is if this is a good model or not.
Mark
As per the MS in the article, Netscape 4.77 seems to work just fine.
Mark
OnMicrosoft's website there is a nice overview of their thoughts. Sadly it is a
Some Questions Every Business Should Ask
About the GNU General Public License (GPL)
On May 3, 2001, Microsoft publicly described its ``Shared Source'' approach to source code licensing. Shared Source covers Microsoft's spectrum of source access and licensing programs for its customers and partners. Microsoft has contrasted Shared Source with various open source software approaches, highlighting both similarities and differences. We encourage companies and individuals to consider carefully to what degree open source solutions make sense for them. While Microsoft does not oppose the concept of open source development, we do question the advisability of organizations' dependence on the products of a non-commercial community rather than commercially developed products that have a sustainable business model behind them.
The general use of the term ``open source'' describes both the different community development processes and the vastly differing licenses under which these products are developed, modified and distributed. In particular, we are concerned about the GNU General Public License (GPL) which covers some of the most popular open source software such as Linux. The GPL was developed specifically to discourage the development of commercial software and eliminate the creation of any long-term economic value in intellectual property that emerges from a community development process. This license diminishes, or even eliminates, the symbiotic relationship between academic and government research and the entire business community. There are benefits to having both an ``intellectual commons'' and businesses built on the premise of owning and profiting from intellectual property assets.
Microsoft encourages companies to read and evaluate the GPL. Based upon feedback we have received to date, it appears that many businesses do not understand the GPL or its potential implications for important business issues. To highlight those issues, we drafted this document to give businesses interested in GPL software a list of questions to ask themselves and their lawyers, as well as some background that may be useful.
). The comments in this document are based upon the Version 2 GPL, Version 2.1 Lesser General Public License (LGPL) and the GPL FAQ posted as of 5/30/01.
One last introductory note: the GPL is a complicated agreement. To understand your potential rights and obligations, you need to interpret the many provisions of the agreement and apply them to your particular facts. We recommend that you obtain counsel from your lawyer as appropriate. This document does not, and cannot, offer any legal advice.
Have your lawyers read the GPL (and the LGPL)? Because the GPL is so frequently misunderstood and because it attempts, under certain circumstances, to impose significant obligations on licensees and their intellectual property rights, no responsible business should use GPL software without ensuring that its lawyers have read the license and explained the business' rights and obligations. They should also review and explain the Lesser General Public License, or LGPL, a related license that is sometimes used with open source libraries.
How are you using GPL software and what obligations does it impose? The obligations associated with the GPL vary substantially depending upon the way in which GPL code is used. Even limited or relatively obscure uses (e.g., including a few lines of GPL code in a commercial product or linking directly or indirectly to a GPL library) may have a dramatic effect on your legal rights and obligations. To understand the potential implications of the GPL, you need to have a detailed understanding of your use of GPL code. Basing any analysis upon a superficial understanding may present serious risks.
How does your use of GPL software affect your intellectual property rights? One of the most significant impacts of the GPL is its potential effect on your intellectual property rights. The GPL is widely referred to as ``viral'' because it attempts to subject independently-created code (and associated intellectual property) to the terms of the GPL if it is used in certain ways together with GPL code (see Sections 2 and 3 of the GPL). For example, a business that combines and distributes GPL code with its own proprietary code may be obligated to share with the rest of the world valuable intellectual property (including patent) rights in both code bases on a royalty free basis. Other uses of GPL code may also create obligations for the user. It is important to perform a careful legal and technical review of this issue before using GPL software.
What if you are simply a ``customer,'' acquiring GPL software from other businesses? Does the GPL have any effect on your rights and obligations? Section 0 of the GPL says ``[a]ctivities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted.'' So, a customer who only runs the Program should have no obligations to the author of the code under the GPL. As discussed below, however, such a customer also has no rights from the author (e.g., no assurance that the code is even free from ``known'' copyright infringement problems) and may have liabilities to third parties. If, on the other hand, the customer's use of GPL code involves even limited modification, copying or distribution of the code, the GPL arguably does impose obligations to the author, discussed above and below. In assessing this possibility, customers should carefully consider what the GPL means by ``copying, modifying and distribution.''
