What is Microsoft's concern with the GNU General Public License? There is no question that the GPL is a complicated license that has led to a great deal of confusion. For the sake of clarity, we wish to reiterate our basic points in regard to the GPL and other OSS licenses:
* Some open source licenses are viral, that is, they require that all derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original program. These licenses are described as viral because they "infect" derivative programs. Viral licenses vary in how infectious they are, depending on how they define which programs are derivative works. However, one of the dominant open source license - the GPL - is the most infectious. It attempts to subject any work that includes GPL-licensed code to the GPL. Thus, if a government or business uses even a few lines of GPL-licensed code in a program, and then re-distributes that program to others, it would be required to provide the program under the GPL. And, under the GPL, the recipient must be given access to the source code and the freedom to redistribute the program on a royalty-free basis.
* Open source licenses that are non-viral, on the other hand, permit software developers to integrate the licensed software and its source code into new products, often with much less significant restrictions. A prominent example of this type of license is the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license. The BSD license allows programmers to use, modify and redistribute the source code and binary code of the original software program, with or without modification. Moreover, programs containing code subject to the BSD license are subject to only limited obligations imposed by that license. This type of license gives users freedom to incorporate their own changes and redistribute them, without requiring them to publish the new source code or allow royalty-free redistribution.
It's a sad statement for the computer industry when a company fixes a product malfunction within a reasonable timeframe, and this is considered exceptional. I would have relayed a similar experience as "Their server didn't work on my laptop, but their support staff fixed the problem in reasonable time. Seems that they know what they are doing." Hopefully the industry will mature soon enough, so that proper service is considered the norm, not the exception...
Martial arts training... (was Re:Geeks accepted?)
on
Sean In The Middle
·
· Score: 1
Teaching the kid martial arts would also help.
This is what I thought about when I first read this. And not because of the need to stand for yourself or to fight back physically, but for the social skills that you can get out of proper martial arts training. It can be also very useful addition to home schooling by providing physical activity and social interactions, in an atmosphere that is very different from the one in highschool.
And since the kid is in the Dallas area, here are two links for martial arts schools, that I know personally about: Japan Shotokan Karate and JKA Dallas.
I am sure Disney will come to their senses! After all, Microsoft has declared that Open Source is an Intelectual Property killer. Python is Open Source, and I can't believe that such high-profile promoter, defender and benefactor of Intelectual property as Disney is just about to commit suicide...
...the DMCA states that it is illegal to attempt to circumvent a copyright protecion mechanism.
IIRC, it is not copyright protection, but access mechanism that is illegal to circumvent. This is what makes the DMCA so horribly broken - it allows the RIAA and MPAA to dictate how you can access your legally owned copies of copyright material.
According to some of the comments to a similar article at www.linuxtoday.com, BSD can handle pretty big files. Either Maxtor listened to some lousy consultants, or there was indeed MuScle involved...
You don't want to use Microsoft SQL Server on a Win2K box, and you'd rather use MySQL on a Linux box. You make no mention at all why you want to do this.
How about cost? He mentions that the company is small. If the database is relatively simple (I have no idea how complicated FileMaker based apps can be) and he can maintain the MySQL server, then he is doing the right thing - finding a compromise by basing the solution on a foundation, which can be extended as needs increase and change (and not when the next version of the database comes out), while keeping his boss relatively happy with the Access front end. Not to mention that this could be the a way out of Microsoft's "software as service" (a.k.a. pay-per-byte) future plans.
In a shop that is almost entirely Microsoft, with only a few Mac's, the MS SQL Server is going to vastly easier to keep running, unless you plan on hiring consultants or tech's dedicated to keeping the only linux box alive.
Unless the shop heavily uses Microsoft servers already, I sincerely doubt that managing an MS SQL server will be easier than a Linux box. Being able to connect 10 desktop machines to a file and print server is not the same as managing an MS SQL server (remember, the post said small company).
In addition, many have pointed out that using Access as the front end may be a bigger source of problems, since Access doesn't seem to play nicely even with MS SQL. Given all this, it does seem that an HTML - PHP/Perl - MySQL/PostgreSQL/Oracle solution could be indeed superior, especially in the long run.
