Re:What's with the name?
on
Kroupware Komplete
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
this is very true. i've worked for and gotten mass adoption of bugzilla where i work, but i still have to fight that image problem of it being called "bugzilla".
everyone admits it works great...but "IBM/Rational ClearQuest(tm)" sounds so much more professional.
> someone within the community needs to take some > serious time and legal effort to address these > concerns.
there are many in the community who would LOVE to do this, myself included (IANAL tho). but in order to do so, we need some sort of actual, specific complaint from SCO. until they start doing anything besides blowing smoke up people's asses, we have nothing to actually address!
other than the rude behavior of blowing smoke up people's asses. (which many people have addressed time and again)
people often think of the horrors if automating everything, making our jobs not necessary. what they often forget is that this is a GOOD thing. massive decreases in the costs of producing goods means the savings are passed on to you! you (and everyone else) can live in the lap of luxury for just pennys worth of electricity. it raises the standard of living for all.
noone cries over the millions of lost jobs for book scribes, legions of farm labor, auto assembly line workers or etc. (who have now already replaced) over 50 years people can adapt to the new enviornment too. and we'll all be better off.
A CS professor can write a book full of algorithms, and a second year CS major can read the book and tell whether a random piece of code uses an algorithm from the book. Why can't a professional software engineer read a patent application and understand what will infringe and what will not?
simple. because a piece of code has a specific structure, even if you change the names of the vars and such. a "code fingerprint" if you will, that is more difficult to remove than it is to reinvent the same piece of code yourself.
a patent on the other hand, esp. a software or business patent, covers the IDEA of the code. (which may or may not have a working implementation) this idea has no such unique signature, so when another programmer runs into the same type of problem and invents his own solution, it's next to impossible for someone to predict what a court is going to believe is infringing or not. (that's assuming he is aware of the patent and its holder at all - normally this is not the case)
> Why should we make the USPTO due the homework of a patent lawyer?
because thats what they were CHARTERED to do. you want randomly hired patent lawyers deciding for themselves that their clients deserve government granted monopolies?
> Another way to filter patents (and lower taxpayer burden) is to leave it up to the courts.
you think trials are free? using the courts to invalidate patents costs much MORE than only granting valid patents in the first place. for everyone, the taxpayer AND the two companies.
> To prevent abuses, there should be strong penalties for filing a patent that gets overturned in court. increased risk means decreased value. a company should not have to bear the risk of fines later in life if a patent is overturned. the patent fees should cover the cost of evaluation, and if they're not valid they should not be granted, end of story.
> Useless patents are never challenged and nobody cares; useful patents get their due. Lawyers make more money.
maybe they aren't challenged, but they ARE used for bullying smaller companies. heck, they're used to bully companies of all sizes. no, not everyone is happy.
it's not even in the code base by default. you have to know a specific CVS flag to ask for it. (and it's titled ENABLE_GOD, so confusion shouldn't be an issue!)
I am working on an app for the govt, and yes, I have programmed in a backdoor login, as it's very useful for testing and development.
However, the following are true: 1) management knows full well of its existence 2) BY DEFAULT, it is turned off in any build 3) it is NEVER to be deployed turned on
--== BEGIN FWD ==-- Thank you very much for taking the time to fill out our online donation form. This e-mail may serve as your receipt for your tax deductible donation to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
On 2003-1-12 you contributed US$65 to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) for a one year membership with the organization.
Your Anonymizer key will be e-mailed to you within 7 days. --== END FWD ==--
That depends on what you mean by distribute. I would tend to think that distributing inside your company is still distributing, but it looks like I'm wrong.
(taken from gnu.org)
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.
It's important to make clear the difference between: 1) using OSS code in your software 2) using OSS code to write your software, or to deploy your software, or to distribute your software, or to hang your software out to dry on your clothesline, etc...
Only #1 requires you to make your software open source.
(btw, I work as a contractor for the DOD. we do #2 constantly, and I can promise you it's the much more common activity)
Yes, +5 funny, I know, and yes I can take a joke, but...
I subscribe to slashdot because I read and use it every day, both for personal and professional reasons. As a (yes, employed) programmer, I appriciate the time and energy it takes to no only write and maintain this site, but also supply it with a constant source of usually interesting and relevent news.
I really couldn't care less if there are typos in headlines - Slashdot (for 4+ years so far) provides me with an insanely inexpensive yet invaluable service. The charity here is not you giving to them, but them giving to you.
Slashdot Mirror
this is very true. i've worked for and gotten mass adoption of bugzilla where i work, but i still have to fight that image problem of it being called "bugzilla".
everyone admits it works great...but "IBM/Rational ClearQuest(tm)" sounds so much more professional.
argh.
> someone within the community needs to take some
> serious time and legal effort to address these
> concerns.
there are many in the community who would LOVE to do this, myself included (IANAL tho). but in order to do so, we need some sort of actual, specific complaint from SCO. until they start doing anything besides blowing smoke up people's asses, we have nothing to actually address!
other than the rude behavior of blowing smoke up people's asses. (which many people have addressed time and again)
people often think of the horrors if automating everything, making our jobs not necessary. what they often forget is that this is a GOOD thing. massive decreases in the costs of producing goods means the savings are passed on to you! you (and everyone else) can live in the lap of luxury for just pennys worth of electricity. it raises the standard of living for all.
noone cries over the millions of lost jobs for book scribes, legions of farm labor, auto assembly line workers or etc. (who have now already replaced) over 50 years people can adapt to the new enviornment too. and we'll all be better off.