Can you develop applications for a GPL program, like Linux, without subjecting those applications to the GPL? This is a particularly important question. The answer will almost certainly depend upon a detailed analysis of the way in which the application was developed and distributed and will be subject to caveats regarding the interpretation and enforceability of the GPL. For example, the analysis will presumably involve a careful review of your development team's exposure to and use of GPL code during the development process, especially whether the application incorporated any such code or was otherwise derived from it. The analysis would also likely consider what libraries are used; how are they used (e.g., statically linked or dynamically linked); whether they, in turn, link to other libraries; and which licenses (GPL or LGPL) govern all of these various libraries. Similarly, the analysis would probably consider what header files are used; whether they, in turn, include other headers; and which licenses govern these various headers. In addition, the analysis would presumably consider whether the application is distributed with GPL code and, if so, how it is distributed and by whom.
Can distribution of your code with GPL code require you to license your code under the GPL? Have you combined your own code with code licensed under the GPL? The GPL attempts to address these questions directly. Section 2 of the GPL says that identifiable sections of a work that are not derived from a GPL program and that ``can be reasonably considered independent and separate'' are not subject to the GPL when distributed as separate works. But if these separate sections are distributed ``as part of a whole which is a work based on'' a GPL program, then this distribution of the ``work as a whole'' is subject to the GPL. Section 2 also says that a ``mere aggregation of another work not based on the [GPL] Program on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.'' A licensee is left with the difficult task of deciding whether a particular combination is a ``work as a whole'' (GPL infection apparently intended) or a ``mere aggregation'' (GPL infection disclaimed).
If your software becomes ``infected'' by the GPL, do you have to give it away for free? Section 3 of the GPL says that you can copy and distribute a GPL program (or a work based on such a program) in object code or executable form, subject to several restrictions. You are supposed to make the corresponding source code available, for example, by including the source code with the object code or offering to distribute it to any third party (Section 3). Section 1 says that you ``may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy,'' but Section 2 says that you ``must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from [a GPL] Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.'' The net effect is, apparently, that you are able to charge a fee for your software, but that right is significantly undercut by your obligation to give others (including your competitors) the right to distribute your software for free.
Are your obligations under the GPL ``flexible'' or ``proportional'' to your use of GPL code? Suppose Business A uses a few hundred lines of GPL code in its existing 500,000-line proprietary program and makes copies for its own employees or distributes ten copies of the modified program as a collective work. Suppose Business B combines 500,000 lines of GPL code with an existing 1000-line proprietary program and distributes 500,000 copies of the modified program as a collective work. The GPL may be read as to require both businesses to share the source code for their modified programs (including their existing commercial programs) and allow royalty-free redistribution of those programs. This is true despite the potentially dramatic differences in the volume, value and copies of the GPL code used.
Do you have all of the rights required to use GPL code? Could your use of GPL code cause you to infringe on the intellectual property rights associated with code you have licensed from others? The seemingly obvious answer to the first question is ``yes'' because those rights are provided under the GPL. The correct answer, however, may require more careful analysis. If, for example, you plan to combine and distribute GPL code with pre-existing code, the ``viral'' nature of the GPL may require you to provide source code for the pre-existing code to all third parties and license others to use it on a royalty-free basis (see Section 2). Unfortunately, if you licensed some of the pre-existing code from a third party, you may not even have access to the source code, much less the right to license it to the rest of the world on a royalty-free basis under the terms of the GPL.
