Yeah, you know, I could have swore that Micro$oft was the LAST operating system to gain this feature.... wierd to think they are claiming to be the only inventor and user of said technology.
I mean, does ANYONE still have faith in the Patent Office? Does it still provide ANY functionality other than letting big companies sue everyone? Do they WORK for MicroSCO?
Maybe I missed one of the links. This link says: The GNU GPL does not give users permission to attach other licenses to the program. But the copyright holder for a program can release it under several different licenses in parallel.
I can't seem to find the page that explains what they mean about 'parallel'. There was a lot more explanation on these items on their website a couple years ago when I last engaged in lengthy discussions on these issues. But, as I remember, they explained that 'parallel' ment that you could release it as two different licenses (thus dual-licensing) IF you setup both licenses in parallel -- but you could not first make it GPL then later also license it as BSD, for example. It had to be done at the same time, and even that they discouraged. Perhaps those rules have changed, I don't know -- their lengthy explanations have all been shrunken down to one or two sentences.
I think part of the problem is that I seem to remember the GPL/FSF taking over the copyright. Perhaps it was a common mistake, some bit that changed over time, or perhaps it was specific to some FSF/Apache project I was working on. I don't honestly remember. But I can not seem to find any reference to such a condition at this point.
The difference with the GPL and LGPL is how it is used by other software. For example, if I were to write some application using the Apache license, I *could* link to a LGPL library, but NOT to a GPL library.
It does appear that Cygwin has changed their licensing information. The last time I had checked, it had said that you had to either be GPL or Proprietary. Now, instead of GPL-specifically, it is linking to OSI. However, the issue still remains that LGPL will allow a proprietary program (or ANY non-GPL compatible license) to link to it, whereas the GPL'd cygwin does not.
You mentioned a few companies that allow the use of GPL. Some of the companies that have told me not to were Apache (when working on Ant), Intel, jBASE, Temporal Wave, etc. Interestingly enough, I do not think Sun does allow it, as per the JCP.
I am really glad you have given extensive thought to this conversation, instead of just flaming my original post as I expected would happen. I do have a license that I am currently writing all of my code against, and can provide you the URL via email (don't want it slashdotted) if you are interested in providing feedback regarding it.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the GPL and its FAQ (which in itself is a problem if people can't agree on what it says), but let me respond to your various comments.
It's not that you can "ONLY make GPL software" -- it's just that you have to allow a GPLed version (this is called being "GPL compatible"). The GPL never stops you from allowing others to do things with code you own the copyright to. So in our example, if you write a public domain library on top of object.java, you can let 3rd parties write proprietary apps with it; they just have to make sure that they have met the licensing requirements for any java stuff they use (perhaps by paying Sun a license fee, or using someone else's version of Java).
Accoding to this section of the FAQ, software written on top of GPL can only be GPL. It specifically says that, if the Object.java were released under GPL, then the code built on top of it can only be released as GPL (thus you could not write a public domain program on top of Object.java). Also, according to this section, it says you CAN NOT include GPL software in a proprietary system.
I think you have an oversimplified notion of benefit to the community. Community benefit is a complicated function of what code gets written, how much money developers are able to earn to support their coding, and how code is openly available to be improved or incorporated in new projects.
Honestly, I feel that your points are EXACTLY the reasons why GPL should NOT be chosen. First, the making money off the code. I showed in my previous comments (about the charity), GPL is not the best vehicle for that. Second, in regards to code being openly available to be improved or incorporated -- that is specifically the reason why most companies do NOT go with GPL -- it is NOT open to be improved or incorporated. That is the biggest problem with the GPL. The way it is designed, as shown before, GPL causes people to rewrite/reinvent it from scratch instead of improving or implementing it. That is the main contention I have with GPL. Not only has no company EVER been willing to let me use GPL code in ANY product they released (even the free as in money ones), I was not even allowed to pull up their webpages or source code to LEARN from it. Any license that discourages learning needs serious overhaul. If all current GPL code was in the Public Domain, for example, I, for one, would probably know how to implement a hell of a lot more algorithms that I currently do. And I am sure there are a lot of people out there who study GPL code anyways, but that goes against the GPL licensing.
Dual GPL/proprietary licensing (as used by, for example MySQL or QT) allows some developers to simultaneously earn revenue and produce free software. GPLed libraries encourage people who are tossing up between open or closed source development, to take the open route, because it's cheaper -- you can use more of the existing tools. If your management doesn't like the GPL, it shouldn't be too hard to get them to cough up the fee for the alternative license.
What you are talking about is dual licensing. This section explains that you can ONLY dual license if it is done at the beginning. You can not later choose to add another license to the already-GPL'd program. This is an issue I actually came up against in the workplace. We were looking at using cygwin to make some proprietary unix apps into windows apps. At the time, cygwin was offered under two licenses: GPL and $Money. We were hoping for LGPL, since we were linking against it, but not touching their code. Their webpage had a FAQ explaining that if you could not use the GPL version for whatever reason, you had to buy a license (which I think was per-install). Since the company was not willing to do that (prob. because of
Let's take a simple look at some of their FAQ pages, a subset of the page you mentioned.
