Where "real world" means "what exists inside the buyer's head"?
Of course. The value of gemstones and of computer programs and of dollar bills only exists in people's heads too. That makes it real because those people will exchange other things for them.
I am COMPLETELY against offshoring, but outsourcing is OK.
You're against importing any product or service? Or do you mean that if something's ever been produced inhouse then it must never be imported but can be bought in from other companies in the same country? So I can start up my company from scratch using imported goods, but if I try for a year to make them myself then I have to forego the import option forever? Or what do you mean?
This type of license identification and verification might be one way of plugging that loophole.
Is this based on the theory that the loon picture will come to life and follow the licensee around, shouting to everyone that he already has a license and mustn't be given another one? Or is there some even more subtle detail that I'm missing?
"Judgement" isn't only viable, it's the correct variant if you happen to live in the UK or Australia.
Wrong. I don't know about Autralia, but in the UK "judgement" and "judgment" are both valid spellings, except amongst members of the legal profession. Lawyers in the UK invariably spell it "judgment". It's pretty much a shibboleth, if you spell it "judgement" in legal writings then your "error" will get noticed.
Mine seemed to be working but now it's showing an article about a single anonymous user's broswer problems on the front page of Slashdot. That can't be right. Hopefully Mozilla will have a patch available soon.
I wouldn't be the least bit offended to be called a "Yank," which would be the abbreviation analogous to "Brit."
I wouldn't be the least bit offended to be called a UKian. Then again I don't think I'd be offended to be called a "Brit" either, but it does have an unpleasant slangy quality to it (which UKian doesn't to my ears but I wouldn't try to rationalise that).
US'ian is awkward to say and looks awkward in text.
I don't find things that are awkward to say offensive. I don't say them myself because they're awkward but I don't care if someone else says them.
Software is an overhead for IBM. It's a distraction from hardware and services. Open Source allows IBM to sell hardware and services without having to pay to develop the software to run on it and/or implement on behalf of customers. That's the reason, and the only reason, IBM is into Linux.
Yep, and it's an excellent reason.
I agree with everything you say, but there seems to be an underlying hostility. Maybe I'm imagining it, but I can't help feeling that you want me to respond "the fiends, how dare they want to save costs!".
But people happily write code that IBM later sells (or sells support for, at any rate) without seeing a penny for their efforts.
I think one difference is that IBM is not trying to entice them into doing it, or at least that the people don't feel 'enticed'.
Many people who contribute to, e.g. Gnome, do so for their own purposes, fun, learning experience, demonstrate skills for future employers, create software they want to use etc. Sure, IBM can come along and use it if they like what comes out but that's not the driving influence. If IBM approached many of those programmers and asked how they could entice them to create a desktop environment then I think a lot of those people would be asking what their budget is for this project.
Or to use an analogy, if you approach someone who likes driving, goes for long drives in the country, is always maintaining and looking after their car, and ask them how you would entice them to chauffeur for you then a. many of them may be insulted and b. those that give you an answer are mostly going to be talking about money.
As I'm sure many of you noticed, Microsoft has been making some 'Open Source' pushes as of late. They started by creating the CPL, getting it certified, and have now been hiring prominent open source developers to work on CPL.
Microsoft did not create the CPL, nor were they involved in getting it certified. CPL is a licence that IBM created, though it is true that Microsoft have used it for a couple of recent projects.
The original poster's argument wasn't that IBM wouldn't contribute code unless they were forced to, it was that IBM wouldn't distribute code if other companies could take that code proprietary.
Your examples are still good ones in refutation of that, as I believe they are under licences that permit others to make proprietary derivatives, but your actual comment seemed to be based on a misreading.
No, they wouldn't kill Linux, but they would shove it so far out of the public view it might as well be Amiga. I don't think they want to kill Linux completely - just the big players, the ones that matter to the high dollar corporate customers. The ones really stealing sales from MS.
I can understand that, but that doesn't square with the quote from the article.
If what Microsoft is worried about is big companies supporting Linux then Novell entering the market is either irrelevant because they're below whatever threshold Microsoft applies, or else it's a bad thing because a big company is now supporting Linux. Either way, it's nothing to celebrate.
Crushing Novell would at best restore the position before Novell entered the market, but with Microsoft having spent considerable resources in the meantime. Plus there always has to be a risk that the crushing won't work.