FYI, the title is referencing a classic book:
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
converts bio-mass to fuel for futuristic cars? i KNOW i've see that somewhere before!!!
i'm sorry, but where are you finding this dual P4 system? IIRC, P4s are single only - you need a Xeon for that.
go configure that dell with dual 3ghz xeons, which the g5 beats. you'll find it to be $3,934.
interesting username there, bud...
i'd say it's -2 stupid, flamebait.
if you're _telneting_ into your home box from school, they'd be doing you a favor to block you.
use ssh!
> what they need is new writers.
ummm....let's see, how do i put this...
perhaps you mean "what they need ARE new writers"?
A CS professor can write a book full of algorithms, and a second year CS major can read the book and tell whether a random piece of code uses an algorithm from the book. Why can't a professional software engineer read a patent application and understand what will infringe and what will not?
simple. because a piece of code has a specific structure, even if you change the names of the vars and such. a "code fingerprint" if you will, that is more difficult to remove than it is to reinvent the same piece of code yourself.
a patent on the other hand, esp. a software or business patent, covers the IDEA of the code. (which may or may not have a working implementation) this idea has no such unique signature, so when another programmer runs into the same type of problem and invents his own solution, it's next to impossible for someone to predict what a court is going to believe is infringing or not. (that's assuming he is aware of the patent and its holder at all - normally this is not the case)
Am I the only one who read that as "Alien Telescope Array"?
I need more cafffeeeeeeennee...
> Why should we make the USPTO due the homework of a patent lawyer?
because thats what they were CHARTERED to do. you want randomly hired patent lawyers deciding for themselves that their clients deserve government granted monopolies?
> Another way to filter patents (and lower taxpayer burden) is to leave it up to the courts.
you think trials are free? using the courts to invalidate patents costs much MORE than only granting valid patents in the first place. for everyone, the taxpayer AND the two companies.
> To prevent abuses, there should be strong penalties for filing a patent that gets overturned in court.
increased risk means decreased value. a company should not have to bear the risk of fines later in life if a patent is overturned. the patent fees should cover the cost of evaluation, and if they're not valid they should not be granted, end of story.
> Useless patents are never challenged and nobody cares; useful patents get their due. Lawyers make more money.
maybe they aren't challenged, but they ARE used for bullying smaller companies. heck, they're used to bully companies of all sizes. no, not everyone is happy.
i love eclipse SWT on my gentoo box. it's as fast/slick as it is on my w2k machine at work.
oh, and it's not just GTK, it's GTK2.
> Wait, so when you patent an algorithm, it's just
> a mathematical thing
actually, you CANNOT patent an algorithm. no math whatsoever may be subject to a patent.
simple - it's off by default. :)
(as i said
it's not even in the code base by default. you have to know a specific CVS flag to ask for it. (and it's titled ENABLE_GOD, so confusion shouldn't be an issue!)
I am working on an app for the govt, and yes, I have programmed in a backdoor login, as it's very useful for testing and development.
However, the following are true:
1) management knows full well of its existence
2) BY DEFAULT, it is turned off in any build
3) it is NEVER to be deployed turned on
I think it's a good rule of thumb.
I Am Not A (what?!?)
had to read it twice before i realized it wasn't a typo...
I have now...
--== BEGIN FWD ==--
Thank you very much for taking the time to fill out
our online donation form. This e-mail may serve as
your receipt for your tax deductible donation to the
Electronic Frontier Foundation.
On 2003-1-12 you contributed US$65
to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
for a one year membership with the organization.
Your Anonymizer key will be e-mailed to you within 7 days.
--== END FWD ==--
Who's with me?
Haha!
When I saw their logo, with the 2 large "C"s, I first thought it said CueCat!
I thought, "That's ironic, that's the same name as that OTHER company with a shitty business model!"
It strunk me as ironic that, in a comment complaining about dupes, the same text is echoed in the title and the body.
That depends on what you mean by distribute. I would tend to think that distributing inside your company is still distributing, but it looks like I'm wrong.
(taken from gnu.org)
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.
It's important to make clear the difference between:
1) using OSS code in your software
2) using OSS code to write your software, or to deploy your software, or to distribute your software, or to hang your software out to dry on your clothesline, etc...
Only #1 requires you to make your software open source.
(btw, I work as a contractor for the DOD. we do #2 constantly, and I can promise you it's the much more common activity)
GNU's not unix is #50!! ;-)
Yes, +5 funny, I know, and yes I can take a joke, but...
I subscribe to slashdot because I read and use it every day, both for personal and professional reasons. As a (yes, employed) programmer, I appriciate the time and energy it takes to no only write and maintain this site, but also supply it with a constant source of usually interesting and relevent news.
I really couldn't care less if there are typos in headlines - Slashdot (for 4+ years so far) provides me with an insanely inexpensive yet invaluable service. The charity here is not you giving to them, but them giving to you.
OT, yes, but your sig is incorrect.
That quote is of George H.W. Bush, not Dubbya, in 1987 during his presidential campaign.
(however that makes it no less offensive, and yes, I voted for the man who truly won the election, Gore)