Section1: 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 program's users, under the GPL.
Ok, so what is the problem here? That means that if Object.java were GPL, every single Object in the Java Programming Language would also have to be GPL, every program that uses Java, etc. Therefore, is Object.java were made GPL, you could ONLY make GPL software. Most companies are not willing to do that, because it imposes restrictions on how they use THEIR code. Many software developers (BSD, Apache, etc) are not willing to do that either, for the same reason. If I **ever** want to make my code Public Domain, say, it can NEVER be GPL first. Public Domain is the ONLY true Public license, with the various Open Source licenses being derivatives.
Section2:Because it imposes a specific requirement that is not in the GPL; namely, the requirement on advertisements of the program. The GPL states: You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
This one seems like a good idea at first, but then you take a closer look. What this is really saying is that the GPL license prevents you from extending the license in any way. For example, let's say you wanted to write some application for a charity. Let's say you want to ensure that the charity gets money for said application. If the license is GPL, you can not. If it is something else, say an extension to the BSD license, you could add a clause saying that 1% of any proceeds received directly from the sale of this software must go to said charity. Ok, perhaps not a realistic situation, but the issue is there. The ability to extend a license to cover a specific need is the freedom the author has if he does NOT choose GPL.
Section3:
You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system....A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all....
This one is the WORST. Let's use an example. Let's say that I write some new 'find/grep'-like program that is ultra fast -- I mean, 10 times faster than ANYTHING in current use. What is the best possible scenario FOR THE COMMUNITY? The best scenario is if it is used EVERYWHERE. I mean, used as a replacement for *nix grep, used as a replacement for the Windows find (which, get real, needs improvements), perhaps even a replacement for some of Google's code. Why is this the best scenario? Easy, it makes everything faster for everyone. Everyone in the entire world can benefit from the program you wrote.
If, however, you release that little find utility as GPL, only Linux is likely to use it. Netware wouldn't. OS/2 wouldn't. Windows wouldn't. Google wouldn't. IE: only a few benefit from the speed-improvement. That really has not helped the community much at all.
And, let's take it a step further. Let's say **I** wrote it. And let's say I get hired on to write it for some BeOS version 8. Well, that's great! Except, I have to be careful NOT to use the code I already wrote, rewrite it from scratch and make sure it doesn't seem similar in code (SCO anyone?) -- ie: I have to reinvent the wheel AGAIN. And so does anyone else who wants to use that type of program and can't use GPL for one reason or another (perhaps because they work at almost any US business, since they rarely allow it). Using GPL reduces the chance of it gaining widespread usage and increases the chance of the wheel being reinvented again and again and again. It doesn't help the community, but instead harms it.
I for one would much rather see ALL source code Public Domain than GPL. At least then we are guaranteed to have something everyone can use.
If I want to write a proprietary Java program, right now, it would be free. Why impose a paid license?
GPL'ing the compiler or something would be OK, but GPL'ing the core libraries would not -- because then people (businesses specifically) would quit using it. If just the Object class was GPL'd, no one could write truly free open-source (say, BSD) java programs.
Where is the benefit to me as the Java developer to loose all my choices regarding licenses? Where is the benefit to me as the business in hiring Java developers. GPL'ing Java would ruin it.
Ashland did that back in, what was it? 1993, I think.
The ISP, Cable, Phone -- they all use the Fiber network. Currently, my mother in law is getting 4MB download (as compared to the 384/384 max I have here in Beaverton, near Portland). I know that she is actually receiving that speed, because I ran DSL Reports on it a couple times.
I understand that World Wide Fiber's goal is to get fiber to ever end-user, but... they won't work directly with the consumer, they only work with the ISPs. So, while places like Verizon are telling me that they have NO intention of EVER upgrading the 26 gauge cable between me and th C.O., I could be using Fiber if they were willing.
Also, a friend of mine lived in Lake Oswego. AT&T had dropped a fiber line to the sidewalk next to his mailbox, but refused to give him ANY kind of internet access.
I think the real problem is that it is in the best interest of the phone company to NOT upgrade the system to fiber. It is going to either take a really unique ISP (like I am thinking of starting), or a local government (like Ashland) who is willing to put the effort out for the benefit of the people.
I really don't understand the Slashdot community sometimes. They complain about how Java is closed-source, though much of it is under Apache (or Apache-like) licenses (with Apache actually on the JCP)... I can download Java APIs, and write things against them with no problems. I can license my programs using Apache, BSD, or even my own licensing.
GPL, on the other hand, is closed off to most of the business community. I can't download a GPL (read GPL not LGPL) library and write a GUI front-end for it, unless I want to make my app GPL as well. That means that GPL places restrictions on me that the Java platform does not.
I think many Slashdotters see GPL as the de'facto standard for Open Source, and anything else as completely closed source. That is complete propaganda. GPL has the same effect that Proprietary code does -- you have to go and re-invent the wheel if you need/want to use a different licensing scheme. That is why many companies refuse to even let their employees browse through GPL software when looking for solutions. Intel told me not to even read the documentation for GPL software. Any other license (including LGPL) was fine.
