It seems that a lot of the arguments against copyright focus on how large companies use copyright to help themselves get larger. I see very few discussions of small independent developers who use copyright to protect themselves from larger companies who would steal their work.
Consider the music industry, since the "MP3 Issue" has focused so much attention there. If an independent musician writes and records a great song with her/his own money, copyright is the only thing that keeps a large record company from re-recording or distributing that song without paying a dime to the original artist. Without copyright, the original artist has NO recourse.
The GPL itself is a form of copyright. Remember that the GPL allows free modification, redistribution and use of GPL'd code, provided that the modifications are also placed under GPL. Without copyright, the GPL becomes meaningless -- GNU/Linux could be modified and redistributed in binary-only form.
It's easy to focus on companies using copyright to prosecute some kid who copies games, but we should remember that copyright prevents companies from copying and re-selling the game the kid wrote herself. It can work FOR the little guy, too.
"Here's the source code to Windows 2000, in its entirety, no restrictions, no charges, nothing hidden."
"In order to compile it, you need Visual Studio 2000, which only costs $995. You may not copy, redistribute, or tinker with Visual Studio 2000 in any way, shape, or form or we will cut off your favorite body part."
You have a different definition of "Open Source"? Fine, I have a different definition of "Windows". After all, the word "windows" is a common english word -- much more common than "open source". I have windows in my house. I have windows in my car.
Therefore, I am going to create a window manager for free operating systems and call it, "windows". By your own logic, you can't stop me. There are many definitions of "windows" and my software just happens to use a different one.
This is "Embrace and Extend 101". It's the same tactic that MS used with Java. Embrace your threat ("open source"), then extend it with your own proprietary stuff (highly restrictive licenses). Tell the public you're just trying to "make it better" by destroying the standard.
/* Ok, my rant's over. I'll go back into "impartial observer" mode now. */
I've always thought it would be cool if someone built a "Linux for the Desktop" distribution. It seems simple enough -- change the default configuration to not start inetd, sendmail, etc. Put the user into a WM for login (I recall being able to configure SuSE to do this). Give them a kernel with PPP support compiled in by default. Add a few Point-And-Drool configurators and *presto!* "See Dick and Jane use Linux".
The really cool thing about it is that, with a little work, experienced users could put the power tools back in as they were needed.
Hmmm... maybe I should just shut up and work on building one.:)
Thanks. I was afraid that I was the only person who felt that mentioning the trial in the letter might not have been appropriate. The statement that such actions will not satisfy the Justice Department seems to make look like they are speaking for the Justice Department.
The scary truth is that a half-arsed "opening" of Windows source code just MIGHT satisfy the JD. We're talking about lawyers here. They don't know the difference between useful and useless code any better than I know the Sherman Antitrust Act.
It's also a little like a shot below the belt -- like bringing up someone's ugly personal problem in a board meeting in order to win an argument.
This was one of the few mainstream press articles about Linux that didn't have me shaking my head and saying, "No, you idiots!" through the whole article.
Every time I get worried about a big mean corporation snatching up Linux and turning it into a proprietary thing, I go back and review the GPL. I have to hand it to RMS and the FSF for having the foresight to develop a license that anticipated corporate interest in free software.
I agree that COM and DCOM are very attractive aspects of Windows for programmers. Since the COM standard is supposedly open, I've often considered starting a "Free COM" project.
I've looked over CORBA (perhaps with Java) as a possible alternative to COM on Linux, but I haven't done anything with it and can't really comment on it.
As far as re-using components on a local machine, COM becomes a little less necessary with open-source software. COM provides a way to reuse binary code, but open-source software lets you grab the original code and use it. This is NOT the only advantage of COM, of course, and copy/pasting code for reuse is a quick way to bloat executables (as well as cause problems for people developing non-open software).
DCOM is a little harder. One aspect helping Linux here is the fact that processes under Linux are less cumbersome to start than under Windows. Windows developers are used to calling up an in-process object everytime they need to access a piece of code quickly. Under Linux, starting a seperate process remotely and reading its output from stdout is much faster than doing the same thing in Windows. This, BTW, is why MS recommends using ISAPI and ASP instead of CGI on IIS -- starting a new process is just too darned slow.