If he was really celebrating when Novell entered the Linux market then it was only because psychologically he's happier having someone he can try to crush. It doesn't help him in any other way.
I've lost faith in Secunia, they seem to love pointing out security holes in open-source products. So I just ignore them now.
If you're using open source software then a site that loves pointing out security holes in those programs sounds very useful. If you're not using open source then I can see your point.
No - it's not entirely off-base. What if they win? What happens then? Do we come up with some other type of strategy?
I'm assuming by "win" you mean the courts decide that SCO own copyrights to code that has been improperly contributed to Linux. If you mean something else then obviously the answer is going to be different.
So following that assumption, the code that the courts had determined as SCO's proprietary property would have to be removed and replaced. It's unlikely that such a situation will arise, but that's what the response will have to be if the situation does arise.
Of course, how Qui-Gon (aside: Hey, continuity! *squish of balls being kicked*) could think balancing the force was a GOOD thing (Hmm... Many light side, two dark side... how could this be balanced...?) is another matter entirely.
Perhaps he thinks it's possible to actually end up with one group of reasonable people instead of two groups of arrogant zealots at each other's throats?
Blackmail is a specific crime in the UK, defined by section 21 of the Theft Act 1968:
21 (1) A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief:
(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and (b) that the sue of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand
(2) The nature of the act or omission is immaterial , and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.
(3) A person guilty of blakmail shall on conviction non indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
"Sveasoft cannot refuse source access FOR THOSE WHO HAVE OBTAINED A BINARY FROM THEM."
Agreed, and entirely correct.
Agreed, entirely correct but INCOMPLETE.
The GPL section 3 requires that they either provide source along with the binary (in which case you don't need to purchase a separate source code CD to redistribute it) OR they must accompany their binary distribution with a written offer valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than their cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete copy of the source code (in which case they can't restrict it only to subscribers).
I'm not sure which path you're claiming they followed. It looks to me like they're in breach either way.
What if I 'allegedly threaten' to watch my sister change? Will I get arrested for being a pervert?
Arrests are invariably over allegations. In the UK, at least, we have a whole court system that determines whether the allegations were true and that only kicks in after arrest. In this case the charges were for blackmail. Blackmail is by its nature based on threats. If you're from the US then I think you call the crime "extortion" instead.
You're repeating his point. Rightmost or rightwards pointing commonly represents movement forewards, and leftmost movement back. Probably because pages and books are read, in western cultures at least, left to right. You can disagree with the importance of this if you like but repeating the point (and giving an example, look at vcrs!) while seeming to imply that you're disagreeing just seems odd.
Dialogs don't need right-justified buttons
Agreed.
Honestly, haven't there been times you've klicked on Okay or Confirm or whatever, and only then realized that you didn't want to do it? Confirmation dialogs are useless and an insult to the user.
I think there's a certain amount to that. They can be useful to someone fumbling around learning a new system, but once you know what you're doing they're merely irritating. When the menu comes up saying "Do you really want to intitiate thermo-nuclear warfare" you don't stop to think because repetitious use of dialogs has already trained you to click OK as the way to get rid of the thing.
Replying too fast for my own comprehension there. I agree with fixed term for copyright. This 'won't someone please think of the author's family' line is usually wheeled out to explain insanity like life + x years. Lower of life and 50 wouldn't be much better than that. Value received should be (aimed to be) equal regardless of life expectancy of author.
It seems awfully unfair to the family to cut off the royalties when the creator dies.
This loss of income is exactly what happens to the families of waiters, doctors, engineers, train drivers and arctic explorers when they die. If the author is concerned about his family's financial well being after his death then he needs to use some of his royalties to buy life assurance. You know, like the rest of us do?
Slashdot Mirror
Where "real world" means "what exists inside the buyer's head"?
Of course. The value of gemstones and of computer programs and of dollar bills only exists in people's heads too. That makes it real because those people will exchange other things for them.
I am COMPLETELY against offshoring, but outsourcing is OK.
You're against importing any product or service? Or do you mean that if something's ever been produced inhouse then it must never be imported but can be bought in from other companies in the same country? So I can start up my company from scratch using imported goods, but if I try for a year to make them myself then I have to forego the import option forever? Or what do you mean?
