With the possible exception of the video conferencing software bundled in XP what is a decent reason to go out and buy a new PC? Seriously, I know quite a few shops still using NT with no planned upgrade to W2K for nearly a year. At my place of work there is a greater need to upgrade other systems than to buy a slew of new desktops to run 2K or XP. For us, the new ad software we're running is more of a motivator to get new Dells than an OS.
From where I'm standing, XP isn't going to be the Holy Grail analysts are making it out to be.
Other programs do not guarantee that the child will actually get fed. School lunch does. Parent applies for assistance and that only goes to feeding that child. There is no selling that kid's ticket or using it for someone else. The program is focused which makes it a good program. And fwiw, there are programs for providing kids with breakfast also.
Your suggestion to change the school into a boarding school is impractical and any form of it would wind up costing more than the lunch program. What's important is getting the child in an environment in which she can learn. Studies have proven that a well-fed child gets a better education than a hungry one. In this case a mock chicken leg, some mashed potatoes and a pint of milk do more than a Mac running MathBlaster.
fwiw, school lunch is a damn good program. My wife has taught in places where school lunch was the only meal of the day for some kids. Pathetic but true.
Oh please. The only fanatic I'm seeing is you. I made a damn good point. If you put the product under a proprietary license and then offer the same package under BSD what's the point? The only thing you can offer is support. Just like GPL'd software.
Your analogies are skewed. No I don't expect to fly for free. Being able to use free software does not mitigate the cost of fuel, the cost of staff to fly and maintain the plane, etc. etc. Your reasoning is completely flawed. But if a cost savings gets them to add more staff, improve service, and get Fluffy from point A to point B in one piece then I don't see why that isn't a good thing.
Lots of people profit because of software (either in their operations, efficiency, etc.), and if you released your software for free you have NO RIGHT to demand payment later on.
So we agree that the parent's author to this discussion is flawed in releasing a program under the BSD license and then charging for a proprietary licensed version of the same product? After all he does offer a free version he shouldn't expect payment from it later on. Must be the same quality as any GPL stuff out there if it's available for free.
Oh, and I said I supported both the BSD license and the GPL. Next time you want to start screaming zealot go look into the mirror.
Seems to me that the GPL has the potential to remove your rights as a developer in the long run. Say you invent a software product, copyright it under your name, and then GPL it. You could sell this product as a proprietary product under a different licence. However, as soon as someone else contributes to your code, you lose all rights to sell it under your proprietary licence. With a BSD licence, the open source model still works, you get to share code and have others contribute to the project, and no one is restricted in any way from making money with the code. As it should be IMO.
So what you're saying is that you can take contributed changes into your proprietary product and not have to reimburse the people who have helped make your program better. You make millions (*taptaptap* no Flower that's billions) and when the guy who contributed the code needs function X which you only offer in your proprietary product you can jack him for a licensing fee.
And to counter the standard BSD rant you can sell a GPL'd product. The FSF has been doing it for years.
I can hear the anti-BSD rant already. "But what if evil software company X steals your code and never gives back to the development community? Well, here's what would happen. Since I BSD'd my code instead of GPL'ing it, I'm not restricted in any way from selling my product and competing with company X(If I had GPL'd my project, its likely that neither I nor company X would ever make any money, but that's neither here nor there). Now who do you think people are going to buy the software from. Me, who wrote the code, and actually can support it, or Company X, who downloaded the code, doesn't know shit about it, and just wants to make a quick buck.
You forgot about marketing. I don't need to be better than you to hijack your product. I just need to convince the general populace that I'm better than you are. Then it's just a matter of time to get my ducks in row to be "good enough." For all the bitching about MS and Bill Gates I'll say this. Bill knows business and how to work it. What MS did to other businesses an equally savy entreprenuer could do to you.
And if your OSS product is so hot it's likely that you have a developer list. If Dr. Evil's software company can't figure out the code, just make a few Yahoo accounts and ask.
That's right, even under the BSD model, I'm still pretty much guaranteed the lions share of the sale of this software product. My code is still free and can be developed with an open source community model. And most importantly, I can sell my own work as a binary product to people who don't care about the code, and I can sell it without restriction.
