20kb of quick anti-script-virus bliss. Basically forces all script files to open in notepad by default, instead of run. You can still run them by selecting Open from the context menu though.
Open source developers risk bankruptcy and asset forefiture or even jail due to recent abuses of intellectual property law like software patents and DMCA.
They do that anyway by giving away their work for free. Of course, as RMS says, there's always clerking.
There is nothing stipulating the price a developer can charge for his software in either the open source definition or the GPL. You're a troll.
Yes, there is:
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
Rationale: By constraining the license to require free redistribution, we eliminate the temptation to throw away many long-term gains in order to make a few short-term sales dollars. If we didn't do this, there would be lots of pressure for cooperators to defect.
Which effectively reduces the market price down to nothing, as anyone can sell it.
Therefore, that software then becomes free as in price after their first release. After one copy sold.
Also, no royalties are required for the sale.
So please tell me how they can make money selling that software under an Open Source license.
Microsoft deceptively compares Open Source to failed dot-com business models. Perhaps they misunderstand the term Free Software. Remember that Free refers to liberty, not price.
Hmmm... funny... you know, last time I looked at the definition of opensource on www.opensource.org and the last time I looked at the GPL license, GPL'd software and Open Source software were both, by definition, free as in price as well as free as in liberty.
Nice semantic waffling there Bruce.
Although Microsoft raises the issue of GPL violations, that is a classic red herring. Many more people find themselves in violation of Microsoft licenses, because Microsoft doesn't allow copying, modification, and redistribution as the GPL does. Microsoft license violations have resulted in civil suits and imprisonment. Accidental GPL violations are easily remedied, and rarely get to court.
Yes, that's because people were stealing their intellectual property. If you don't want to pay them for their stuff, don't use it. Use something else.
It's the share and share alike feature of the GPL that intimidates Microsoft, because it defeats their Embrace and Extend strategy.
No, I think it's more likely that it's because there's the chance (especially with RMS's push to move away from the LGPL) that at some point in the future, you won't be able to develop for Linux without putting your software out under the GPL as well. Which means you may as well stop running a software business the moment Linux reaches the point where it seals up the market.
Microsoft's Shared Source program recognizes that there are many benefits to the openness, community involvement, and innovation of the Open Source model. But the most important component of that model, the one that makes all of the others work, is freedom.
Different aims -- the MS program allows developers to see under the hood so that they don't have to rely on the docs. That's it. That's all it's for. And frankly, that's all it needs to be.
We urge Microsoft to go the rest of the way in embracing the Open Source software development paradigm. Stop asking for one-way sharing, and accept the responsibility to share and share alike that comes with the benefits of Open Source. Acknowledge that it is compatible with business.
No, it's not compatible with business
By DEFINITION, other people get the right to copy, distribute and publish your work the moment you release it under an open source or GPL license. If your business is based on selling software, that means that the moment you release your work under such a license, you've just lost your revenue stream. Which means that your shareholders have every right to take you and string you up.
Please, Bruce, explain how a license that explicitly says that others can copy your work for free is compatible with a business that sells software.
You don't seem to understand that something can be bad for one business, and good for another. As a developer, I would release my software under the BSD license, or as closed-source software. Nothing in between. Why?
Because I want compensation for my work. The cost of living in today's economy is not zero, no matter what you may have seen on Star Trek.
If I'm going to give it away, I'm going to give it away no strings attached. Which means that others can use my work freely.
But that's not "the car in front of you." that you're hitting--it's a car from another lane, and the collision would be his fault.
It is at the time I hit it:) It's in exactly the same position and location that the car that *was* in front of me would have been if I'd been driving too close.
I guess it all depends on your definition of the vehicle in front of you.
And the one hurt on a motorcycle, expecting me to arrange for "my compensation."--the fool had run into the car in front of him (Unless the vehicle in front of you disabled its backup lights and suddenly went into reverse, the fact that you collided with it is conclusive evidence that you were following too close . ..)
I don't know if that's necessarily the case when someone speeds past you on the right, and slams their vehicle into the space in front of you when all of the traffic ahead is slowing down, forcing you to stab your brakes hard.
