It would be interesting to trace back to see who got the ball rolling to change copyright laws and so on. I'd bet good money it was the mega companies of the US, and not the citizens. Why would citizens be pushing to get less control over their property?
They certainly couldn't be pushing to get more control over their property; it's not their property.
We are now living in a society which is growing increasingly at odds with the original intent of those who created this nation.
Just for the sake of argument...... you do realize that they're dead, right? And they died a long time ago?
Things change. Unless you're claiming that Jefferson had the gift of clairvoyance, and knew about computers, immediate infinite copying, and DVD players.
Personally, just a hunch, but I don't think he did.
It is only unnatural because you are a windows user. Even windows inistially you had to hold the mouse down for menu options and lift to activate an option. Then (until 2000) you could suddnely either hold the mouse down or click to activate. Now in XP, you have to click to activate.
Funny... it was unnatural to me back when I was using GEM Desktop. It was unnatural to me back when I was using Workbench. It was unnatural to me when I was using Driver. It was unnatural to me when I was using QNX. It was unnatural to me when I was using KDE, Gnome, NeXT and OpenStep. It's still unnatural to me now.
Whether I use Windows or not has nothing to do with it.
Sad. Real sad. For others reading this: my full name is Mart van de Wege. I have never tried to disguise it, so go and check my history against Simon Cooke's. I am fully confident in who will come out more mature in the comparison.
Yet you're defending Lewis A. Mettler. Do you even know anything about him?
During 2000 - 2002 election cycle, Bill and Co. gave about $5M to Rep., nearly $4M to Dem., which are nothing significant for their bank account. Under the current administration, no one will ever come to harm Microsoft's monopoly. Period.
This is what is called a Shake Down.
The politicians weren't making enough money from Microsoft, but were making a lot of money from KPCB-venture group companies including Oracle, Sun, Apple, etc.
As such, the California guys paid for an antitrust trial with their campaign contribution. Once Microsoft started paying cash to politicians - as they 'should' have been doing all along - the problems for them stopped.
But hey, as long as the system works in your favor you really don't care about that, do you? All you care about is that Microsoft has figured out the game, and is now immune from it. Never mind that it was the game that got Microsoft into court in the first place.
Minor note of interest: The grandparent poster spectecjr is one Simon Cooke, a former Microsoft employee, and full-time Microsoft defender on all sorts of online media.
Oh, and him calling someone else a kook is too laughable to describe, as he has a rather kooky history too. Check out the Google USENET archives for some fun.
Funny how you couldn't find anything factual to go on, so you go for an ad hominem attack.
Personally, I wouldn't categorize him as a kook, and certainly I've not found a record of his JD (though I admit not having looked very well) so he may well be a legal hobbyist.
By the way, he is a real lawyer. But his profession is very much kook first.
Go here for an assessment by a thoroughly pissed of Lawyer that has covered this debacle from the get go.
Note, that that's a thoroughly pissed off kook (he's a lawyer as a hobby), who has been banned from every bulletin board he tried to post on after pissing off the moderators, and eventually had to set up his own website to peddle his bullshit because no-one would put up with it any more.
Lewis A. Mettler, Esq. (in Bullshit) please take a bow. What was the last one he was banned from? ZDNet? MSNBC? OSOpinion? CNET?
Not really, not when it is the current trend. People are just extrapolating current trends to future forecasts. And although the future is rarely that linear, when you see a trend the time to cry out about it is before it's too late. So it's not paranoid at all, just cautious.
Funny... you know, when I extrapolate the GPL in the same way, saying that if we're not careful, it's going to make it impossible to write any kind of commercial software in the future, people call me a kook.
Hahaha this has been one of the arguments of the comp.os.linux.advocacy trolls for a while now; that we're all terrorists and zealots. I see they've gotten attention of the Internet technology press now.
Hahahaha... no, it hasn't. The argument was that one of the resident COLA Lintrolls was claiming that being a Zealot was a wonderful thing, and just meant hobbyist. The COLA "Wintrolls" (one in particular - namely, me) said that no, there's a big difference between a hobbyist and a zealot - namely that Zealots tend to aim planes at buildings, whereas hobbyists, well, don't.
Because I called that COLA Lintroll on his rather stupid anemic attempt to rewrite the dictionary, all of a sudden, everyone decided that as I was correcting him, I must obviously be calling all Linux users terrorists.
Write all their software from scratch? what about IE? wasn`t that bought from spyglass? And how about DOS, the product that really kickstarted the company, they bought that from a third party too.
My point is, however, that they don't leech off the back of people writing software and giving it away for free. They pay people to write their software.
And what stops MS from doing the same? BTW, RH has full time developers writing GPLed code, including Linux kernel code.
Yes, several orders of magnitude less developers. As I mentioned in the prior post. You did read it, didn't you? Or are you seriously claiming that RedHat has tens of thousands of developers? Instead of about 30?
Add in the fact that the shareholders of Microsoft would file a lawsuit against them the moment they deliberately cannibalized their own profits in this way, and you can see why they can't do it.`
Um.. doesn't RedHat operate under this exact constraint? And make money? Perhaps not as much as MS is used too.... and without as much control.