What I am saying here is that I think people are Anti-Java-Licensing NOT because it has ANY impact on their product, but because it isn't the more restrictive GPL license.
I know many of you may want to flame me for this comment (in which case you might be one of those I mentioned), but take a moment to really think about what I said and look around. There is a lot of great BSD-licensed Java software on Sourceforge. Couldn't do that if Java was GPL'd.
Since I bought one of their chips a few years ago, perhaps I can shed a little light on their product.
It was the first Java chip, previously a Forth chip. I know it was in use in many medical devices. Later, I bought a Dallas Semiconductor TINI board... wonder why they aren't being sued too...
I would assume that the information is there for 2 reasons...
First, for redundancy. Without connecting to ANY network, a cop in the field should be able to tell whether the front of the license matches the back of the license. Realistically, I would hope that someone making fake IDs was clever enough to download a free PDF 417 font or something.
Second, similar to the first, what if they are out of range and unable to reach the network?
Personally, I think, if we are going to support the information being there at all, it should be 3d/holographic so that we can't easily just print it from a laser printer. That's just me though.
My wife's license didn't work, but mine did. They are both Oregon licenses, but I noticed hers had the sticker on it (larger bar code and not as "clean"), whereas mine was fresh (from last renewal).
Mine contained my name, address, license#, birthdate, etc -- luckily no SS#.
I remember Visual Age MicroEdition. I used it to program my Handspring in Java. My point was that instead of starting a brand new open source IDE, they should have lent their expertise to the existing open source project, thus helping the open source community in general -- instead, it broke the open source developers into two seperate camps, and cut down how much work was put into either.
Yes, AWT (and Object even) uses Native methods. However, I do not need to distribute the native AWT libraries to a customer for them to use my "pure-Java" software. If I want to distribute SWT-built-libraries/products, I have to not only distribute the native SWT libraries depending on the platform the user is using, but I can ONLY distribute my product to platforms IBM decides to support. I would prefer to release a "pure-Java" application that does not rely on EXTERNAL native libraries, so that I don't give a damn what OS anyone runs.
As far as me being clueless, that may be true to some extent. But, since much of the current JDK has Copyrights other than Suns (Apache, etc), and since I am on the JCP, and since YOU could contribute if you actually wanted to -- I guess I should assume that you are just trying to flame-bait me.
There are a couple reasons that management SHOULD care if you are using Eclipse. First, as discussed in previous Slashdot posts, it is slower to develop simple apps on Eclipse than in Notepad. Second, the only reason management ever WANTS someone to test out Eclipse is to see how well it does at mimicking Micro$oft UIs. Third, if you are going to do SWT development, without mentioning it to management, you should HOPE to be fired before they notice the niche you are forcing them into.
Don't get me wrong. I have tried many IDEs and usually just use JCreator because of speed. My post was specifically targetted to pointing out that IBM succeeded in reducing the quality of open source software instead of increasing it by competing with (instead of helping) the already mature open source IDE. If they had just assisted with NetBeans, it might have actually been a really good product by now. (BTW: I said NetBeans, NOT Forte).
I am surprised by the number of people who read Slashdot who actually support Eclipse. When it came out, it felt like a slap in the face of open-source.
"Why?" you ask. Simple. There was this really popular open-source Java development environment (NetBeans). IBM decides they don't have enough input on it, so they go and create a new project from scratch that isn't even pure Java to begin with (ie: SWT should NEVER be used in the real world, and was in fact turned down by every employer I ever used for that reason alone) -- so instead of helping an existing open source tool become better, they decided to split the open source communities efforts in half so that neither product could be as good as it would have been. If IBM had just helped NetBeans, it probably would be much faster and nicer with more functionality by now.
As a side note, people shouldn't think Sun is so all-powerful when it comes to Java. Go check out the JCP. Apache has as much say in the Java framework as Sun does at this point. All Sun has is a gauranteed seat on the JCP.
As a side note, in testing we did with Eclipse at work, none of the development or management staff was happy with the results of using Eclipse and/or SWT -- the resulting program does NOT look like normal Windows apps (at least none we had installed), and does not have the true cross-platformability that Java does. It's simply IBM's hack so they could try to take market share. I for one would prefer never to reinstall it.
I am sure the letter will not do any better than my previous one to them, but I thought I would let the other slashdotters read what I sent them.
-- snip --
A few years ago, I emailed your office in regards to all of the patents you were accepting that were already in common public usage before your accepted them. At the time, you told me you could not discuss the matter via email.
I write today in hopes of showing you just how bad the patent process has become.
Please see Patent #6,671,714 which can be found at:
I found the reference to this patent from Slashdot ( http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/28/13 56214&mode=nested&tid=103&tid=155&tid=98&tid=9 9 ).
According to this patent, passed last month, YOU are now in violation of this new patent because your "Trademark Trial And Appeal Board" may be reached by http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/
The patent you just accepted covers use of subdomains to reference a different group or subgroup of people (ie: the Appeal Board). As such, you are now in violation of this patent.