This type of license identification and verification might be one way of plugging that loophole.
Is this based on the theory that the loon picture will come to life and follow the licensee around, shouting to everyone that he already has a license and mustn't be given another one? Or is there some even more subtle detail that I'm missing?
"Judgement" isn't only viable, it's the correct variant if you happen to live in the UK or Australia.
Wrong. I don't know about Autralia, but in the UK "judgement" and "judgment" are both valid spellings, except amongst members of the legal profession. Lawyers in the UK invariably spell it "judgment". It's pretty much a shibboleth, if you spell it "judgement" in legal writings then your "error" will get noticed.
Mine seemed to be working but now it's showing an article about a single anonymous user's broswer problems on the front page of Slashdot. That can't be right. Hopefully Mozilla will have a patch available soon.
and what's the catch
There's a delay in receiving emails to allow for the Chinese Government to authorise them?
Was it so likely that a disability pensioner would be in jail before ever being convicted for something no one had yet received jail time for?
This is not the first time someone has been sent to jail for fraud.
I wouldn't be the least bit offended to be called a "Yank," which would be the abbreviation analogous to "Brit."
I wouldn't be the least bit offended to be called a UKian. Then again I don't think I'd be offended to be called a "Brit" either, but it does have an unpleasant slangy quality to it (which UKian doesn't to my ears but I wouldn't try to rationalise that).
US'ian is awkward to say and looks awkward in text.
I don't find things that are awkward to say offensive. I don't say them myself because they're awkward but I don't care if someone else says them.
A) These people broke the law
B> The RIAA has the right to sue them
I agree with B, but I'd suggest leaving it to the courts to sort out the truth or otherwise of A. That's pretty much the point of the system.
"The majority of atheists are happy to sit back and not stir up a ruckus."
Really? Explain your grandparent's sig. I don't see a lot of god sigs around here.
The poster you refer to does does not constitute the majority of atheists.
The majority of Catholics don't live in the Vatican. Pointing to prominent exceptions doesn't change that. See?
Software is an overhead for IBM. It's a distraction from hardware and services. Open Source allows IBM to sell hardware and services without having to pay to develop the software to run on it and/or implement on behalf of customers. That's the reason, and the only reason, IBM is into Linux.
Yep, and it's an excellent reason.
I agree with everything you say, but there seems to be an underlying hostility. Maybe I'm imagining it, but I can't help feeling that you want me to respond "the fiends, how dare they want to save costs!".
But people happily write code that IBM later sells (or sells support for, at any rate) without seeing a penny for their efforts.
I think one difference is that IBM is not trying to entice them into doing it, or at least that the people don't feel 'enticed'.
Many people who contribute to, e.g. Gnome, do so for their own purposes, fun, learning experience, demonstrate skills for future employers, create software they want to use etc. Sure, IBM can come along and use it if they like what comes out but that's not the driving influence. If IBM approached many of those programmers and asked how they could entice them to create a desktop environment then I think a lot of those people would be asking what their budget is for this project.
Or to use an analogy, if you approach someone who likes driving, goes for long drives in the country, is always maintaining and looking after their car, and ask them how you would entice them to chauffeur for you then a. many of them may be insulted and b. those that give you an answer are mostly going to be talking about money.
As I'm sure many of you noticed, Microsoft has been making some 'Open Source' pushes as of late. They started by creating the CPL, getting it certified, and have now been hiring prominent open source developers to work on CPL.
Microsoft did not create the CPL, nor were they involved in getting it certified. CPL is a licence that IBM created, though it is true that Microsoft have used it for a couple of recent projects.
The original poster's argument wasn't that IBM wouldn't contribute code unless they were forced to, it was that IBM wouldn't distribute code if other companies could take that code proprietary.
Your examples are still good ones in refutation of that, as I believe they are under licences that permit others to make proprietary derivatives, but your actual comment seemed to be based on a misreading.
You basically admitted that nobody will use it because copyrights are enforced.
Unless they can come up with a better selling point than "with added restrictions" then of course nobody will use it.
People who don't want to infringe copyrights are entirely capable of not infringing copyrights. They don't need a system that prevents them doing it.
People who do want to infringe copyrights also obviously don't want a system that prevents them doing it.