In this situations you *were* keeping a safe distance, but the guy now in front of you was driving unsafely.
Guess what? This happens ALL THE TIME in Seattle. Usually on the I-90 -> I-5 N offramp.
So whose fault would that be? I've nearly hit people in the rear because of this kind of thing before - and usually I keep a good car length or three between me and the cars in front.
A hundred years ago, an unexplained force seemed to be affecting the orbit of Mercury, causing a wobble in its orbit that should not have existed in a Newtonian framework. Then in 1915, Albert Einstein developed the theory of General Relativity, describing the complex curvatures of our universe that could explain Mercury's path around the Sun.
You know... a lot of these problems occur when you take an approximation instead of the real thing.
Eg. Newton's laws are a 1st order approximation to the real thing.
Relativity gets closer.
Now, I can't remember the specifics, but the general equations we use when utilizing relativistic motion are actually still only approximations -- it's just that the third, fourth, etc. order terms of the equation are so small that you can ignore them.
The thing is - what happens over large distances? Well, the smaller terms will start to become very important. I've got to wonder if they forgot that the equations they'll typically use ARE approximations which are simplified for ease of use in calculations?
Instead of beleiving the crap the MS spews to their MCSE's why don't you think for a minute and give me an example. If MS does not use secret OS hooks, then name one piece of software that drastically outperforms the MS alternative on Windows. Just one
How about listing one piece of software that underperforms the MS solution, because apparently there's many.
One nice trick was to upgrade the MS compiler and, err, "extend" the format of the DLLs produced. So suddenly, the Borland-produced DLLs my company distributed wouldn't work with code generated by MSC. Our customers couldn't use our product. And since at this point, MS had a majority share of the PC compiler market (sound familiar?), the natural trend was to go with a compatible solution.
Maybe if your engineers had known enough about name mangling to release their DLLs with proper export names instead of just letting the compiler do its thing, you wouldn't have had a problem.
OK, how about four phrases: WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, Novell Netware, Netscape Navigator.
[rhetoric snipped]
How about specific examples instead of hand-waving rhetoric? Just because 'everybody knows' it, doesn't mean that it's true. I'd like to know specific details, please.
Without specific details, you can't verify a claim or not.
Both may fit the OSI's definition of Open Source, but Free? Neither one uses that word. Richard Stallman isn't kidding when he says Open Source is not synonymous with Free Software. Clearly, there is nothing to stop every software company in the world from writing its own Open Source license."
By definition, open source has nothing to do with free. There's just plenty of people who don't mind working for nothing. Apple wants to make money, so they'll do that. If you don't like their open source model, then don't help out. There's nothing wrong with companies using open source for profit. And anyway, darwin is free, which is what's released under Apple's Open Sourece license, so there's no reason why the rest of OSX has to be free (as your post implies).
Depends on your definition of free. For example, the OSI definitions of Open Source software explicitly state that an OSI licensed work cannot be charged for:
From www.opensource.org:
Definition of Open Source
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
Rationale: By constraining the license to require free redistribution, we eliminate the temptation to throw away many long-term gains in order to make a few short-term sales dollars. If we didn't do this, there would be lots of pressure for cooperators to defect.
Remember: Open Source != Free[1], GPL === Free[1].
[1] as in beer
From www.opensource.org:
Definition of Open Source
1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
Rationale: By constraining the license to require free redistribution, we eliminate the temptation to throw away many long-term gains in order to make a few short-term sales dollars. If we didn't do this, there would be lots of pressure for cooperators to defect.
I think that makes Open Source free as in beer. Which means that Microsoft will never use an 'Open' license.
Slashdot Mirror
all of the free software projects using CVS and variations there of
Isn't that client-server, not peer-to-peer?
Simon
ide != fast, ide==cheap ide is very processor intensive. scsi is the way to go!
Not any more it's not. IDE with busmastering and ultra DMA is FAST, and not processor intensive at all.
Simon
I've got a halfway there solution for that:
i p
http://home.earthlink.net/~simoncooke/SVDefuser.z
20kb of quick anti-script-virus bliss. Basically forces all script files to open in notepad by default, instead of run. You can still run them by selecting Open from the context menu though.
