Considering that Baystar only gave them that $50 mil in exchange for 2.5+ million shares and some pretty nasty strings attached, I'd think that they'd be in some real trouble trying to buy back over half the shares with that money- Baystar'd be pissed off at the least and would probably try to get out at the first opportunity.
The buyback's insane, just like about everything else that they've done over the past year plus.
PS. I was really, really mad and irritated, because result of all that stuff was few months delay of my master thesis:-( At least I will not make similiar mistakes in future. Always double check project you will be working on.
I just can't envision a project that never really got off the ground as, you describe it, providing enough of a distraction to delay a Master's Thesis. Better yet, I can't envision myself delaying a Master's Thesis for much of anything of that nature- you'd be in a much more robust position in your career with the MS than without it. I'd have poured most of my efforts into it and a small amount of the AP work- especially when it looked like it was stalled.
But then, that's just me, I guess- what do I know, right?
Some of it is using Microsoft API's. Some of it is using things like Bink, which didn't have a version for Linux until recently and it will cost you another $2k or so to provide a Linux version for sale or download (Both of which was the reason there were no in-game cutscenes for NWN...). Some of it is that they have to provide testing and, at minimum, deal with support calls even if they explicitly state that it is unsupported. Some of it is that there is a perception that writing to Windows is cross-platform enough since it's "portable" to the X-Box. (Which is flatly wrong...) Some of it is that there's the perception that writing to just Windows is easier and that writing cross-platform code is more difficult because it requires careful dilligent work to make the game work on all platforms (using the argument that there's different capabilities on each of the same and you have to code for each... Again, all of which, is pretty much wrong...)
With all the obvious and percieved expenses, most of the publishing houses don't really see any profit in producing Linux versions of anything. In the case of Id, Bioware, S2 Games, and Epic (not to be confused with Epic Interactive of the main subject...), they are studios going out on a limb and taking extra risks because they believe in Linux or they think that it's got some potential.
We can't fix the real expenses and risks- the studios and publishers will have to weigh those risks against potential profits and decide if they're going to do the version, let someone like LGP handle it for them, or not do one at all.
I'm endeavoring to talk to the percieved expenses and risks that are opposite to the way things really are. I'm scheduled to be giving a 30-minute talk this month at GDC on the subject.
1) Like you said, the magnetic anti-theft systems aren't even the SAME as an RFID system.
2) RFID chips aren't so thin that you can't feel them on a US bill.
3) RFID chips require a decent sized antenna to work so they can re-radiate RF. It'd be visible if you shine light through the paper either as a consistent pattern in the ink or as fine wires.
If they're importing stuff, their economy suffers if they're not exporting more than they're importing. Currently this is the case with things, but to say that you're handicapping economic growth by not importing things, implies you know very little about how economics works.
Their public proclaimations are actionable as well- and will be held against them in court. It's stung them badly in the hearings they've had for discovery.
...they don't intend to honor the terms of the GPL in the case of the Linux kernel- period. In the process, they've made it clear that they don't intend on honoring the terms of the GPL, or agree to it for that matter, for pretty much anything licensed under it. Since this is the case, they're pretty much without a license as they have to agree to and honor the terms of the same per the terms of the license- failure to do so means your license is automatically revoked.
Fyodor's just made a public statement to that effect along with a statement that he will no longer be supporting SCO systems.
Very public statements that they do not consider the GPL to be enforceable and therefore they didn't license their alleged IP in the Linux kernel under the same when they distributed it in their Distribution amounts to a public statement that they don't intend to honor the GPL.
If you don't intend to honor the GPL, you have no license to produce derivatives or redistribute code because one of the clauses says so.
Fyodor's just making an official and public statement to this effect.
The claims they make don't go towards that- my guess is that they're hoping nobody will catch them on it, including the examiners. Since a filing's a comparative drop in the bucket for them and there's no penalties past the filing fees for it, it's very likely they're running something up the flagpole to see if someone will salute it. As it stands, the FAT filesystem filings were filled with a BUNCH of obvious stuff and stuff that could quite possibly be covered by prior art. I'd have not approved what got approval on those Patents if I'd been the examiner- I know what it is supposed to take and the patents in question and their latest application really don't have what it takes.