Do you have any existing obligations that might preclude your use of GPL software? Could your use of GPL code put you in breach of existing contractual obligations? As noted above, the use of GPL code with code licensed from another party could, under certain circumstances, arguably obligate you to sublicense the other party's code under the GPL. If you expressly agreed not to attempt to sublicense the other party's code, you should consider whether your use of the GPL code presents a risk that breaches your earlier contract. Even if no breach occurs, the GPL includes provisions that may make it impossible for licensees to retain both their GPL rights and rights under other agreements. For example, Section 7 of the GPL says that if ``conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this license, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.'' Suppose Business A has developed a program using trade secret rights that were licensed from Business B under an agreement that prohibited their disclosure. Now assume that A uses GPL code in a way that ``infects'' its program. Section 7 apparently says that use of GPL code in such a program is impermissible. This places A in an untenable situation: unless it persuades B to divulge its trade secrets to the world, A must cease distribution of its program. This may be true even if A's use of GPL code is minimal.
Have you considered the risk that GPL code might infringe on third party intellectual property rights? Although it is always difficult for a business to ensure that acquired products do not infringe on third-party intellectual property rights, the risks associated with the use of GPL software may be substantially higher than those associated with commercial software. For example, given the distributed nature of open source development, you should understand what controls, if any, you have in place to screen unlicensed code or trade secret information from inclusion in the GPL program. This view is perhaps reinforced by the fact that Section 11 of the GPL expressly disclaims any warranties, including presumably a warranty that the program is free from infringements of third-party copyrights or trade secrets known to the contributor. You should also ask yourself if GPL developers may conclude that this disclaimer makes it okay to distribute code under the GPL when they know they don't have the rights required to do so. Developers of commercial software, in contrast, typically have procedures, contractual obligations, and a substantial financial stake in minimizing potential infringements.
What happens if an intellectual property owner, who claims that your use of GPL code infringes its intellectual property rights, sues you? As noted above, Section 11 suggests that you are ``on your own'' with respect to defense of the suit and payment for damages.
What is the extent of your liability for GPL-related infringements? Several provisions of the GPL may be read as requiring a GPL licensee to effectively sublicense its rights to the rest of the world (e.g., Section 2, relating to the modification and distribution of GPL works). GPL licensees should ask themselves whether, and to what extent, they might be responsible for the actions of their sub-licensees. For example, suppose Business A distributes a modified copy of GPL code to Businesses B, C, and D, and each of them further distributes 1000 copies. If Business A is sued for patent infringement relating to its use of GPL software, the patent owner might claim that the business is liable for direct infringement based upon the three copies distributed to Businesses B, C, and D and is further liable for direct, contributory, or induced infringement by the 3000 additional copies distributed by these businesses (and, of course, any and all later distributions by such businesses and their downstream sub-licensees). While actual liability would depend upon a host of factual issues, if Business A has deeper pockets than the other businesses, it should not be surprised to find plaintiff's counsel pursuing such an approach and claiming theoretically unlimited damages caused by Business A's limited initial distribution.
Can the author of a GPL program ``unilaterally'' withdraw your right to distribute the program? Section 8 of the GPL gives ``the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License'' the right to preclude distribution in certain countries based on patents or interface copyrights. It is not clear that a licensee has any right to object to this restriction, which may be solely within the discretion of the original copyright holder. It is also not clear whether this restriction can be imposed retroactively, although Section 8 does say, ``this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.'' Companies relying on GPL code should carefully consider the potential impact such a geographical restriction could have on their business.
Can you use GPL tools in the development of your own software without subjecting your software to the GPL? As noted above, the GPL is sometimes referred to as being ``viral'' because it attempts to subject related third-party code and intellectual property to the GPL. People concerned about this aspect of the GPL are probably careful about modifying GPL programs or combining their code with GPL code, but they may assume that their use of GPL tools cannot ``infect'' the software they are developing. While this is probably true in many cases, it is not necessarily a safe assumption. For example, the ``Bison'' parser developed by Richard Stallman, Robert Corbett and Wilfred Hansen was licensed under the GPL for some time before users realized that the software they were developing with the tool was arguably subject to the GPL. The potential exposure resulted from the parser's inclusion of incidental GPL material in the tool's output. In response to this problem, Bison version 1.24 and later was distributed with a ``special exception'' regarding output files. The implication is that businesses concerned about the possible infection of their software by the GPL should make sure they consider: what, if any, GPL tools are being used by their developers; how those tools are used; and the possibility that such uses might subject their own code to the GPL.