Just sent them a complaint, because I expect a news organization of the stature of BBC to report the news, and do research and point out inconsistencies and blatant lies.
Tell me, how "open" is a standard that MS can't adapt and optimize for use with their products without being sued into oblivion?
Adapt and optimize? The whole idea of a standard is that when it is followed independantly by diferent entities, the results will be compatible, or interoperable. If I want to adapt and optimize the the TCP protocol by changing the packet header to add the features I really need, my implementation will not work with anything else, and I can't really call it a TCP implementation.
The same with the JVM and the Java specifications - they are published and available to anyone to implement. If you want to change it in a way that contradicts the specification, call it something else (like D-Flat for example). If you claim that it is still Java, then you are a liar.
But wait. It's OK for Sun to stop people from creating incompatible JVMs, even though they have a virtual monopoly on Internet VM technology...
Sounds like you are qualified to be one of the judges on the trial... What virtual monopoly are you talking about? Ever heard of the IBM JVM? Or about Kaffe? The specs for the JVM are available to anyone who wants to write one, and some companies have even written modified JVMs (like HP's Chai). What Microsoft did was to wrtie a JVM, drop the RMI part of the spec ind replace it with a Windows specific piece. This meant that java classes compiled on windows would not work with any other JVM, and Java classes compiled on other platforms would not work on Windows. Had Microsoft called it C# then, no one would mind (just like HP has it's Chai), but they still called it Java...
It's getting worse! The judge(s) just stated that they didn't see anything wrong with MS providing an incompatible JVM, since they were entitled to provide Java without the cross-platform compatibility "features" in order to compete with Java. And the prosecution agreed! Aren't they alowed to have expert consultants there? Doesn't the prosecution know that there was a court order to fix the JVM in Win'98, and that MS had to include CDs in the their distribution to bring the JVM up to date?
It almost sounds like the government is trying to throw the case - they sound so unprepared in incompetent!
So, apply this to DSL, same thing. No, it's not the same thing. First of all, DSL providers sell service based on bandwidth - one price for 384 Kbps, a higher one for 512 Kbps, yet higher for 768 Kbps. Secondly, with DSL, you don't share the bandwidth (not until you get to a "main switch" - the exact term escapes me for the moment).
And thirdly, what you did will require you to secure five machines instead of one - using a NAT gateway makes sinply more sense. Not allowing NAT is a disservice to the customer.
It is funny how the lack of competition makes companies behave stupid. Where I live, we have relatively good @home service (if you don't really rely on them for e-mail or Usenet service), so the local DSL providers try to differentiate themselves by providing simmetrical DSL, specifically allowing severs, etc.
I guess Communism is beginning to look alot more appealing, eh?
Nope, just the Western governments are coming closer to what Eastern European governments were doing for 50 years - meddling in economic affairs, which should be left to the market, limiting privacy, and trying to exercise micro-control over society. Therefore, communism is just as unappealing to the thinking individual as before.
In addition, your stupid remarks are offensive to those who have suffered because of the sick ideology that is communism, and to the memory of the tens of millions killed in its name.
Having personally been responsible for fixing Y2K bugs that would have cost businesses real money, it's disappointing to see/. latch onto the same media bandwagon position that we've seen in other less technically savvy venues.
If by/. you mean the editorial staff, you should note that Cliff emphasized that we probably would never know what could have happened without the work that was put to fix the Y2K bugs.
If you mean the comments, then you should know better;-).
According to this story at ZDNet, Peacefire has released a "one-click" censorware disabler. (Doesn't say if it will infringe on Amazon's patent;-). It is supposed to work on Net Nanny, Cyber Patrol, Surfwatch, Cybersitter, X-Stop, PureSight and Cyber Snoop. Currently it works on filters installed on your computer, but a networked version is being developed.
But the inner workings are not something the public need to know about. It only opens the avenues of criticism [b]y the technically inept.
The logic of this statement completely escapes me. How would the details of the inner workings lead to criticism by the technically inept? If you display the technical diagrams of the newest Ford engine in, say, NY Times, do you expect this to generate technically inept criticism, or would an article in the automotive section on the same topic and without much technical detail generate this type of criticism?