Unless there's actually something they do BETTER than the competition then they aren't going to appeal to anyone.
No, they wouldn't kill Linux, but they would shove it so far out of the public view it might as well be Amiga. I don't think they want to kill Linux completely - just the big players, the ones that matter to the high dollar corporate customers. The ones really stealing sales from MS.
I can understand that, but that doesn't square with the quote from the article.
If what Microsoft is worried about is big companies supporting Linux then Novell entering the market is either irrelevant because they're below whatever threshold Microsoft applies, or else it's a bad thing because a big company is now supporting Linux. Either way, it's nothing to celebrate.
Crushing Novell would at best restore the position before Novell entered the market, but with Microsoft having spent considerable resources in the meantime. Plus there always has to be a risk that the crushing won't work.
If he was really celebrating when Novell entered the Linux market then it was only because psychologically he's happier having someone he can try to crush. It doesn't help him in any other way.
I've lost faith in Secunia, they seem to love pointing out security holes in open-source products. So I just ignore them now.
If you're using open source software then a site that loves pointing out security holes in those programs sounds very useful. If you're not using open source then I can see your point.
No - it's not entirely off-base. What if they win? What happens then? Do we come up with some other type of strategy?
I'm assuming by "win" you mean the courts decide that SCO own copyrights to code that has been improperly contributed to Linux. If you mean something else then obviously the answer is going to be different.
So following that assumption, the code that the courts had determined as SCO's proprietary property would have to be removed and replaced. It's unlikely that such a situation will arise, but that's what the response will have to be if the situation does arise.
Of course, how Qui-Gon (aside: Hey, continuity! *squish of balls being kicked*) could think balancing the force was a GOOD thing (Hmm... Many light side, two dark side... how could this be balanced...?) is another matter entirely.
Perhaps he thinks it's possible to actually end up with one group of reasonable people instead of two groups of arrogant zealots at each other's throats?
These people are being accused of blackmail.
"Sveasoft cannot refuse source access FOR THOSE WHO HAVE OBTAINED A BINARY FROM THEM."
Agreed, and entirely correct.
Agreed, entirely correct but INCOMPLETE.
The GPL section 3 requires that they either provide source along with the binary (in which case you don't need to purchase a separate source code CD to redistribute it) OR they must accompany their binary distribution with a written offer valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than their cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete copy of the source code (in which case they can't restrict it only to subscribers).
I'm not sure which path you're claiming they followed. It looks to me like they're in breach either way.
What if I 'allegedly threaten' to watch my sister change? Will I get arrested for being a pervert?
Arrests are invariably over allegations. In the UK, at least, we have a whole court system that determines whether the allegations were true and that only kicks in after arrest. In this case the charges were for blackmail. Blackmail is by its nature based on threats. If you're from the US then I think you call the crime "extortion" instead.
The "wizards" function like vcr controls.
>>
Look familiar?
You're repeating his point. Rightmost or rightwards pointing commonly represents movement forewards, and leftmost movement back. Probably because pages and books are read, in western cultures at least, left to right. You can disagree with the importance of this if you like but repeating the point (and giving an example, look at vcrs!) while seeming to imply that you're disagreeing just seems odd.
Dialogs don't need right-justified buttons
Agreed.
Honestly, haven't there been times you've klicked on Okay or Confirm or whatever, and only then realized that you didn't want to do it? Confirmation dialogs are useless and an insult to the user.
I think there's a certain amount to that. They can be useful to someone fumbling around learning a new system, but once you know what you're doing they're merely irritating. When the menu comes up saying "Do you really want to intitiate thermo-nuclear warfare" you don't stop to think because repetitious use of dialogs has already trained you to click OK as the way to get rid of the thing.
Replying too fast for my own comprehension there. I agree with fixed term for copyright. This 'won't someone please think of the author's family' line is usually wheeled out to explain insanity like life + x years. Lower of life and 50 wouldn't be much better than that. Value received should be (aimed to be) equal regardless of life expectancy of author.
It seems awfully unfair to the family to cut off the royalties when the creator dies.
This loss of income is exactly what happens to the families of waiters, doctors, engineers, train drivers and arctic explorers when they die. If the author is concerned about his family's financial well being after his death then he needs to use some of his royalties to buy life assurance. You know, like the rest of us do?