Nope. RedHat sells software that others write and give away for free. They also sell support - and a few small utilities.
A far cry from Microsoft, who employ tens of thousands of software engineers, and write all their own software from scratch, while paying those engineers to do so.
Hmm, I don't think I understand your point exactly:). Why does it have to be GPL or Closed Source? Can't someone (M$) author a license by which you can recompile and mess with the OS you bought on a SINGLE installation on a single computer but can't share, just liked current closed source systems just um, not closed:).
The original poster said "Open Source", which apparently has a specific and trademarked definition, created by the Open Source Foundation.
Microsoft already has a Shared Source license, which Massachusetts could already use, which acts the way you describe.
Whats the difference between sharing source and sharing binaries? Rampant piracy happens with binaries doesnt it?:). If the licensing terms are kept the same, the only difference with the source being open under the same M$ license would be that any subterfuge or bugs etc could be detected by a group of reasonably competent coders.
The difference being that you can legally share the source and/or binaries under Open Source. So person (A) (the first customers), buys the OSS version of a piece of software for (say) $500. They then put it on the web, and everyone else can get it for free. Perfectly legally.
Therefore, as I said before, you either sell for a bucket load of cash, or you keep it closed source and rely on the legal system to prevent as much piracy as you can.
Exactly. Open source doesn't have to mean free as in beer. Microsoft could write and sell open source software if they wanted to.
Your statement rests on the assumption that all users who then bought that software would keep it to themselves, and not give it away to others.
This might work for one or two people... but after a very short time, someone would share that software out.
So they're left with two choices: charge the full non-recoverable engineering cost for the Open Source software, and take their revenue as that, or don't open it at all, and sell it at a deep discount on a per-user basis (as they do now).
Take your pick; high volume, closed-source commercial software, or low volume, high price, open-source commercial software.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be interesting to trace back to see who got the ball rolling to change copyright laws and so on. I'd bet good money it was the mega companies of the US, and not the citizens. Why would citizens be pushing to get less control over their property?
They certainly couldn't be pushing to get more control over their property; it's not their property.
There's a proverb in .nl, which translated into English comes down to:
"Trust comes on foot and leaves on horseback"
So let me get this straight... you're saying that Trust will steal your horses?
Holy crap!
We are now living in a society which is growing increasingly at odds with the original intent of those who created this nation.
... you do realize that they're dead, right? And they died a long time ago?
Just for the sake of argument...
Things change. Unless you're claiming that Jefferson had the gift of clairvoyance, and knew about computers, immediate infinite copying, and DVD players.
Personally, just a hunch, but I don't think he did.
Nomad Zen NX 30Gb... $299
http://shop1.outpost.com/product/3765176
It is only unnatural because you are a windows user. Even windows inistially you had to hold the mouse down for menu options and lift to activate an option. Then (until 2000) you could suddnely either hold the mouse down or click to activate. Now in XP, you have to click to activate.
Funny... it was unnatural to me back when I was using GEM Desktop. It was unnatural to me back when I was using Workbench. It was unnatural to me when I was using Driver. It was unnatural to me when I was using QNX. It was unnatural to me when I was using KDE, Gnome, NeXT and OpenStep. It's still unnatural to me now.
Whether I use Windows or not has nothing to do with it.
What a lovely demo. Pity you need to hold the mouse button down the whole time, which feels very unnatural.
Geforce FX, WinFX - this is starting to get about as in style as neglecting the leading E on words such as Xtreme and Xpress.
The thing is, WinFX has been called that since some time in 2000, when the team was started.
I wonder how well a web-based app works when you have 10,000 users who you're editing?
Sad. Real sad. For others reading this: my full name is Mart van de Wege. I have never tried to disguise it, so go and check my history against Simon Cooke's. I am fully confident in who will come out more mature in the comparison.
Yet you're defending Lewis A. Mettler. Do you even know anything about him?
Wow you're a jerk.
During 2000 - 2002 election cycle, Bill and Co. gave about $5M to Rep., nearly $4M to Dem., which are nothing significant for their bank account. Under the current administration, no one will ever come to harm Microsoft's monopoly. Period.
This is what is called a Shake Down.
The politicians weren't making enough money from Microsoft, but were making a lot of money from KPCB-venture group companies including Oracle, Sun, Apple, etc.
As such, the California guys paid for an antitrust trial with their campaign contribution. Once Microsoft started paying cash to politicians - as they 'should' have been doing all along - the problems for them stopped.
But hey, as long as the system works in your favor you really don't care about that, do you? All you care about is that Microsoft has figured out the game, and is now immune from it. Never mind that it was the game that got Microsoft into court in the first place.
Minor note of interest: The grandparent poster spectecjr is one Simon Cooke, a former Microsoft employee, and full-time Microsoft defender on all sorts of online media.
Oh, and him calling someone else a kook is too laughable to describe, as he has a rather kooky history too. Check out the Google USENET archives for some fun.
Funny how you couldn't find anything factual to go on, so you go for an ad hominem attack.
Who do you work for, Mart?