I hope this helps shed some light on the types of patents that have been getting accepted over the last few years. Your office is repeatedly accepting patents for services/software/ideas that are in common public use (ie: public domain). If you would like to see examples of others that you have misappropriately accepted, please go to www.slashdot.org and search for "Patent".
My wife has the same style of work schedule, and we have the same situation with the programmable thermostat. Of course, it would probably help a lot if the thermostat was at least backlit.
But I digress. I like your idea... But, perhaps instead of pulling from Outlook, there could be multiple ways to pull the data... Maybe even something like an RSS feed or something? Not really sure here, but since neither of use us Outlook, it would have limited use -- but if it was tied into something we could easily use... I would be interested.
One solution might be to use a TINI board (www.ibutton.com) from Dallas Semiconductor. You can program it with Java. I have one running on my network right now, with webserver, telnet, ftp, etc... It has Serial and NIC connections...
I registered a Domestic Oregon Corporation at the end of December. It cost me $20 to Incorporate (ie: file the Articles of Incorporation), $5 to get a copy of the filing. It also cost me $20 (+$5 copy) to file an Assumed Business Name, because I did not want MY name in the name of the business. No legal fees, $50 total.
There is no such thing as an S-Corp in Oregon (ie: Oregon considers S and C corps as the same). Why did I choose a C-Corp instead of an L.L.C.? Because it has the most legal protection against lawsuits down the road. It has more stringent recording requirements, but, L.L.C.s are really best for only having 1-3 people in charge. If you want a larger corporation, a C(or S)-Corp is a better approach.
As a side note to anyone else thinking of registering in Oregon, the rates increased to $50/document on 1/1/04.
(3) Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access. A format shall be considered obsolete if the machine or system necessary to render perceptible a work stored in that format is no longer manufactured or is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace.
So, I guess that will make MAME, et al, very happy. From the way I read this section, things like Sega Genesis or TRS-80 games are not protected?
Well, I have never used Yahoo! Maps until I saw your post. I tried mapping from home to work.
Overall, it worked and looked pretty -- but seemed to lack the one most important feature that Mapquest had. I didn't see any way to say "Avoid Highways". As such, the directions that Yahoo! Maps gave me would have taken me through 217 during rush hour. Not so good.
As a side note, I have only had problems with Mapquest about 3 times (except when someone gave me bad street names, read ST instead of RD, etc). In each of these instances, it was due to Mapquest telling me to turn from a highway onto a road that was actually an over/under-pass. Almost as if they had scanned in some map and didn't realize the roads didn't connect. It doesn't usually have this problem though.
I started to do the email course, but got busy and forgot to finish it. It is only like 10 lessons. Personally, I really like Esperanto for the way that it doesn't matter what order the words are in. For example, in Esperanto, "I pet the dog", "Dog I pet the", and "the I dog pet" all mean exactly the same -- because it encodes the words themselves with what part of speech they are. Very clever.
Don't forget that it supported text-to-voice. That was my favorite feature. I could be off doing something else and hear the whole message before I had to switch windows to respond.
But, I thought PowWow let us see the other person type, not just tell us they are typing?
It's really too bad Tribal Voice is no more. It was definitely my favorite chat program.
Sometimes it isn't an either-or decision. The whole concept of the NDA is so that you get to choose who has access to (and can use) your ideas and designs. The whole concept of open-source is based around the idea that others (not everyone, GPL doesn't allow commercial entities) to help out if they re-contribute to the community.
I think the key reason some (not all) startups still look at the NDA as a good thing is because it is all too easy to see how some company (M$?) might steal your idea if you just advertise some revolutionary source code online. If M$, as an example, were to take your code and utilize it (say, making something like J++ or C# instead of the original Java), it dillutes and even contaminates the original design idea and the spirit of the work.
By utilizing a custom NDA (instead of boilerplate), you could easily say that this information can only be shared with those that agree to be bound by the GPL/BSD/Apache/whatever license -- thus eliminating the LEGAL ability for other companies (say, M$) to incorporate it into their own works.
Unfortunately, I think that all legal issues are solved by he who can afford the best lawyers, so it doesn't really matter if they have agreed to the NDA or not, there are always ways around the law for those with money.
Perhaps someone should have done their research first. Although you may not see the 50cent piece much, you can get it at any bank, and the local postage-stamp machine always returns them.
How many people actually USE the "platform independence" of Java?
Most people that have larger products. Here at work, all of our Java code is compiled on Windows, Linux, AIX, Solaris -- and there are rumors of more needed soon. Oh, and my own BSD box at home.
I have used JBuilder and NetBeans. I have tried Eclipse and Visual Age (MicroEdition).
Now, I just use JCreator. It doesn't include a lot of the things that NetBeans does (like GUI-creation tools), but it is fast (BIGGEST reason I use it), has syntax highlighting (which is why I switched from Programmers' Editor), allows you to add new syntax, can run ant from F7/button, etc... The author also seems very receptive to emails.
Let's put it this way, I actually registered it.