I'm sort of taking both sides here -- a lot of things in Linux make COM and DCOM unnecessary, but it will still be REAL cool when I can remotely access and re-use a component on Linux.
"Stiff, desertlike wind blows dust across the interstate just outside Caldwell, Idaho, the grinding gears of passing diesel trucks barely drowning out the mournful bellowing of doomed cattle on either side of the road."
Ok, my turn:
"Stale, recycled air hangs heavily in the office. The low murmur of conversations and the monotonous clicking of keyboards are the only sounds heard. The defining silence is periodically broken by a ringing phone or the beep of a finished compile job."
Please don't take this as an insult or criticism, guys. I'm just having a little fun. (BTW -- Can I have a job?):)
Isn't Corel already producing a series of Linux-based servers based on the StrongArm? I seem to recall you could get a rack-mounted web server from them for just over $1,000. I don't hear much about them these days, though.
Too bad. I once worked at an ISP that would have been better off with multiple overlapping cheap servers instead of a few monsters. It seems like a worthwhile idea.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always thought "Open Source" certification had a very specific meaning attached to it.
I'm seeing a trend of companies saying, "Hey, we'll show you our source code. We're Open Source now! No, you can't modify the code without telling us. No, you can't redistribute your modifications. But, hey, you can look at the source! That's Open Source, right?"
IMHO -- no, it's not.
I think companies including source code is certainly an improvement over binary-only distribution, but I'm afraid the definition of "open source" will get diluted in the public's mind. Every time a source-included product is described as "jumping on the open source bandwagon", it creates a misconception of what "open source" means.
For syntax highlighting and other niceties, I'm pretty much hooked on NEdit ( http://fnpspa.fnal.gov/nirvana/nedit.html ). I haven't found an IDE I'm crazy about yet in either Windos or Linux. Anyone have any suggestions?
After viewing the site, I came right back to post a witty comment on Mr. Gore's attempt to "connect" with the open source community...
...and found that at least 47 people had beat me to it.
I'm glad to see there ARE still people who know nonsense when they see it. It's made my day (no joke).
On another note, if AG's website IS open source, I guess I can copy it, modify it, and put it up at my own website. Any guesses how long it will take before a lawyer calls about copyright violations?
I've worked with both NT and Linux web and file servers. When it came time to spend MY money setting up a server and workstations for MY business, the contest was pretty one-sided in favor of GNU/Linux. I got the NT-Spanking Server(TM) on a CD for less than a Win98 upgrade.
That's it. I'm giving up my job. No more coding. No more debugging. No more deadlines. I'm going to be a technology columnist who makes radical predictions about the future of computing!
Think about it -- you make money based on how many people read your work. If you want more people to read your work, just make more radical, controversial predictions. *Ka-chiiing* More money for you!
Best of all, no one notices or remembers when you're wrong. If they do, you can just mumble about, "unforeseen market forces".
If you run out of topics, just whip out a little essay on, "How technology is changing our lives." Content is optional!
The initial wave of media reports suggested the authorities were using the GUID to help track the virus author. After Mr. Smith was arrested, very little was mentioned about the GUID in any stories.
The GUID in question pointed to a virus writer who goes by the handle "VicodinES". Authorities believe that Mr. Smith built Melissa by combining parts of other virii. One of the original virus elements of Melissa was allegedly created by VicodinES -- hence the attached GUID.
The authorities do not believe that David Smith is VicodinES. In their opinion, the GUID is not reliable as evidence (this point was made on slashdot by many posters long before Smith's arrest).
/* BTW -- I can't help but wonder if the GUID would be "reliable" if it HAD pointed to David Smith. I also wonder if it becomes useful to Smith's defense now. */
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that a lot of the arguments against copyright focus on how large companies use copyright to help themselves get larger. I see very few discussions of small independent developers who use copyright to protect themselves from larger companies who would steal their work.
Consider the music industry, since the "MP3 Issue" has focused so much attention there. If an independent musician writes and records a great song with her/his own money, copyright is the only thing that keeps a large record company from re-recording or distributing that song without paying a dime to the original artist. Without copyright, the original artist has NO recourse.
The GPL itself is a form of copyright. Remember that the GPL allows free modification, redistribution and use of GPL'd code, provided that the modifications are also placed under GPL. Without copyright, the GPL becomes meaningless -- GNU/Linux could be modified and redistributed in binary-only form.