If the GPL requires you to ``contribute'' your modifications to GPL code to ``the community,'' are you sure that your competitors are doing the same? Assuming that two competitors are making similar use of GPL code, their obligations under the GPL should be the same. There are, however, a number of scenarios to consider. Some competitors may not understand their obligations under the GPL and, for that reason, might not share their improvements with competitors. Other competitors' interpretation of the GPL might lead them to conclude that they have no obligation because they might believe the GPL is unenforceable in its entirety. Some competitors may intentionally ignore their obligations under the GPL to obtain a competitive advantage, relying on a variety of factors to avoid compliance. These factors might include obscuring object code to hide use of GPL code and the strength and enforcement of intellectual property laws in the country where they are doing business.
Does the GPL present any special challenges for businesses developing or distributing products with embedded software? The GPL does not expressly impose any ``special'' obligations on embedded software businesses, but embedded businesses should consider whether the GPL presents any unique risks based upon scenarios common to the embedded product space. For example, the manufacturer of a hardware system that includes some embedded GPL software and some of the manufacturer's own proprietary software may find it particularly important to carefully assess whether the GPL and proprietary software form a ``mere aggregation'' (GPL infection disclaimed under Section 2); a ``collective work'' (GPL infection apparently intended); or something else altogether. Some embedded software developers, such as Caldera and Wind River, have publicly expressed concerns about the risks associated with the GPL.
Are your software developers aware of the many development-related issues that may affect GPL risks and obligations? Are you asking (or allowing) them to act as your legal counsel and are you willing to accept that risk? Are you ``betting your business'' on informal or anonymous interpretations of the GPL posted on the Internet? As noted by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), the potential implications of the GPL on software development ultimately depend on the way in which judges will interpret provisions of the GPL. A host of relatively detailed, development-related questions are also likely to be critical. You should probably make sure your developers are asking themselves a number of questions, including:
What is the provenance of the code and tools being used?
What licenses govern that code and tools
What do we do if we can't determine which license governs code included in an open source distribution
What happens if those licensing terms have been clarified or purportedly amended
Does our code use GPL code at runtime, whether through kernel calls, dynamic linkage, static linkage, or other mechanisms; if we are using libraries, do those libraries, in turn, link to other libraries (and, if so, which licenses govern those libraries)?
If we are using headers, do they reference other headers (and, if so, which licenses govern those headers)?
Will our code be distributed, combined or otherwise used with GPL code?
Are we sure about our answers to these questions?
Given the subtle nature of some of the legal issues presented by the GPL, you should also make sure your developers know when to consult legal counsel regarding any potential risks presented by a particular development activity. All businesses would be well advised to avoid taking actions based upon general ``understandings'' of the GPL that are not based on a careful reading of the agreement itself.
Who can you go to if you have a question regarding the GPL's interpretation, want to clarify your risks under the GPL, or amend your obligations? The GPL was developed under the auspices of the FSF. The FSF is not, however, necessarily the owner of any and all intellectual property rights embodied in particular programs licensed under the GPL. Section 10 recognizes this by suggesting that a GPL licensee could write to a program's author (or authors) for permission to distribute the program under different terms. In some cases, no single person or entity may own all of these property rights. As a result, a prospective (or existing) GPL licensee may find it impractical, if not impossible, to negotiate a desired change in its rights and obligations or even obtain a clarification of those rights and obligations. Even if a licensee were somehow able to identify key contributors and reach agreement with all of them regarding a desired change or clarification, presumably those contributors would be unwilling or unable to represent and warrant that they had the entire right and title required to do so.