On Unix, I usually use pico or vi, but I have heard really good things about KDevelop.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, you know, I could have swore that Micro$oft was the LAST operating system to gain this feature.... wierd to think they are claiming to be the only inventor and user of said technology.
I mean, does ANYONE still have faith in the Patent Office? Does it still provide ANY functionality other than letting big companies sue everyone? Do they WORK for MicroSCO?
I can't seem to find the page that explains what they mean about 'parallel'. There was a lot more explanation on these items on their website a couple years ago when I last engaged in lengthy discussions on these issues. But, as I remember, they explained that 'parallel' ment that you could release it as two different licenses (thus dual-licensing) IF you setup both licenses in parallel -- but you could not first make it GPL then later also license it as BSD, for example. It had to be done at the same time, and even that they discouraged. Perhaps those rules have changed, I don't know -- their lengthy explanations have all been shrunken down to one or two sentences.
I think part of the problem is that I seem to remember the GPL/FSF taking over the copyright. Perhaps it was a common mistake, some bit that changed over time, or perhaps it was specific to some FSF/Apache project I was working on. I don't honestly remember. But I can not seem to find any reference to such a condition at this point.
The difference with the GPL and LGPL is how it is used by other software. For example, if I were to write some application using the Apache license, I *could* link to a LGPL library, but NOT to a GPL library.
It does appear that Cygwin has changed their licensing information. The last time I had checked, it had said that you had to either be GPL or Proprietary. Now, instead of GPL-specifically, it is linking to OSI. However, the issue still remains that LGPL will allow a proprietary program (or ANY non-GPL compatible license) to link to it, whereas the GPL'd cygwin does not.
You mentioned a few companies that allow the use of GPL. Some of the companies that have told me not to were Apache (when working on Ant), Intel, jBASE, Temporal Wave, etc. Interestingly enough, I do not think Sun does allow it, as per the JCP.
I am really glad you have given extensive thought to this conversation, instead of just flaming my original post as I expected would happen. I do have a license that I am currently writing all of my code against, and can provide you the URL via email (don't want it slashdotted) if you are interested in providing feedback regarding it.
It's not that you can "ONLY make GPL software" -- it's just that you have to allow a GPLed version (this is called being "GPL compatible"). The GPL never stops you from allowing others to do things with code you own the copyright to. So in our example, if you write a public domain library on top of object.java, you can let 3rd parties write proprietary apps with it; they just have to make sure that they have met the licensing requirements for any java stuff they use (perhaps by paying Sun a license fee, or using someone else's version of Java).
Accoding to this section of the FAQ, software written on top of GPL can only be GPL. It specifically says that, if the Object.java were released under GPL, then the code built on top of it can only be released as GPL (thus you could not write a public domain program on top of Object.java). Also, according to this section, it says you CAN NOT include GPL software in a proprietary system.
I think you have an oversimplified notion of benefit to the community. Community benefit is a complicated function of what code gets written, how much money developers are able to earn to support their coding, and how code is openly available to be improved or incorporated in new projects.
Honestly, I feel that your points are EXACTLY the reasons why GPL should NOT be chosen. First, the making money off the code. I showed in my previous comments (about the charity), GPL is not the best vehicle for that. Second, in regards to code being openly available to be improved or incorporated -- that is specifically the reason why most companies do NOT go with GPL -- it is NOT open to be improved or incorporated. That is the biggest problem with the GPL. The way it is designed, as shown before, GPL causes people to rewrite/reinvent it from scratch instead of improving or implementing it. That is the main contention I have with GPL. Not only has no company EVER been willing to let me use GPL code in ANY product they released (even the free as in money ones), I was not even allowed to pull up their webpages or source code to LEARN from it. Any license that discourages learning needs serious overhaul. If all current GPL code was in the Public Domain, for example, I, for one, would probably know how to implement a hell of a lot more algorithms that I currently do. And I am sure there are a lot of people out there who study GPL code anyways, but that goes against the GPL licensing.
Dual GPL/proprietary licensing (as used by, for example MySQL or QT) allows some developers to simultaneously earn revenue and produce free software. GPLed libraries encourage people who are tossing up between open or closed source development, to take the open route, because it's cheaper -- you can use more of the existing tools. If your management doesn't like the GPL, it shouldn't be too hard to get them to cough up the fee for the alternative license.
What you are talking about is dual licensing. This section explains that you can ONLY dual license if it is done at the beginning. You can not later choose to add another license to the already-GPL'd program. This is an issue I actually came up against in the workplace. We were looking at using cygwin to make some proprietary unix apps into windows apps. At the time, cygwin was offered under two licenses: GPL and $Money. We were hoping for LGPL, since we were linking against it, but not touching their code. Their webpage had a FAQ explaining that if you could not use the GPL version for whatever reason, you had to buy a license (which I think was per-install). Since the company was not willing to do that (prob. because of
Section1: 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 program's users, under the GPL.