"the fact that it's always visible means that there is no "indication from a user" that he/she wants to preview the desktops. it just does it all the time."
Depends. In the case of most of the Linux desktop pagers, they're attached to a bar that can be hidden.
Besides, Dashboard and Dashboard95 pretty much did the same things back in 1996 and before.
50/60Hz Magnetic and Electric fields seem to be rather imnical to living things.
At DC currents up to 10ma, you probably won't notice.
At AC currents at 50/60Hz up to 10ma, your muscles will start twitching in an odd manner...
At DC currents up to 1A, you'll get a zap not unlike sticking your tounge to a 9v battery proportionate to the current involved.
At AC currents at 50/60Hz up to 1A you'll have painful muscle contractions such that you can't let go if you grabbed the line with your hand(s) and if the conduction path is through your heart it'll stop it outright.
Higher currents in DC can burn/cauterize tissue.
Higher currents in AC can do the same, along with the consequence of stopping your heart or causing fibrillations if the conduction path is through your heart.
Magnetic fields are likely to have similar ill effects on tissues (as it stands, they KNOW that it increases tumor growth these days...).
Cell phones, GSM/TDMA/CDMA mobile phones, Microwave ovens, etc. use completely different frequencies with completely different consequences- there's been several studies that indicate that the RF power from a digital mobile phone may actually increase your intelligence by a negligible, but still measurable result.
The studies aren't analogous because the frequencies are completely different.
This means that you also can legitimately have everyone and his dog claim the work as part of their own and pretty much get away with it. When you release to the Public Domain, you're disowning the code in question.
"You assumed by fanatic I meant something bad, I just meant you were a fan of it, as in liking GPL. *shrug*"
You should use slightly more precision than you used in the first posting.
(From dictionary.com...)
fanatic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-ntk) n.
A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.
fan ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fn) n.
An ardent devotee; an enthusiast.
There's subtle differences in the two, if you think about it all. While one's derived from the other, "fan" is less emotionally charged than "fanatic", which can have negative connotations.
"That reason being? You don't want to use XFree86 or Apache, because someone might steal their code?"
Didn't you read what I posted? I've licensed under XFreee86 which is an MIT variant. Check my user info... I've developed code that is used in Utah-GLX and I've worked with people working on DRI in the past- and gladly so. I may not have 100% liked the fact that the code was under a different license than the GPL, but the people you're working with generally choose your license and you either accept it or don't submit work.
In the same breath, I've licensed a LOT of work under the LGPL and GPL because I agree with the idea of the license and I've done a lot of outside Linux driver development and work on game libraries for Linux. It's my preferred license- and, if you want to use the code I've provided under that license, you'd better deal with it or not use it. Advertisement or Patent clauses will not keep people from stealing the code anyhow. With that one, you're barking up the wrong tree.
That if they make extentions to the IP, they have to give me rights to the same.
Let me rephrase my comment...
I just don't like the thought of someone taking my hard work and claiming it as their own work or keeping anything they might add to my work to themseleves. I shared it, they need to share as well.
If you use the BSD, I can relicense the whole damn thing under the GPL unless you're using the oldest version of the license that requires the advertising.
Better yet, you're confused about the licensing...
BSD licensing gives you absolute freedom- including proprietarizing the code. Nothing wrong with that. I just don't like the thought of someone taking my hard work and making money off of it- I want to reserve that privilege for myself, thank you.
GPL licensing gives you the freedom to do whatever you want with the code, so long as you give the people recieving the binaries the same rights you got, including on any enhancements you did to the code.
That's a dramatic difference from what you're claiming of things. Is it all that hard for BSD licensing proponents (the moment you labeled me a GPL fanatic, you resorted to ad-hominem, and I will not stoop to that level, thank you...) to get the fact that BSD isn't incompatible for the most part? Is it all that hard for a proponent of the BSD or similar license to figure out that there's going to be people that do not want to use your preferred license for varying reasons?
(Here's a clue for you, me bucko- I've got stuff licensed under GPL, LGPL, BSD, AND MIT/X out in the world right at the moment. I know all about all the popular Open/Free licenses and I tend to pick the one that works or makes the most sense for each piece of code I license to the rest of the world.)