Which again begs the question "Why can't you do the same thing under the GPL?" Just because you have to supply source if the client requests it doesn't mean you can't charge to distribute it or to support it. Unless you are adding stuff to the propriety product that you aren't adding to the BSD licensed product there is nothing preventing your product from being available for free as in beer. You wind up being in the same boat as the GPL'd crowd. Your money won't be coming in from the product but from the support you can provide.
The only way I can see you making "profit" from your OSS project is if you make the free version less functional than the proprietary one. And getting back on topic, if this had happened to the company developing GnuCash they may have had to sell off their proprietary extensions and the project would have been out up to a years worth of work.
I do think the BSD license is good and useful but you haven't sold me on why it should be the prefered way of developing OSS for profit.
And where did he say the BSD license didn't? Where did he mention the BSD license? Oh wait. He didn't at all. Instead he talks about how code they used to start GnuCash was under the GPL so it was required to GPL GnuCash. Nice spin doctoring there.
My question to you is "so where was the alternative the developers could have used that was licensed under BSD?"
Teachers in WI also have a similiar requirement. I think 6 credits every five years. I don't know if school districts pay for the extra training or not.
That's BS. Open sourcing their OS is effectively taking it away from them. Forever. A remedy is a corrective action not a punishment.
And how are you going to determine how big that fine is? How long would they have been able to carry their codebase? Going from the original NT to XP you have at least 10+ years of develpoment. Are you going to say they have to give up a decade of profits? How about 30 years? That's how long Unix has been evolving. So let's see, you are going to effectively steal their product and then fine them 30 years worth of revenue to open their codebase for free. Even me being a huge liberal who voted for Nader sees this as beyond extreme.
When they broke up AT&T they did not hijack their lines. As competitors entered the market AT&T was able to lease those lines for years while competitors added their own lines. The same holds true here.
The only damn thing I need to know about this matter is the technical resolution to the outage and the human interest story that someone in the community who wasn't employed by/. came in to help. Hearing a first hand account of Cisco's technical support was interesting and worthwhile.
What I take issue with is not only did the editors divulge that someone quit but that they also labeled her as incompetent (My interpretation of the comments.) That should have never happened. You, I and everybody else here should have never been told that and it boggles me that those who defend this "right to know" BS are chomping at the bit to get the dirt on this alleged dustup. There isn't a single person I know in this field who would want to be put in that spotlight.
But what irks me the most is that this thread is so hot but my other post about syslogging the Cisco which is much more relevent to the article just sits with little discussion.
Christ people. Ditch the tabloid mentality and get back to the Nerd stuff.
No, we don't have a right to know. Ms. Tomlinson's departure is between her and her employer; not some tabloid expose for a bunch of overly curious rumor mongering conspiracy theorists. I wouldn't be surprised if the people who blurted this out on a public forum haven't been seriously bitch slapped by HR.
As a community it would be best to let the matter drop. I'm sure if you were in Anne's position you'd be severely pissed. A little perspective and some empathy would be appropriate.
That's true. And it's why you can't make a GPL'd program out of the stupid SDK anyway. The code is not GPL compatable and attaching a bunch of self-proclaimed GPL code to it isn't going to open it up. MS didn't have to put that section into its EULA. Their copyright takes precident.
Which is why I find the thing so ridiculous. "Oooo, the GPL and the MPL and all these other 'open sores' licenses will force us to open all our code. They're a cancer to our business." Bull shit. That clause was never needed and is vague enough to require a lawyer's opinion if you are going to use the SDK with anything other than MS' development suite.
Section 1c is one of the few things that I've seen which deserves "-1 redundant."
But what's to stop someone from grabbing the source and development libs and compiling a static version for distribution? Heck it's GPL'd, if you're savy enough, do the compile yourself; burn it to CD and distribute it to your friends. Or wait to find someone with the same itch who has done it and packaged the binary.
So if a million of us chip in a dollar and pay for access to the W2K source all of us can see it? I don't think so.
The W2K source is available for corporations with the funds. There will never come a day when CompSci students can learn OS design by looking over MS's source.
Just attribute your shock as a sign that you are getting older. I remember the time I was watching a showing of U2's Rattle and Hum and hearing "I didn't know U2 had a new song." while Along the Watchtower was playing...