Ok, so what is the problem here? That means that if Object.java were GPL, every single Object in the Java Programming Language would also have to be GPL, every program that uses Java, etc. Therefore, is Object.java were made GPL, you could ONLY make GPL software. Most companies are not willing to do that, because it imposes restrictions on how they use THEIR code. Many software developers (BSD, Apache, etc) are not willing to do that either, for the same reason. If I **ever** want to make my code Public Domain, say, it can NEVER be GPL first. Public Domain is the ONLY true Public license, with the various Open Source licenses being derivatives.
Section2:Because it imposes a specific requirement that is not in the GPL; namely, the requirement on advertisements of the program. The GPL states: You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
This one seems like a good idea at first, but then you take a closer look. What this is really saying is that the GPL license prevents you from extending the license in any way. For example, let's say you wanted to write some application for a charity. Let's say you want to ensure that the charity gets money for said application. If the license is GPL, you can not. If it is something else, say an extension to the BSD license, you could add a clause saying that 1% of any proceeds received directly from the sale of this software must go to said charity. Ok, perhaps not a realistic situation, but the issue is there. The ability to extend a license to cover a specific need is the freedom the author has if he does NOT choose GPL.
Section3: You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system....A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all....
This one is the WORST. Let's use an example. Let's say that I write some new 'find/grep'-like program that is ultra fast -- I mean, 10 times faster than ANYTHING in current use. What is the best possible scenario FOR THE COMMUNITY? The best scenario is if it is used EVERYWHERE. I mean, used as a replacement for *nix grep, used as a replacement for the Windows find (which, get real, needs improvements), perhaps even a replacement for some of Google's code. Why is this the best scenario? Easy, it makes everything faster for everyone. Everyone in the entire world can benefit from the program you wrote.
If, however, you release that little find utility as GPL, only Linux is likely to use it. Netware wouldn't. OS/2 wouldn't. Windows wouldn't. Google wouldn't. IE: only a few benefit from the speed-improvement. That really has not helped the community much at all.
And, let's take it a step further. Let's say **I** wrote it. And let's say I get hired on to write it for some BeOS version 8. Well, that's great! Except, I have to be careful NOT to use the code I already wrote, rewrite it from scratch and make sure it doesn't seem similar in code (SCO anyone?) -- ie: I have to reinvent the wheel AGAIN. And so does anyone else who wants to use that type of program and can't use GPL for one reason or another (perhaps because they work at almost any US business, since they rarely allow it). Using GPL reduces the chance of it gaining widespread usage and increases the chance of the wheel being reinvented again and again and again. It doesn't help the community, but instead harms it.
I for one would much rather see ALL source code Public Domain than GPL. At least then we are guaranteed to have something everyone can use.
If I want to write a proprietary Java program, right now, it would be free. Why impose a paid license?
GPL'ing the compiler or something would be OK, but GPL'ing the core libraries would not -- because then people (businesses specifically) would quit using it. If just the Object class was GPL'd, no one could write truly free open-source (say, BSD) java programs.
Where is the benefit to me as the Java developer to loose all my choices regarding licenses? Where is the benefit to me as the business in hiring Java developers. GPL'ing Java would ruin it.
Ashland did that back in, what was it? 1993, I think.
The ISP, Cable, Phone -- they all use the Fiber network. Currently, my mother in law is getting 4MB download (as compared to the 384/384 max I have here in Beaverton, near Portland). I know that she is actually receiving that speed, because I ran DSL Reports on it a couple times.
I understand that World Wide Fiber's goal is to get fiber to ever end-user, but... they won't work directly with the consumer, they only work with the ISPs. So, while places like Verizon are telling me that they have NO intention of EVER upgrading the 26 gauge cable between me and th C.O., I could be using Fiber if they were willing.
Also, a friend of mine lived in Lake Oswego. AT&T had dropped a fiber line to the sidewalk next to his mailbox, but refused to give him ANY kind of internet access.
I think the real problem is that it is in the best interest of the phone company to NOT upgrade the system to fiber. It is going to either take a really unique ISP (like I am thinking of starting), or a local government (like Ashland) who is willing to put the effort out for the benefit of the people.
Malachi
I really don't understand the Slashdot community sometimes. They complain about how Java is closed-source, though much of it is under Apache (or Apache-like) licenses (with Apache actually on the JCP)... I can download Java APIs, and write things against them with no problems. I can license my programs using Apache, BSD, or even my own licensing.
GPL, on the other hand, is closed off to most of the business community. I can't download a GPL (read GPL not LGPL) library and write a GUI front-end for it, unless I want to make my app GPL as well. That means that GPL places restrictions on me that the Java platform does not.
I think many Slashdotters see GPL as the de'facto standard for Open Source, and anything else as completely closed source. That is complete propaganda. GPL has the same effect that Proprietary code does -- you have to go and re-invent the wheel if you need/want to use a different licensing scheme. That is why many companies refuse to even let their employees browse through GPL software when looking for solutions. Intel told me not to even read the documentation for GPL software. Any other license (including LGPL) was fine.
What I am saying here is that I think people are Anti-Java-Licensing NOT because it has ANY impact on their product, but because it isn't the more restrictive GPL license.
I know many of you may want to flame me for this comment (in which case you might be one of those I mentioned), but take a moment to really think about what I said and look around. There is a lot of great BSD-licensed Java software on Sourceforge. Couldn't do that if Java was GPL'd.