Simon
Open source developers risk bankruptcy and asset forefiture or even jail due to recent abuses of intellectual property law like software patents and DMCA.
They do that anyway by giving away their work for free. Of course, as RMS says, there's always clerking.
Simon
Tell ya what. Here's an open invite to Bruce to come and convince Sierra to open-source all their stuff.
Simon
Yes, there is:
Which effectively reduces the market price down to nothing, as anyone can sell it.
Therefore, that software then becomes free as in price after their first release. After one copy sold.
Also, no royalties are required for the sale.
So please tell me how they can make money selling that software under an Open Source license.
Microsoft deceptively compares Open Source to failed dot-com business models. Perhaps they misunderstand the term Free Software. Remember that Free refers to liberty, not price.
Hmmm... funny... you know, last time I looked at the definition of opensource on www.opensource.org and the last time I looked at the GPL license, GPL'd software and Open Source software were both, by definition, free as in price as well as free as in liberty.
Nice semantic waffling there Bruce.
Although Microsoft raises the issue of GPL violations, that is a classic red herring. Many more people find themselves in violation of Microsoft licenses, because Microsoft doesn't allow copying, modification, and redistribution as the GPL does. Microsoft license violations have resulted in civil suits and imprisonment. Accidental GPL violations are easily remedied, and rarely get to court.
Yes, that's because people were stealing their intellectual property. If you don't want to pay them for their stuff, don't use it. Use something else.
It's the share and share alike feature of the GPL that intimidates Microsoft, because it defeats their Embrace and Extend strategy.
No, I think it's more likely that it's because there's the chance (especially with RMS's push to move away from the LGPL) that at some point in the future, you won't be able to develop for Linux without putting your software out under the GPL as well. Which means you may as well stop running a software business the moment Linux reaches the point where it seals up the market.
Microsoft's Shared Source program recognizes that there are many benefits to the openness, community involvement, and innovation of the Open Source model. But the most important component of that model, the one that makes all of the others work, is freedom.
Different aims -- the MS program allows developers to see under the hood so that they don't have to rely on the docs. That's it. That's all it's for. And frankly, that's all it needs to be.
We urge Microsoft to go the rest of the way in embracing the Open Source software development paradigm. Stop asking for one-way sharing, and accept the responsibility to share and share alike that comes with the benefits of Open Source. Acknowledge that it is compatible with business.
No, it's not compatible with business
By DEFINITION, other people get the right to copy, distribute and publish your work the moment you release it under an open source or GPL license. If your business is based on selling software, that means that the moment you release your work under such a license, you've just lost your revenue stream. Which means that your shareholders have every right to take you and string you up.
Please, Bruce, explain how a license that explicitly says that others can copy your work for free is compatible with a business that sells software.
You don't seem to understand that something can be bad for one business, and good for another. As a developer, I would release my software under the BSD license, or as closed-source software. Nothing in between. Why?
Because I want compensation for my work. The cost of living in today's economy is not zero, no matter what you may have seen on Star Trek.
If I'm going to give it away, I'm going to give it away no strings attached. Which means that others can use my work freely.
Simon
But that's not "the car in front of you." that you're hitting--it's a car from another lane, and the collision would be his fault.
:) It's in exactly the same position and location that the car that *was* in front of me would have been if I'd been driving too close.
It is at the time I hit it
I guess it all depends on your definition of the vehicle in front of you.
Simon
And the one hurt on a motorcycle, expecting me to arrange for "my compensation."--the fool had run into the car in front of him (Unless the vehicle in front of you disabled its backup lights and suddenly went into reverse, the fact that you collided with it is conclusive evidence that you were following too close . . .)
I don't know if that's necessarily the case when someone speeds past you on the right, and slams their vehicle into the space in front of you when all of the traffic ahead is slowing down, forcing you to stab your brakes hard.
In this situations you *were* keeping a safe distance, but the guy now in front of you was driving unsafely.
Guess what? This happens ALL THE TIME in Seattle. Usually on the I-90 -> I-5 N offramp.
So whose fault would that be? I've nearly hit people in the rear because of this kind of thing before - and usually I keep a good car length or three between me and the cars in front.