We already know the equivalent of the article without much technical detail about Carnivore: it is a packet sniffer, with filtering capabilities, it runs on NT, there is little or no security. The "technically ept" can conclude based on this information that this tool will be relatively easy to misuse (or abuse), and that without the details (i.e. the source code) there is a good chance that adding Carnivore to your internal network may cause technical problems in addition to any of the issues discussed in the meta-review.
There are actually several provisions in the law which deal with the whole process from getting an H1B visa to getting a green card (if that is one's ultimate goal). One of them is as you state:
...the "portability provision" means that you can move to a new H1B job when the papers are submitted to INS, not when they finally have approved them.
Another one answers your second question:
Does it affect at all that in order to get a green card you need to stay at the same company for the full (3-6 years) INS processing time?
The answer is "yes" - if you have to wait more than 6 months (180 days) for your green card after your initial I-140 approval, you can switch employers as long as the jobs are similar. With the current dates, this means that after no more than about two years after you first file paperwork for a green card, you could be able to change employers (this varies by geographical region a lot - in some places it can be year and a half). Another provision, that will help a lot of Indians and Chinese, is the "spill-over" of unused green cards at the end of each fiscal year to countries with backlogged priority dates.
Sounds good, doesn't it? Now, why did you have to ask this, then:
When does it go into effect?
Theoretically - October 17, when Bill Clinton signed it. In practice - when the INS publishes the regulations for implementing the law. My estimate - mid 2002. Sorry...
Slashdot Mirror
Wow!
Don't miss reading Reiser's vision of the future - if they can pull all this off, it will truly change the way computers are used.
Know thy enemy: www.microsoft.com/business/licensing/sharedsource/ faq.asp
What is Microsoft's concern with the GNU General Public License?
There is no question that the GPL is a complicated license that has led to a great deal of confusion. For the sake of clarity, we wish to reiterate our basic points in regard to the GPL and other OSS licenses:
* Some open source licenses are viral, that is, they require that all derivative works be licensed on the same terms as the original program. These licenses are described as viral because they "infect" derivative programs. Viral licenses vary in how infectious they are, depending on how they define which programs are derivative works. However, one of the dominant open source license - the GPL - is the most infectious. It attempts to subject any work that includes GPL-licensed code to the GPL. Thus, if a government or business uses even a few lines of GPL-licensed code in a program, and then re-distributes that program to others, it would be required to provide the program under the GPL. And, under the GPL, the recipient must be given access to the source code and the freedom to redistribute the program on a royalty-free basis.
* Open source licenses that are non-viral, on the other hand, permit software developers to integrate the licensed software and its source code into new products, often with much less significant restrictions. A prominent example of this type of license is the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license. The BSD license allows programmers to use, modify and redistribute the source code and binary code of the original software program, with or without modification. Moreover, programs containing code subject to the BSD license are subject to only limited obligations imposed by that license. This type of license gives users freedom to incorporate their own changes and redistribute them, without requiring them to publish the new source code or allow royalty-free redistribution.
And they tried to harass David Touretzky's site - here is the threat, explicitly referring to the 2600 case.
It's a sad statement for the computer industry when a company fixes a product malfunction within a reasonable timeframe, and this is considered exceptional. I would have relayed a similar experience as "Their server didn't work on my laptop, but their support staff fixed the problem in reasonable time. Seems that they know what they are doing." Hopefully the industry will mature soon enough, so that proper service is considered the norm, not the exception...
Teaching the kid martial arts would also help.
This is what I thought about when I first read this. And not because of the need to stand for yourself or to fight back physically, but for the social skills that you can get out of proper martial arts training. It can be also very useful addition to home schooling by providing physical activity and social interactions, in an atmosphere that is very different from the one in highschool.
And since the kid is in the Dallas area, here are two links for martial arts schools, that I know personally about: Japan Shotokan Karate and JKA Dallas.
Good luck!
1. China is *not* a dictatorship, its of course not democratic or libertarian in american sense...
Why, has the Chinese communist party renounced the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat?"