Since I bought one of their chips a few years ago, perhaps I can shed a little light on their product.
It was the first Java chip, previously a Forth chip. I know it was in use in many medical devices. Later, I bought a Dallas Semiconductor TINI board... wonder why they aren't being sued too...
I would assume that the information is there for 2 reasons...
First, for redundancy. Without connecting to ANY network, a cop in the field should be able to tell whether the front of the license matches the back of the license. Realistically, I would hope that someone making fake IDs was clever enough to download a free PDF 417 font or something.
Second, similar to the first, what if they are out of range and unable to reach the network?
Personally, I think, if we are going to support the information being there at all, it should be 3d/holographic so that we can't easily just print it from a laser printer. That's just me though.
Malachi
I download the java app, ran it.
My wife's license didn't work, but mine did. They are both Oregon licenses, but I noticed hers had the sticker on it (larger bar code and not as "clean"), whereas mine was fresh (from last renewal).
Mine contained my name, address, license#, birthdate, etc -- luckily no SS#.
Malachi
I know you were A.C., but I will respond.
I remember Visual Age MicroEdition. I used it to program my Handspring in Java. My point was that instead of starting a brand new open source IDE, they should have lent their expertise to the existing open source project, thus helping the open source community in general -- instead, it broke the open source developers into two seperate camps, and cut down how much work was put into either.
Yes, AWT (and Object even) uses Native methods. However, I do not need to distribute the native AWT libraries to a customer for them to use my "pure-Java" software. If I want to distribute SWT-built-libraries/products, I have to not only distribute the native SWT libraries depending on the platform the user is using, but I can ONLY distribute my product to platforms IBM decides to support. I would prefer to release a "pure-Java" application that does not rely on EXTERNAL native libraries, so that I don't give a damn what OS anyone runs.
As far as me being clueless, that may be true to some extent. But, since much of the current JDK has Copyrights other than Suns (Apache, etc), and since I am on the JCP, and since YOU could contribute if you actually wanted to -- I guess I should assume that you are just trying to flame-bait me.
There are a couple reasons that management SHOULD care if you are using Eclipse. First, as discussed in previous Slashdot posts, it is slower to develop simple apps on Eclipse than in Notepad. Second, the only reason management ever WANTS someone to test out Eclipse is to see how well it does at mimicking Micro$oft UIs. Third, if you are going to do SWT development, without mentioning it to management, you should HOPE to be fired before they notice the niche you are forcing them into.
Don't get me wrong. I have tried many IDEs and usually just use JCreator because of speed. My post was specifically targetted to pointing out that IBM succeeded in reducing the quality of open source software instead of increasing it by competing with (instead of helping) the already mature open source IDE. If they had just assisted with NetBeans, it might have actually been a really good product by now. (BTW: I said NetBeans, NOT Forte).
I am surprised by the number of people who read Slashdot who actually support Eclipse. When it came out, it felt like a slap in the face of open-source.
"Why?" you ask. Simple. There was this really popular open-source Java development environment (NetBeans). IBM decides they don't have enough input on it, so they go and create a new project from scratch that isn't even pure Java to begin with (ie: SWT should NEVER be used in the real world, and was in fact turned down by every employer I ever used for that reason alone) -- so instead of helping an existing open source tool become better, they decided to split the open source communities efforts in half so that neither product could be as good as it would have been. If IBM had just helped NetBeans, it probably would be much faster and nicer with more functionality by now.
As a side note, people shouldn't think Sun is so all-powerful when it comes to Java. Go check out the JCP. Apache has as much say in the Java framework as Sun does at this point. All Sun has is a gauranteed seat on the JCP.
As a side note, in testing we did with Eclipse at work, none of the development or management staff was happy with the results of using Eclipse and/or SWT -- the resulting program does NOT look like normal Windows apps (at least none we had installed), and does not have the true cross-platformability that Java does. It's simply IBM's hack so they could try to take market share. I for one would prefer never to reinstall it.
I am sure the letter will not do any better than my previous one to them, but I thought I would let the other slashdotters read what I sent them.
= PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,671,714.WKU.&OS=PN/6,671,714&RS =PN/6,671,714
3 56214&mode=nested&tid=103&tid=155&tid=98&tid=9 9 ).
-- snip --
A few years ago, I emailed your office in regards to all of the patents you were accepting
that were already in common public usage before your accepted them. At the time, you
told me you could not discuss the matter via email.
I write today in hopes of showing you just how bad the patent process has become.
Please see Patent #6,671,714 which can be found at:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1
I found the reference to this patent from Slashdot ( http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/28/1
According to this patent, passed last month, YOU are now in violation of this new patent because your "Trademark Trial And Appeal Board" may be
reached by http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/
The patent you just accepted covers use of subdomains to reference a different group or subgroup of people (ie: the Appeal Board). As such, you are now in violation of this patent.