All I can remember was thinking about how Bob Dylan passed that song along to Hendrix after hearing him play it. Oh and scoring on college freshman was beginning to look like cradle robbing after that but that's another story.
An ad does not give the page content. It generates revenue for the publisher. When I read a newspaper I run a junkbuster program all the time. I skip the ad or throw the insert out. Am I changing the content of the news stories bu doing that?
A translator program gives me content in a way I can understand. I am at least getting the gist of what the author means to say and a program like Babelfish isn't adding links to the document. I can't read Spanish but my wife can. In the rare instance that I need to know what is being said or written on a document I ask my wife. Her translation often isn't perfect but is good enough to get the content. Has she changed what the author meant by translating? I don't think so.
iirc, you can override the way the browser highlights a hyperlink. Are you really sure that Joe Average is going to be able to differentiate between a link and a smart tag? I'm not. And yes, it is a lot different than highlighting an e-mail addy. An addy is a format - i.e. something@something.blah. And the program isn't renaming the addy to "Flower's e-mail" or "Just another/. id10t." What you are talking about is matching word(s) and inserting a link in the document. Much, much different from your analogy.
So let me get this right. To do this smart link thing, I use this file buried in a number of directories that Joe User will never find or understand. All I have to do is modify this file to my heart's content and any word I deem worthy will get a smart tag pointing to a site I deem appropriate.
I can't wait for the worm that "fixes" a person's smart tags.
Piracy is bad. Your solution gives us all a bad name. It also gives the movie studios ammunition to justify their business model and lobbying efforts for laws like the DMCA.
How about renting the movie first and if you really like it then buy it. You're out a whopping $3. Hell, I watched half of Charlie's Angels, returned it and felt gypped but wtf? At least I didn't pay $30 and felt like I had to force myself to sit in the theater because I blew all that money to take my wife out.
Slashdot Mirror
But I didn't know I would have to keep paying to use it!
From where I'm standing, XP isn't going to be the Holy Grail analysts are making it out to be.
Yeah, like "reality" television.
Your suggestion to change the school into a boarding school is impractical and any form of it would wind up costing more than the lunch program. What's important is getting the child in an environment in which she can learn. Studies have proven that a well-fed child gets a better education than a hungry one. In this case a mock chicken leg, some mashed potatoes and a pint of milk do more than a Mac running MathBlaster.
fwiw, school lunch is a damn good program. My wife has taught in places where school lunch was the only meal of the day for some kids. Pathetic but true.
Your analogies are skewed. No I don't expect to fly for free. Being able to use free software does not mitigate the cost of fuel, the cost of staff to fly and maintain the plane, etc. etc. Your reasoning is completely flawed. But if a cost savings gets them to add more staff, improve service, and get Fluffy from point A to point B in one piece then I don't see why that isn't a good thing.
So we agree that the parent's author to this discussion is flawed in releasing a program under the BSD license and then charging for a proprietary licensed version of the same product? After all he does offer a free version he shouldn't expect payment from it later on. Must be the same quality as any GPL stuff out there if it's available for free.
Oh, and I said I supported both the BSD license and the GPL. Next time you want to start screaming zealot go look into the mirror.
So what you're saying is that you can take contributed changes into your proprietary product and not have to reimburse the people who have helped make your program better. You make millions (*taptaptap* no Flower that's billions) and when the guy who contributed the code needs function X which you only offer in your proprietary product you can jack him for a licensing fee.
And to counter the standard BSD rant you can sell a GPL'd product. The FSF has been doing it for years.
You forgot about marketing. I don't need to be better than you to hijack your product. I just need to convince the general populace that I'm better than you are. Then it's just a matter of time to get my ducks in row to be "good enough." For all the bitching about MS and Bill Gates I'll say this. Bill knows business and how to work it. What MS did to other businesses an equally savy entreprenuer could do to you.
And if your OSS product is so hot it's likely that you have a developer list. If Dr. Evil's software company can't figure out the code, just make a few Yahoo accounts and ask.
Which again begs the question "Why can't you do the same thing under the GPL?" Just because you have to supply source if the client requests it doesn't mean you can't charge to distribute it or to support it. Unless you are adding stuff to the propriety product that you aren't adding to the BSD licensed product there is nothing preventing your product from being available for free as in beer. You wind up being in the same boat as the GPL'd crowd. Your money won't be coming in from the product but from the support you can provide.