Yes. For the time being, your information is 100% accurate for the sample set in question- which is all well and good. The problem with it is that you don't know how many people using Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape, Konqueror, Savannah, or Opera are using your site as they all can change the user agent string. Not to mention that using IE specific quirks tends to be bad HTML/Javascript in the first place.
HTML is about not caring about the browser application or the OS it runs on. Javascript/ECMAScript is supposed to be the same for the most part. Ditto Java and plugins.
If you're doing anything other than the above, you're not doing what's supposed to be done- and you're playing right into Microsoft's game. And, in all honesty, you're entitled to do that- just don't expect me to do anything less than take you to task over it when it's broken.
The problem is not one of the GPL being problematic, but rather people not thinking through what they're doing with their licensing. One of the GPL's purposes is to ensure that the code stays available to those that are interested in it as long as they are so interested. Pretty much only the GPL and LGPL do this of all the licenses out there. The other variants do this to some or no degree (MPL and APSL do some of this, but they're not as strong as the GPL is in this regard and the BSD/MIT/Artistic variants tend to not protect you from propritization of the code at all...).
In the case of the new XFree86 license, it's a stupid play on their part to try to get more recognition (there's other ways to do this, folks- not a single player in the FOSS community is claiming that they're the ones that produced XFree86 at this point in time.) and I'm sure that the Apache license is probably another example of something not being quite thought out in the ramifications department.
Considering that OpenOffice IS a pretty major piece of IP, that Sun DID dual license under their community license AND the GPL, I'd say they're not guilty of the issue on #2.
I do believe that Microsoft ended up doing exactly what he said would happen if it were open sourced- and it wasn't under an Open Source or Free Software license at all. They took MS to court over it, even. Microsoft's response was to take their altered version, add a few extra Windows specific features and called it.NET.
If they'd GPLed the silly thing, we could have more assurances that Java would be interoperable- because any "proprietary" enhancements wouldn't be possible or would get pulled as they'd be infringing.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that Baystar only gave them that $50 mil in exchange for 2.5+ million shares and some pretty nasty strings attached, I'd think that they'd be in some real trouble trying to buy back over half the shares with that money- Baystar'd be pissed off at the least and would probably try to get out at the first opportunity.
The buyback's insane, just like about everything else that they've done over the past year plus.
I just can't envision a project that never really got off the ground as, you describe it, providing enough of a distraction to delay a Master's Thesis. Better yet, I can't envision myself delaying a Master's Thesis for much of anything of that nature- you'd be in a much more robust position in your career with the MS than without it. I'd have poured most of my efforts into it and a small amount of the AP work- especially when it looked like it was stalled.
But then, that's just me, I guess- what do I know, right?
It's a combination of things...
Some of it is using Microsoft API's.
Some of it is using things like Bink, which didn't have a version for Linux until recently and it will cost you another $2k or so to provide a Linux version for sale or download (Both of which was the reason there were no in-game cutscenes for NWN...).
Some of it is that they have to provide testing and, at minimum, deal with support calls even if they explicitly state that it is unsupported.
Some of it is that there is a perception that writing to Windows is cross-platform enough since it's "portable" to the X-Box. (Which is flatly wrong...)
Some of it is that there's the perception that writing to just Windows is easier and that writing cross-platform code is more difficult because it requires careful dilligent work to make the game work on all platforms (using the argument that there's different capabilities on each of the same and you have to code for each... Again, all of which, is pretty much wrong...)
With all the obvious and percieved expenses, most of the publishing houses don't really see any profit in producing Linux versions of anything. In the case of Id, Bioware, S2 Games, and Epic (not to be confused with Epic Interactive of the main subject...), they are studios going out on a limb and taking extra risks because they believe in Linux or they think that it's got some potential.
We can't fix the real expenses and risks- the studios and publishers will have to weigh those risks against potential profits and decide if they're going to do the version, let someone like LGP handle it for them, or not do one at all.
I'm endeavoring to talk to the percieved expenses and risks that are opposite to the way things really are. I'm scheduled to be giving a 30-minute talk this month at GDC on the subject.
Yes, I know... Don't be posting mod requests...
While I can't verify either side of the story- the parent presents a different side to things from the Angry Pixels' apparent demise...