I hope this helps shed some light on the types of patents that have been getting accepted over the last few years. Your office is repeatedly accepting patents for services/software/ideas that are in common public use (ie: public domain). If you would like to see examples of others that you have misappropriately accepted, please
go to www.slashdot.org and search for "Patent".
Thank you,
A Concerned Citizen
My wife has the same style of work schedule, and we have the same situation with the programmable thermostat. Of course, it would probably help a lot if the thermostat was at least backlit.
But I digress. I like your idea... But, perhaps instead of pulling from Outlook, there could be multiple ways to pull the data... Maybe even something like an RSS feed or something? Not really sure here, but since neither of use us Outlook, it would have limited use -- but if it was tied into something we could easily use... I would be interested.
One solution might be to use a TINI board (www.ibutton.com) from Dallas Semiconductor. You can program it with Java. I have one running on my network right now, with webserver, telnet, ftp, etc... It has Serial and NIC connections...
Malachi
I registered a Domestic Oregon Corporation at the end of December. It cost me $20 to Incorporate (ie: file the Articles of Incorporation), $5 to get a copy of the filing. It also cost me $20 (+$5 copy) to file an Assumed Business Name, because I did not want MY name in the name of the business. No legal fees, $50 total.
There is no such thing as an S-Corp in Oregon (ie: Oregon considers S and C corps as the same). Why did I choose a C-Corp instead of an L.L.C.? Because it has the most legal protection against lawsuits down the road. It has more stringent recording requirements, but, L.L.C.s are really best for only having 1-3 people in charge. If you want a larger corporation, a C(or S)-Corp is a better approach.
As a side note to anyone else thinking of registering in Oregon, the rates increased to $50/document on 1/1/04.
So, I guess that will make MAME, et al, very happy. From the way I read this section, things like Sega Genesis or TRS-80 games are not protected?
--Malachi
Well, I have never used Yahoo! Maps until I saw your post. I tried mapping from home to work.
Overall, it worked and looked pretty -- but seemed to lack the one most important feature that Mapquest had. I didn't see any way to say "Avoid Highways". As such, the directions that Yahoo! Maps gave me would have taken me through 217 during rush hour. Not so good.
As a side note, I have only had problems with Mapquest about 3 times (except when someone gave me bad street names, read ST instead of RD, etc). In each of these instances, it was due to Mapquest telling me to turn from a highway onto a road that was actually an over/under-pass. Almost as if they had scanned in some map and didn't realize the roads didn't connect. It doesn't usually have this problem though.
Malachi
I started to do the email course, but got busy and forgot to finish it. It is only like 10 lessons. Personally, I really like Esperanto for the way that it doesn't matter what order the words are in. For example, in Esperanto, "I pet the dog", "Dog I pet the", and "the I dog pet" all mean exactly the same -- because it encodes the words themselves with what part of speech they are. Very clever.
Don't forget that it supported text-to-voice. That was my favorite feature. I could be off doing something else and hear the whole message before I had to switch windows to respond.
But, I thought PowWow let us see the other person type, not just tell us they are typing?
It's really too bad Tribal Voice is no more. It was definitely my favorite chat program.
Malachi
Sometimes it isn't an either-or decision. The whole concept of the NDA is so that you get to choose who has access to (and can use) your ideas and designs. The whole concept of open-source is based around the idea that others (not everyone, GPL doesn't allow commercial entities) to help out if they re-contribute to the community.
I think the key reason some (not all) startups still look at the NDA as a good thing is because it is all too easy to see how some company (M$?) might steal your idea if you just advertise some revolutionary source code online. If M$, as an example, were to take your code and utilize it (say, making something like J++ or C# instead of the original Java), it dillutes and even contaminates the original design idea and the spirit of the work.
By utilizing a custom NDA (instead of boilerplate), you could easily say that this information can only be shared with those that agree to be bound by the GPL/BSD/Apache/whatever license -- thus eliminating the LEGAL ability for other companies (say, M$) to incorporate it into their own works.
Unfortunately, I think that all legal issues are solved by he who can afford the best lawyers, so it doesn't really matter if they have agreed to the NDA or not, there are always ways around the law for those with money.
Malachi
I tried 3-4 different search criteria (ie: address, city/state, zip, etc)... but everytime I got a server error. Has anyone got it to work?
Perhaps someone should have done their research first. Although you may not see the 50cent piece much, you can get it at any bank, and the local postage-stamp machine always returns them.
Malachi
BufferedReader in = new BufferedReader(...)
'in' and 'out' are used by MANY programmers for the names of their i/o readers/streams.
Malachi
Most people that have larger products. Here at work, all of our Java code is compiled on Windows, Linux, AIX, Solaris -- and there are rumors of more needed soon. Oh, and my own BSD box at home.
Malachi
Now, I just use JCreator. It doesn't include a lot of the things that NetBeans does (like GUI-creation tools), but it is fast (BIGGEST reason I use it), has syntax highlighting (which is why I switched from Programmers' Editor), allows you to add new syntax, can run ant from F7/button, etc... The author also seems very receptive to emails.
Let's put it this way, I actually registered it.
On Unix, I usually use pico or vi, but I have heard really good things about KDevelop.
Malachi