It's easy to focus on companies using copyright to prosecute some kid who copies games, but we should remember that copyright prevents companies from copying and re-selling the game the kid wrote herself. It can work FOR the little guy, too.
"Here's the source code to Windows 2000, in its entirety, no restrictions, no charges, nothing hidden."
"In order to compile it, you need Visual Studio 2000, which only costs $995. You may not copy, redistribute, or tinker with Visual Studio 2000 in any way, shape, or form or we will cut off your favorite body part."
"Gotcha!"
You have a different definition of "Open Source"? Fine, I have a different definition of "Windows". After all, the word "windows" is a common english word -- much more common than "open source". I have windows in my house. I have windows in my car.
Therefore, I am going to create a window manager for free operating systems and call it, "windows". By your own logic, you can't stop me. There are many definitions of "windows" and my software just happens to use a different one.
This is "Embrace and Extend 101". It's the same tactic that MS used with Java. Embrace your threat ("open source"), then extend it with your own proprietary stuff (highly restrictive licenses). Tell the public you're just trying to "make it better" by destroying the standard.
/* Ok, my rant's over. I'll go back into "impartial observer" mode now. */
Is THAT why Microsoft did that? Ya know, I always wondered...
Pronounce it "glen-ucks" or (respecting the Finnish pronunciation) "glean-ooks"?
:)
Hmmm... Add X and you have X/Glinux.
Throw in some BSD and you have BSD X/Glinux -- still pretty pronouncable.
Hmmm... "Red Hat Glinux" -- not bad.
Oops, time for my medication. Sorry.
I've always thought it would be cool if someone built a "Linux for the Desktop" distribution. It seems simple enough -- change the default configuration to not start inetd, sendmail, etc. Put the user into a WM for login (I recall being able to configure SuSE to do this). Give them a kernel with PPP support compiled in by default. Add a few Point-And-Drool configurators and *presto!* "See Dick and Jane use Linux".
:)
The really cool thing about it is that, with a little work, experienced users could put the power tools back in as they were needed.
Hmmm... maybe I should just shut up and work on building one.
Thanks. I was afraid that I was the only person who felt that mentioning the trial in the letter might not have been appropriate. The statement that such actions will not satisfy the Justice Department seems to make look like they are speaking for the Justice Department.
The scary truth is that a half-arsed "opening" of Windows source code just MIGHT satisfy the JD. We're talking about lawyers here. They don't know the difference between useful and useless code any better than I know the Sherman Antitrust Act.
It's also a little like a shot below the belt -- like bringing up someone's ugly personal problem in a board meeting in order to win an argument.
This was one of the few mainstream press articles about Linux that didn't have me shaking my head and saying, "No, you idiots!" through the whole article.
Every time I get worried about a big mean corporation snatching up Linux and turning it into a proprietary thing, I go back and review the GPL. I have to hand it to RMS and the FSF for having the foresight to develop a license that anticipated corporate interest in free software.
I agree that COM and DCOM are very attractive aspects of Windows for programmers. Since the COM standard is supposedly open, I've often considered starting a "Free COM" project.
I've looked over CORBA (perhaps with Java) as a possible alternative to COM on Linux, but I haven't done anything with it and can't really comment on it.
As far as re-using components on a local machine, COM becomes a little less necessary with open-source software. COM provides a way to reuse binary code, but open-source software lets you grab the original code and use it. This is NOT the only advantage of COM, of course, and copy/pasting code for reuse is a quick way to bloat executables (as well as cause problems for people developing non-open software).
DCOM is a little harder. One aspect helping Linux here is the fact that processes under Linux are less cumbersome to start than under Windows. Windows developers are used to calling up an in-process object everytime they need to access a piece of code quickly. Under Linux, starting a seperate process remotely and reading its output from stdout is much faster than doing the same thing in Windows. This, BTW, is why MS recommends using ISAPI and ASP instead of CGI on IIS -- starting a new process is just too darned slow.
I'm sort of taking both sides here -- a lot of things in Linux make COM and DCOM unnecessary, but it will still be REAL cool when I can remotely access and re-use a component on Linux.