This one runs apache :-)
The link also shows many other apps for the Agenda...
I am sure Disney will come to their senses! After all, Microsoft has declared that Open Source is an Intelectual Property killer. Python is Open Source, and I can't believe that such high-profile promoter, defender and benefactor of Intelectual property as Disney is just about to commit suicide...
...the DMCA states that it is illegal to attempt to circumvent a copyright protecion mechanism.
IIRC, it is not copyright protection, but access mechanism that is illegal to circumvent. This is what makes the DMCA so horribly broken - it allows the RIAA and MPAA to dictate how you can access your legally owned copies of copyright material.
According to some of the comments to a similar article at www.linuxtoday.com, BSD can handle pretty big files. Either Maxtor listened to some lousy consultants, or there was indeed MuScle involved...
The STSN service mentioned above is about $10/day in the places where I have seen it advertised.
You don't want to use Microsoft SQL Server on a Win2K box, and you'd rather use MySQL on a Linux box. You make no mention at all why you want to do this.
How about cost? He mentions that the company is small. If the database is relatively simple (I have no idea how complicated FileMaker based apps can be) and he can maintain the MySQL server, then he is doing the right thing - finding a compromise by basing the solution on a foundation, which can be extended as needs increase and change (and not when the next version of the database comes out), while keeping his boss relatively happy with the Access front end. Not to mention that this could be the a way out of Microsoft's "software as service" (a.k.a. pay-per-byte) future plans.
In a shop that is almost entirely Microsoft, with only a few Mac's, the MS SQL Server is going to vastly easier to keep running, unless you plan on hiring consultants or tech's dedicated to keeping the only linux box alive.
Unless the shop heavily uses Microsoft servers already, I sincerely doubt that managing an MS SQL server will be easier than a Linux box. Being able to connect 10 desktop machines to a file and print server is not the same as managing an MS SQL server (remember, the post said small company).
In addition, many have pointed out that using Access as the front end may be a bigger source of problems, since Access doesn't seem to play nicely even with MS SQL. Given all this, it does seem that an HTML - PHP/Perl - MySQL/PostgreSQL/Oracle solution could be indeed superior, especially in the long run.
Just sent them a complaint, because I expect a news organization of the stature of BBC to report the news, and do research and point out inconsistencies and blatant lies.
Why the "or"? Who says they're mutually exclusive?
he said "or", not "xor"
Tell me, how "open" is a standard that MS can't adapt and optimize for use with their products without being sued into oblivion?
Adapt and optimize? The whole idea of a standard is that when it is followed independantly by diferent entities, the results will be compatible, or interoperable. If I want to adapt and optimize the the TCP protocol by changing the packet header to add the features I really need, my implementation will not work with anything else, and I can't really call it a TCP implementation.
The same with the JVM and the Java specifications - they are published and available to anyone to implement. If you want to change it in a way that contradicts the specification, call it something else (like D-Flat for example). If you claim that it is still Java, then you are a liar.
But wait. It's OK for Sun to stop people from creating incompatible JVMs, even though they have a virtual monopoly on Internet VM technology...
Sounds like you are qualified to be one of the judges on the trial... What virtual monopoly are you talking about? Ever heard of the IBM JVM? Or about Kaffe? The specs for the JVM are available to anyone who wants to write one, and some companies have even written modified JVMs (like HP's Chai). What Microsoft did was to wrtie a JVM, drop the RMI part of the spec ind replace it with a Windows specific piece. This meant that java classes compiled on windows would not work with any other JVM, and Java classes compiled on other platforms would not work on Windows. Had Microsoft called it C# then, no one would mind (just like HP has it's Chai), but they still called it Java...
It's getting worse! The judge(s) just stated that they didn't see anything wrong with MS providing an incompatible JVM, since they were entitled to provide Java without the cross-platform compatibility "features" in order to compete with Java. And the prosecution agreed! Aren't they alowed to have expert consultants there? Doesn't the prosecution know that there was a court order to fix the JVM in Win'98, and that MS had to include CDs in the their distribution to bring the JVM up to date?