I have used K3B for making audio and data discs. You've heard right. I used to think xcdroast was easy- but this has that one beat hands down.
1) Like you said, the magnetic anti-theft systems aren't even the SAME as an RFID system.
2) RFID chips aren't so thin that you can't feel them on a US bill.
3) RFID chips require a decent sized antenna to work so they can re-radiate RF. It'd be visible if you shine light through the paper either as a consistent pattern in the ink or as fine wires.
It's BS, pure and simple.
If they're importing stuff, their economy suffers if they're not exporting more than they're importing. Currently this is the case with things, but to say that you're handicapping economic growth by not importing things, implies you know very little about how economics works.
Their public proclaimations are actionable as well- and will be held against them in court. It's stung them badly in the hearings they've had for discovery.
...they don't intend to honor the terms of the GPL in the case of the Linux kernel- period. In the process, they've made it clear that they don't intend on honoring the terms of the GPL, or agree to it for that matter, for pretty much anything licensed under it. Since this is the case, they're pretty much without a license as they have to agree to and honor the terms of the same per the terms of the license- failure to do so means your license is automatically revoked.
Fyodor's just made a public statement to that effect along with a statement that he will no longer be supporting SCO systems.
Very public statements that they do not consider the GPL to be enforceable and therefore they didn't license their alleged IP in the Linux kernel under the same when they distributed it in their Distribution amounts to a public statement that they don't intend to honor the GPL.
If you don't intend to honor the GPL, you have no license to produce derivatives or redistribute code because one of the clauses says so.
Fyodor's just making an official and public statement to this effect.
...at the holder's request.
The claims they make don't go towards that- my guess is that they're hoping nobody will catch them on it, including the examiners. Since a filing's a comparative drop in the bucket for them and there's no penalties past the filing fees for it, it's very likely they're running something up the flagpole to see if someone will salute it. As it stands, the FAT filesystem filings were filled with a BUNCH of obvious stuff and stuff that could quite possibly be covered by prior art. I'd have not approved what got approval on those Patents if I'd been the examiner- I know what it is supposed to take and the patents in question and their latest application really don't have what it takes.
Depends. In the case of most of the Linux desktop pagers, they're attached to a bar that can be hidden.
Besides, Dashboard and Dashboard95 pretty much did the same things back in 1996 and before.
...that there's TONS of prior art available that does exactly what they're describing here.
Starfish Dashboard...
Several different pieces of shareware at the time Dashboard95 came out...
FVWM...
GNOME...
KDE...
Simply put, they shouldn't have filed this one.
If the EU mandates it, you won't be able to sell the "integrated" media version within the confines thereof.
That's someone else's tech too...
I went through this once before a while back...
50/60Hz Magnetic and Electric fields seem to be rather imnical to living things.
At DC currents up to 10ma, you probably won't notice.
At AC currents at 50/60Hz up to 10ma, your muscles will start twitching in an odd manner...
At DC currents up to 1A, you'll get a zap not unlike sticking your tounge to a 9v battery proportionate to the current involved.
At AC currents at 50/60Hz up to 1A you'll have painful muscle contractions such that you can't let go if you grabbed the line with your hand(s) and if the conduction path is through your heart it'll stop it outright.
Higher currents in DC can burn/cauterize tissue.
Higher currents in AC can do the same, along with the consequence of stopping your heart or causing fibrillations if the conduction path is through your heart.
Magnetic fields are likely to have similar ill effects on tissues (as it stands, they KNOW that it increases tumor growth these days...).
Cell phones, GSM/TDMA/CDMA mobile phones, Microwave ovens, etc. use completely different frequencies with completely different consequences- there's been several studies that indicate that the RF power from a digital mobile phone may actually increase your intelligence by a negligible, but still measurable result.
The studies aren't analogous because the frequencies are completely different.
This means that you also can legitimately have everyone and his dog claim the work as part of their own and pretty much get away with it. When you release to the Public Domain, you're disowning the code in question.
You should use slightly more precision than you used in the first posting.
(From dictionary.com...)
fanatic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-ntk)
n.
A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.
fan ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fn)
n.
An ardent devotee; an enthusiast.