The only way I can see you making "profit" from your OSS project is if you make the free version less functional than the proprietary one. And getting back on topic, if this had happened to the company developing GnuCash they may have had to sell off their proprietary extensions and the project would have been out up to a years worth of work.
I do think the BSD license is good and useful but you haven't sold me on why it should be the prefered way of developing OSS for profit.
My question to you is "so where was the alternative the developers could have used that was licensed under BSD?"
I'd love to have a look at JMS' timeline for the B5 universe. Just to find out why our sun goes nova a million years after the Shadow War.
Teachers in WI also have a similiar requirement. I think 6 credits every five years. I don't know if school districts pay for the extra training or not.
And how are you going to determine how big that fine is? How long would they have been able to carry their codebase? Going from the original NT to XP you have at least 10+ years of develpoment. Are you going to say they have to give up a decade of profits? How about 30 years? That's how long Unix has been evolving. So let's see, you are going to effectively steal their product and then fine them 30 years worth of revenue to open their codebase for free. Even me being a huge liberal who voted for Nader sees this as beyond extreme.
When they broke up AT&T they did not hijack their lines. As competitors entered the market AT&T was able to lease those lines for years while competitors added their own lines. The same holds true here.
You can't open source the windows source code without compensating MS. How many billions do you want the taxpayers to shell out to effect this remedy?
What I take issue with is not only did the editors divulge that someone quit but that they also labeled her as incompetent (My interpretation of the comments.) That should have never happened. You, I and everybody else here should have never been told that and it boggles me that those who defend this "right to know" BS are chomping at the bit to get the dirt on this alleged dustup. There isn't a single person I know in this field who would want to be put in that spotlight.
But what irks me the most is that this thread is so hot but my other post about syslogging the Cisco which is much more relevent to the article just sits with little discussion.
Christ people. Ditch the tabloid mentality and get back to the Nerd stuff.
No, we don't have a right to know. Ms. Tomlinson's departure is between her and her employer; not some tabloid expose for a bunch of overly curious rumor mongering conspiracy theorists. I wouldn't be surprised if the people who blurted this out on a public forum haven't been seriously bitch slapped by HR.
As a community it would be best to let the matter drop. I'm sure if you were in Anne's position you'd be severely pissed. A little perspective and some empathy would be appropriate.
I wonder if they will investigate syslogging the messages to another box. Would this even be worth the effort?
And the MPAA thinks there is no reason for hacking CSS. Go fig.
Which is why I find the thing so ridiculous. "Oooo, the GPL and the MPL and all these other 'open sores' licenses will force us to open all our code. They're a cancer to our business." Bull shit. That clause was never needed and is vague enough to require a lawyer's opinion if you are going to use the SDK with anything other than MS' development suite.
Section 1c is one of the few things that I've seen which deserves "-1 redundant."
Hello. News for Nerds website here. At least we're in the ballpark with this story.
I don't see what the problem is.
The W2K source is available for corporations with the funds. There will never come a day when CompSci students can learn OS design by looking over MS's source.
All I can remember was thinking about how Bob Dylan passed that song along to Hendrix after hearing him play it. Oh and scoring on college freshman was beginning to look like cradle robbing after that but that's another story.
Could you code a (java|vb)script in this smart tag file that would execute if clicked or has a mouse over? Would this smart tag feature execute it?
A translator program gives me content in a way I can understand. I am at least getting the gist of what the author means to say and a program like Babelfish isn't adding links to the document. I can't read Spanish but my wife can. In the rare instance that I need to know what is being said or written on a document I ask my wife. Her translation often isn't perfect but is good enough to get the content. Has she changed what the author meant by translating? I don't think so.
iirc, you can override the way the browser highlights a hyperlink. Are you really sure that Joe Average is going to be able to differentiate between a link and a smart tag? I'm not. And yes, it is a lot different than highlighting an e-mail addy. An addy is a format - i.e. something@something.blah. And the program isn't renaming the addy to "Flower's e-mail" or "Just another /. id10t." What you are talking about is matching word(s) and inserting a link in the document. Much, much different from your analogy.
I can't wait for the worm that "fixes" a person's smart tags.