Personally, I wouldn't categorize him as a kook, and certainly I've not found a record of his JD (though I admit not having looked very well) so he may well be a legal hobbyist.
By the way, he is a real lawyer. But his profession is very much kook first.
May I ask what kind of technologies is Microsoft offering to other companies? All I can think of is .NET
Doesn't really matter; all of the Silicon Valley guys have a massive "Not Invented Here" complex anyway.
Go here for an assessment by a thoroughly pissed of Lawyer that has covered this debacle from the get go.
Note, that that's a thoroughly pissed off kook (he's a lawyer as a hobby), who has been banned from every bulletin board he tried to post on after pissing off the moderators, and eventually had to set up his own website to peddle his bullshit because no-one would put up with it any more.
Lewis A. Mettler, Esq. (in Bullshit) please take a bow. What was the last one he was banned from? ZDNet? MSNBC? OSOpinion? CNET?
Not really, not when it is the current trend. People are just extrapolating current trends to future forecasts. And although the future is rarely that linear, when you see a trend the time to cry out about it is before it's too late. So it's not paranoid at all, just cautious.
Funny... you know, when I extrapolate the GPL in the same way, saying that if we're not careful, it's going to make it impossible to write any kind of commercial software in the future, people call me a kook.
Hahaha this has been one of the arguments of the comp.os.linux.advocacy trolls for a while now; that we're all terrorists and zealots. I see they've gotten attention of the Internet technology press now.
Hahahaha... no, it hasn't. The argument was that one of the resident COLA Lintrolls was claiming that being a Zealot was a wonderful thing, and just meant hobbyist. The COLA "Wintrolls" (one in particular - namely, me) said that no, there's a big difference between a hobbyist and a zealot - namely that Zealots tend to aim planes at buildings, whereas hobbyists, well, don't.
Because I called that COLA Lintroll on his rather stupid anemic attempt to rewrite the dictionary, all of a sudden, everyone decided that as I was correcting him, I must obviously be calling all Linux users terrorists.
Yet another example of Linux zealotry.
I don't think so. COM/OLE is a complex and insecure interface. A inadequate rip-off of CORBA. Why do you think their replacing it with .Net?
COM/OLE predate CORBA. Just FYI.
Write all their software from scratch? what about IE? wasn`t that bought from spyglass? And how about DOS, the product that really kickstarted the company, they bought that from a third party too.
My point is, however, that they don't leech off the back of people writing software and giving it away for free. They pay people to write their software.
And what stops MS from doing the same? BTW, RH has full time developers writing GPLed code, including Linux kernel code.
Yes, several orders of magnitude less developers. As I mentioned in the prior post. You did read it, didn't you? Or are you seriously claiming that RedHat has tens of thousands of developers? Instead of about 30?
Add in the fact that the shareholders of Microsoft would file a lawsuit against them the moment they deliberately cannibalized their own profits in this way, and you can see why they can't do it.`
Um.. doesn't RedHat operate under this exact constraint? And make money? Perhaps not as much as MS is used too.... and without as much control.
Nope. RedHat sells software that others write and give away for free. They also sell support - and a few small utilities.
A far cry from Microsoft, who employ tens of thousands of software engineers, and write all their own software from scratch, while paying those engineers to do so.
Hmm, I don't think I understand your point exactly :). Why does it have to be GPL or Closed Source? Can't someone (M$) author a license by which you can recompile and mess with the OS you bought on a SINGLE installation on a single computer but can't share, just liked current closed source systems just um, not closed :).
The original poster said "Open Source", which apparently has a specific and trademarked definition, created by the Open Source Foundation.
Microsoft already has a Shared Source license, which Massachusetts could already use, which acts the way you describe.
Simon
Whats the difference between sharing source and sharing binaries? Rampant piracy happens with binaries doesnt it? :). If the licensing terms are kept the same, the only difference with the source being open under the same M$ license would be that any subterfuge or bugs etc could be detected by a group of reasonably competent coders.
The difference being that you can legally share the source and/or binaries under Open Source. So person (A) (the first customers), buys the OSS version of a piece of software for (say) $500. They then put it on the web, and everyone else can get it for free. Perfectly legally.
Therefore, as I said before, you either sell for a bucket load of cash, or you keep it closed source and rely on the legal system to prevent as much piracy as you can.
Exactly. Open source doesn't have to mean free as in beer. Microsoft could write and sell open source software if they wanted to.
Your statement rests on the assumption that all users who then bought that software would keep it to themselves, and not give it away to others.
This might work for one or two people... but after a very short time, someone would share that software out.
So they're left with two choices: charge the full non-recoverable engineering cost for the Open Source software, and take their revenue as that, or don't open it at all, and sell it at a deep discount on a per-user basis (as they do now).
Take your pick; high volume, closed-source commercial software, or low volume, high price, open-source commercial software.
Isn't it funny that for an anti-Microsoft site such as Slashdot, they use a Microsoft Sidewinder Pro as their icon?
No thanks, id rather have native drivers for my hardware. Not some sort of kludgy hack to make windows drivers work..
Well, you'd better go off and get working on them then hadn't you.
See you down the Salt Mines, Comrade.