There's subtle differences in the two, if you think about it all. While one's derived from the other, "fan" is less emotionally charged than "fanatic", which can have negative connotations.
Didn't you read what I posted? I've licensed under XFreee86 which is an MIT variant. Check my user info... I've developed code that is used in Utah-GLX and I've worked with people working on DRI in the past- and gladly so. I may not have 100% liked the fact that the code was under a different license than the GPL, but the people you're working with generally choose your license and you either accept it or don't submit work.
In the same breath, I've licensed a LOT of work under the LGPL and GPL because I agree with the idea of the license and I've done a lot of outside Linux driver development and work on game libraries for Linux. It's my preferred license- and, if you want to use the code I've provided under that license, you'd better deal with it or not use it. Advertisement or Patent clauses will not keep people from stealing the code anyhow. With that one, you're barking up the wrong tree.
That if they make extentions to the IP, they have to give me rights to the same.
Let me rephrase my comment...
I just don't like the thought of someone taking my hard work and claiming it as their own work or keeping anything they might add to my work to themseleves. I shared it, they need to share as well.
You just invalidated your entire rant.
If you use the BSD, I can relicense the whole damn thing under the GPL unless you're using the oldest version of the license that requires the advertising.
Better yet, you're confused about the licensing...
BSD licensing gives you absolute freedom- including proprietarizing the code. Nothing wrong with that. I just don't like the thought of someone taking my hard work and making money off of it- I want to reserve that privilege for myself, thank you.
GPL licensing gives you the freedom to do whatever you want with the code, so long as you give the people recieving the binaries the same rights you got, including on any enhancements you did to the code.
That's a dramatic difference from what you're claiming of things. Is it all that hard for BSD licensing proponents (the moment you labeled me a GPL fanatic, you resorted to ad-hominem, and I will not stoop to that level, thank you...) to get the fact that BSD isn't incompatible for the most part? Is it all that hard for a proponent of the BSD or similar license to figure out that there's going to be people that do not want to use your preferred license for varying reasons?
(Here's a clue for you, me bucko- I've got stuff licensed under GPL, LGPL, BSD, AND MIT/X out in the world right at the moment. I know all about all the popular Open/Free licenses and I tend to pick the one that works or makes the most sense for each piece of code I license to the rest of the world.)
Yes. For the time being, your information is 100% accurate for the sample set in question- which is all well and good. The problem with it is that you don't know how many people using Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape, Konqueror, Savannah, or Opera are using your site as they all can change the user agent string. Not to mention that using IE specific quirks tends to be bad HTML/Javascript in the first place.
HTML is about not caring about the browser application or the OS it runs on. Javascript/ECMAScript is supposed to be the same for the most part. Ditto Java and plugins.
If you're doing anything other than the above, you're not doing what's supposed to be done- and you're playing right into Microsoft's game. And, in all honesty, you're entitled to do that- just don't expect me to do anything less than take you to task over it when it's broken.
The problem is not one of the GPL being problematic, but rather people not thinking through what they're doing with their licensing. One of the GPL's purposes is to ensure that the code stays available to those that are interested in it as long as they are so interested. Pretty much only the GPL and LGPL do this of all the licenses out there. The other variants do this to some or no degree (MPL and APSL do some of this, but they're not as strong as the GPL is in this regard and the BSD/MIT/Artistic variants tend to not protect you from propritization of the code at all...).
In the case of the new XFree86 license, it's a stupid play on their part to try to get more recognition (there's other ways to do this, folks- not a single player in the FOSS community is claiming that they're the ones that produced XFree86 at this point in time.) and I'm sure that the Apache license is probably another example of something not being quite thought out in the ramifications department.
You forgot this little program...
Considering that OpenOffice IS a pretty major piece of IP, that Sun DID dual license under their community license AND the GPL, I'd say they're not guilty of the issue on #2.
I do believe that Microsoft ended up doing exactly what he said would happen if it were open sourced- and it wasn't under an Open Source or Free Software license at all. They took MS to court over it, even. Microsoft's response was to take their altered version, add a few extra Windows specific features and called it .NET.
If they'd GPLed the silly thing, we could have more assurances that Java would be interoperable- because any "proprietary" enhancements wouldn't be possible or would get pulled as they'd be infringing.