Simon
Simon
A hundred years ago, an unexplained force seemed to be affecting the orbit of Mercury, causing a wobble in its orbit that should not have existed in a Newtonian framework. Then in 1915, Albert Einstein developed the theory of General Relativity, describing the complex curvatures of our universe that could explain Mercury's path around the Sun.
You know... a lot of these problems occur when you take an approximation instead of the real thing.
Eg. Newton's laws are a 1st order approximation to the real thing.
Relativity gets closer.
Now, I can't remember the specifics, but the general equations we use when utilizing relativistic motion are actually still only approximations -- it's just that the third, fourth, etc. order terms of the equation are so small that you can ignore them.
The thing is - what happens over large distances? Well, the smaller terms will start to become very important. I've got to wonder if they forgot that the equations they'll typically use ARE approximations which are simplified for ease of use in calculations?
Simon
Got a link?
Si
Instead of beleiving the crap the MS spews to their MCSE's why don't you think for a minute and give me an example. If MS does not use secret OS hooks, then name one piece of software that drastically outperforms the MS alternative on Windows. Just one
How about listing one piece of software that underperforms the MS solution, because apparently there's many.
Simon
One nice trick was to upgrade the MS compiler and, err, "extend" the format of the DLLs produced. So suddenly, the Borland-produced DLLs my company distributed wouldn't work with code generated by MSC. Our customers couldn't use our product. And since at this point, MS had a majority share of the PC compiler market (sound familiar?), the natural trend was to go with a compatible solution.
Maybe if your engineers had known enough about name mangling to release their DLLs with proper export names instead of just letting the compiler do its thing, you wouldn't have had a problem.
Simon
OK, how about four phrases: WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, Novell Netware, Netscape Navigator.
[rhetoric snipped]
How about specific examples instead of hand-waving rhetoric? Just because 'everybody knows' it, doesn't mean that it's true. I'd like to know specific details, please.
Without specific details, you can't verify a claim or not.
Simon
one word Netscape
Really? And what information do you think isn't available?
More than one word, preferably, so we know what you're talking about?
Simon
If Microsoft came out with a virus checker, do you think Norton and McAfee would lose sales?
Hopefully. Norton and McAfee are shite.
Simon
the like: Stacker from Stac Electronics (remember them?)
I thought Slashdot denizens hated "Stupid Patent Infringement Lawsuits"?
Because that's what this was - patent infringment. On a really STUPID patent.
Simon
right, and i wonder how many people actually -pay- for Winzip? Winzip, along with mIrc, is by far one of the most pirated pieces of software.
*raises hand*
I paid for it. I make it a policy to buy any shareware that I find myself using often enough over a three month period to warrant it.
Simon
They already do.
Try reading up on it:
http://msdn.microsoft.com
Or do you have any specific examples of where they don't?
Simon
By definition, open source has nothing to do with free. There's just plenty of people who don't mind working for nothing. Apple wants to make money, so they'll do that. If you don't like their open source model, then don't help out. There's nothing wrong with companies using open source for profit. And anyway, darwin is free, which is what's released under Apple's Open Sourece license, so there's no reason why the rest of OSX has to be free (as your post implies).
Depends on your definition of free. For example, the OSI definitions of Open Source software explicitly state that an OSI licensed work cannot be charged for:
From www.opensource.org:
Simon
For Mr. and Mrs. America, talk about Free as in Beer and explain that roughly 10% of the price of a computer these days is the Windows Tax.
I guess it depends on how much you pay for your computer, how many that vendor sells, etc etc etc.
So it's 10% +/-10%
Simon
[1] as in beer
From www.opensource.org:
Definition of Open Source
I think that makes Open Source free as in beer. Which means that Microsoft will never use an 'Open' license.
Simon
1) New file formats to create incompatibility.
Office 2000 uses the same file format as Office 97. So where's your 'new file format' there?
Simon
I already knew that -- and it's tiny compared to the Redmond and Austin campuses.
Simon
.. Did you notice the story from msnbc didn't mention him repo'ing from any MS employees?
That would be because he was a silicon valley repo-man, not a Redmon or Austin repo man.
Simon