Are you using any software governed by the Lesser General Public License (LGPL) and, if so, how does that license affect your rights and obligations? The LGPL was developed by the FSF to give library developers an alternative to the GPL. Specifically, although the FSF generally discourages use of the LGPL, it notes that ``using the Library GPL permits use of the library in commercial programs.'' The LGPL retains the ``viral'' provisions of the GPL in the context of modifications to an LGPL library (Section 2). But a different set of obligations are imposed when code is linked to an LGPL library (Sections 5 and 6). If you are developing programs that link to LGPL libraries you should review and understand these obligations. You should also check whether the LGPL libraries used, in turn, link to other libraries and especially consider the implications if the LGPL library links to a GPL library.
Does the use of GPL software reduce the acquisition value of your company (as a start-up) or a particular business unit (as a spin-off)? As noted above, the GPL attempts, under certain circumstances, to subject licensees' code and related intellectual property to the terms of the GPL (see, e.g., Section 3). Once your software is ``infected'' by the GPL, it is not clear whether and how this process can be reversed. So, while GPL code may seem like an inexpensive, convenient and useful way for a start-up to develop a new product quickly, it may also have costly and long-term consequences for the start-up. Parties interested in acquiring the business are likely to conclude, as a part of any acquisition due diligence, that the business has already effectively given away most of the commercial value in its code.
Does your use of GPL code present any issues re shareholder value and exposure to suit? In the context of initial public offerings, at least some businesses based upon GPL software have concluded that such software introduces risks that should be disclosed as part of the offering. These risks include: the companies ``inability'' to offer warranties and indemnities because the code is developed by independent parties over whom the offering business has no control or supervision; the uncertain future of the code base (will further development occur and, if so, in what direction); the availability of the same code from other sources for free; and concerns about negative reactions from the open source community. (These issues are discussed in the ``10Ks'' of several of the publicly traded companies that distribute GPL programs). If you are beginning to use GPL code, you should ask whether this presents similar risks to your business.
Do you have a process for reviewing and approving prospective uses of GPL software? Are you willing to use precious developer resources required to assess the impact of prospective uses of GPL code that you will depend on? Most businesses that are engaged in software development establish procedures to avoid tainting their development process with software that is subject to other people's intellectual property rights. Although GPL code is often described as ``free,'' as noted above it may impose severe obligations on users and is perhaps even more deserving of a company-wide process regarding review and approval before use.
Do you have or need any special procedures regarding potential GPL issues created by your licensing of third-party software and or acquisitions of software? Given the potential effect that the GPL may have on code and intellectual property acquired by (or licensed into) a company, it may make sense for businesses to develop procedures to ensure that such acquisitions and licenses are reviewed for GPL issues. For example, many companies have established ``due diligence'' procedures to help them identify and evaluate potential issues associated with the acquisition of businesses, product lines, and intellectual property rights. Companies pursuing software-related acquisitions or investments should probably consider whether their due diligence procedures
Rest got trashed by catdoc...
Mark
Do I have any choice about using MS's products? No, my job effectively requires it. Mainly the ability to read and edit MS word documents, but also, quite frankly, the ability to edit them. No non-MS editor I know of can do that. Why is this a requirement? Because so many people send me these .doc files (and .ppt files). So my employeer had to spend some $400. Including an OS I don't want or use or need.
Because of their market position, I must have MS-office. This is true for all of my co-workers. We have no choice but to give money to MS. Lots of money.
Now, IE has become the defacto web browser. My wife, who hates MS, is a web developer. She hates having to deal with anything other than IE because the other browswers (mainly Netscape) suck. Netscape has effectively been forced out of the market by the bundling of IE to Windows. They did't get the revenue (and there is money made by controlling the (free!) browswer market) that comes with a large market share even when they had the better product. Because people had to work to get something other than IE.
Thus, MS used its OS domanance to push its browser. They control the browsers now. At one time it was thought that browsers (and Java) would actulally be compitition for MS windows. Instead it is just a part of windows. And don't get me started on how it killed Java.