"Stiff, desertlike wind blows dust across the interstate just outside Caldwell, Idaho, the grinding gears of passing diesel trucks barely drowning out the mournful bellowing of doomed cattle on either side of the road."
:)
Ok, my turn:
"Stale, recycled air hangs heavily in the office. The low murmur of conversations and the monotonous clicking of keyboards are the only sounds heard. The defining silence is periodically broken by a ringing phone or the beep of a finished compile job."
Please don't take this as an insult or criticism, guys. I'm just having a little fun. (BTW -- Can I have a job?)
Isn't Corel already producing a series of Linux-based servers based on the StrongArm? I seem to recall you could get a rack-mounted web server from them for just over $1,000. I don't hear much about them these days, though.
Too bad. I once worked at an ISP that would have been better off with multiple overlapping cheap servers instead of a few monsters. It seems like a worthwhile idea.
You win the coveted "brass testicle" award. Congratulations! :)
If you were using ZDNet for for your technology news and found out about slashdot, would you ever go back? :)
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always thought "Open Source" certification had a very specific meaning attached to it.
I'm seeing a trend of companies saying, "Hey, we'll show you our source code. We're Open Source now! No, you can't modify the code without telling us. No, you can't redistribute your modifications. But, hey, you can look at the source! That's Open Source, right?"
IMHO -- no, it's not.
I think companies including source code is certainly an improvement over binary-only distribution, but I'm afraid the definition of "open source" will get diluted in the public's mind. Every time a source-included product is described as "jumping on the open source bandwagon", it creates a misconception of what "open source" means.
For syntax highlighting and other niceties, I'm pretty much hooked on NEdit ( http://fnpspa.fnal.gov/nirvana/nedit.html ). I haven't found an IDE I'm crazy about yet in either Windos or Linux. Anyone have any suggestions?
...should require a background check. :)
LOL. Thanks.
Agreed. C is easier to port than C++ and C compilers are more common on older systems that some companies can't afford to phase out.
Also (with the possible exception of BeOS) many operating systems and their APIs have a decided "C-bias".
It's GNU/AlGore2000. Get it right! :)
After viewing the site, I came right back to post a witty comment on Mr. Gore's attempt to "connect" with the open source community...
...and found that at least 47 people had beat me to it.
I'm glad to see there ARE still people who know nonsense when they see it. It's made my day (no joke).
On another note, if AG's website IS open source, I guess I can copy it, modify it, and put it up at my own website. Any guesses how long it will take before a lawyer calls about copyright violations?
I've worked with both NT and Linux web and file servers. When it came time to spend MY money setting up a server and workstations for MY business, the contest was pretty one-sided in favor of GNU/Linux. I got the NT-Spanking Server(TM) on a CD for less than a Win98 upgrade.
I keep a 486 with an open telnet session in the john. :)
I _was_ wondering why my posts immediately popped up with a 2.
;)
I don't know if I should get a default of 2. Most of my posts are pretty pointless -- like this one.
/* Insert tongue in cheek */
That's it. I'm giving up my job. No more coding. No more debugging. No more deadlines. I'm going to be a technology columnist who makes radical predictions about the future of computing!
Think about it -- you make money based on how many people read your work. If you want more people to read your work, just make more radical, controversial predictions. *Ka-chiiing* More money for you!
Best of all, no one notices or remembers when you're wrong. If they do, you can just mumble about, "unforeseen market forces".
If you run out of topics, just whip out a little essay on, "How technology is changing our lives." Content is optional!
/* Remove tongue from cheek */
"Two Palm Pilots and a Nokia cellphone can /. it"
ROFLMAO!
The initial wave of media reports suggested the authorities were using the GUID to help track the virus author. After Mr. Smith was arrested, very little was mentioned about the GUID in any stories.
The GUID in question pointed to a virus writer who goes by the handle "VicodinES". Authorities believe that Mr. Smith built Melissa by combining parts of other virii. One of the original virus elements of Melissa was allegedly created by VicodinES -- hence the attached GUID.
The authorities do not believe that David Smith is VicodinES. In their opinion, the GUID is not reliable as evidence (this point was made on slashdot by many posters long before Smith's arrest).
/* BTW -- I can't help but wonder if the GUID would be "reliable" if it HAD pointed to David Smith. I also wonder if it becomes useful to Smith's defense now. */