It almost sounds like the government is trying to throw the case - they sound so unprepared in incompetent!
So, apply this to DSL, same thing.
No, it's not the same thing. First of all, DSL providers sell service based on bandwidth - one price for 384 Kbps, a higher one for 512 Kbps, yet higher for 768 Kbps. Secondly, with DSL, you don't share the bandwidth (not until you get to a "main switch" - the exact term escapes me for the moment).
And thirdly, what you did will require you to secure five machines instead of one - using a NAT gateway makes sinply more sense. Not allowing NAT is a disservice to the customer.
It is funny how the lack of competition makes companies behave stupid. Where I live, we have relatively good @home service (if you don't really rely on them for e-mail or Usenet service), so the local DSL providers try to differentiate themselves by providing simmetrical DSL, specifically allowing severs, etc.
Yes, I was going to point this out, too. Very nicely done - almost sounds like a thinly veiled threat that there may be other actions taken...
Are there any other legal actions to be taken besides the appeal?
I guess Communism is beginning to look alot more appealing, eh?
Nope, just the Western governments are coming closer to what Eastern European governments were doing for 50 years - meddling in economic affairs, which should be left to the market, limiting privacy, and trying to exercise micro-control over society. Therefore, communism is just as unappealing to the thinking individual as before.
In addition, your stupid remarks are offensive to those who have suffered because of the sick ideology that is communism, and to the memory of the tens of millions killed in its name.
Having personally been responsible for fixing Y2K bugs that would have cost businesses real money, it's disappointing to see /. latch onto the same media bandwagon position that we've seen in other less technically savvy venues.
/. you mean the editorial staff, you should note that Cliff emphasized that we probably would never know what could have happened without the work that was put to fix the Y2K bugs.
;-).
If by
If you mean the comments, then you should know better
Happy New Year!
According to this story at ZDNet, Peacefire has released a "one-click" censorware disabler. (Doesn't say if it will infringe on Amazon's patent ;-). It is supposed to work on Net Nanny, Cyber Patrol, Surfwatch, Cybersitter, X-Stop, PureSight and Cyber Snoop. Currently it works on filters installed on your computer, but a networked version is being developed.
But the inner workings are not something the public need to know about. It only opens the avenues of criticism [b]y the technically inept.
The logic of this statement completely escapes me. How would the details of the inner workings lead to criticism by the technically inept? If you display the technical diagrams of the newest Ford engine in, say, NY Times, do you expect this to generate technically inept criticism, or would an article in the automotive section on the same topic and without much technical detail generate this type of criticism?
We already know the equivalent of the article without much technical detail about Carnivore: it is a packet sniffer, with filtering capabilities, it runs on NT, there is little or no security. The "technically ept" can conclude based on this information that this tool will be relatively easy to misuse (or abuse), and that without the details (i.e. the source code) there is a good chance that adding Carnivore to your internal network may cause technical problems in addition to any of the issues discussed in the meta-review.
CNN declared Bush the winner in Florida, and therefore, the winner of the election.
There are actually several provisions in the law which deal with the whole process from getting an H1B visa to getting a green card (if that is one's ultimate goal). One of them is as you state:
...the "portability provision" means that you can move to a new H1B job when the papers are submitted to INS, not when they finally have approved them.
Another one answers your second question:
Does it affect at all that in order to get a green card you need to stay at the same company for the full (3-6 years) INS processing time?
The answer is "yes" - if you have to wait more than 6 months (180 days) for your green card after your initial I-140 approval, you can switch employers as long as the jobs are similar. With the current dates, this means that after no more than about two years after you first file paperwork for a green card, you could be able to change employers (this varies by geographical region a lot - in some places it can be year and a half). Another provision, that will help a lot of Indians and Chinese, is the "spill-over" of unused green cards at the end of each fiscal year to countries with backlogged priority dates.
Sounds good, doesn't it? Now, why did you have to ask this, then:
When does it go into effect?
Theoretically - October 17, when Bill Clinton signed it. In practice - when the INS publishes the regulations for implementing the law. My estimate - mid 2002. Sorry...