MS uses its market power to kill competition in the OS arena and to extend its domanace into other markets. This extended domanance, in turn, can be used to maintain its monopoly.
Face it, if you wrote a wonderful free OS, and paid people to use it, they would still have to use Windows because of MS office. To get mainstream acceptance of a new OS you would have to include:
- An office suite
- A UI which is somehow easier for people to use than Windows (which they have probably been using for years!)
- A development enviornment
- A set of networking and admin tools which are easier for an MSCE to use than those for Windows (Which they have been trained on)
Quite frankly no one can afford to try this.From the above I claim that MS is an effective monopoly. And further that regulation is needed to prevent them from becoming even more entrenched in the OS market and from using that OS monopoly to gain control of other markets. Those conserns don't exist for Linux, or Mac OS, or really anything else.
Futher, I claim such a monopoly is bad. In the end, if Microsoft doesn't do it in the markets they control, it won't happen. Having Java as the defacto language might have been a good thing. But it went against MS's interests and so is dead. MS's interests cannot be the determing factor as to which features the users get...
To sum up. MS is a monopoly. Monopoly's need to be regulated. Therefor MS needs to be regulated.
Say the government grants a monopoly on the sale of bananas. Only FruitCo may sell bananas in the US. Do they have a monopoly? Sure, by definition. Can they set any price point they choose? No. If they charge $100.00 a pound, they will make less money then they will at $0.75 a pound. People will eat other fruit or go without.
Being a monopoly does not mean you can set any arbitrary price point. Rather, it means you can optimize profits by considering demand and igoring the cost of manufacture. And you can do this because no one can possibly undercut you as you are the only (real) product on the market.
In my mind, the real question:
Is it healthy, for society on the whole, if MS uses its market domainance in one area to gain domainance in another area?''
And I feel that the answer is ``usually no.''
Absent a free and competitive market, it is the government's job to jump in. Keep in mind it is government restriction on competition (copyright and patent law) that prevents others from truly competing with MS. Those laws preventing competition either need to be junked (which is probably a bad idea. The promotion of Science and the Useful Arts is a good thing.) or we need to be willing to let government try to restrict the worst effects of those laws.
-- Mark
I will remove it if asked, so grab it if ya want it.
Mark
The various companies will create an encription scheme to protect their IP. Only with a licence will you be able to build a decryptor. Anyone else building such a device would likely be in violation of patent law and the DMCA.
If they are smart, most content providers will not use this feature initially, in the hopes of people not getting into an uproar. And the first step of The Right to Read will be here.
Gosh I'm in a dark mood....
Mark
Mark
While I have no doubt Steve gets a lot of flak, I for one have complained to cotse about some of the posts coming from there. As I recall it was when some 3 or 4 posters were posting 10 cut-and-paste messages a day to a certain newsgroup.
(cut-and-paste meaning that the posts were just cut-and-pasted off of a website).
Was I an evil anti-free speach person? Perhaps. But I felt a complaint was appropriate. Especially if those 3 or 4 posters were really just one person (which appeared to be the case) simply trying to drown out other discussion.
That said, this service is darn useful.
And that same editor also is editor for a mental health directory. Strangely (or not if you know much about Scientology) it is almost entirely anti-mental health or alternative treatment stuff. It is under "health and safety" not "oppossing views"
To me, this says that the editor's biases do play a large role. I was happy to see that opposing views _was_ linked to from the Scientology main directory entry. Perhaps that is enough. But I really felt like I was looking at an advertisement for Scientology.
"banned me from the University property. I'm also suspended indefinately, and face immediate expulsion from the University. (BTW - I'm almost done with my Mechanical Engineering degree .. so this is not light by any means. If expelled, I'm forced to start over as a freshmen if
I ever get into another school.)"
I can assure you that unless UU would refuse to provide a transcript (which I suspect would be illegal, and would certainly get them in hot water with other Universities) That he/she would not have to start over as a freshman.
I do transfer credit for part of the University of Michigan...