I believe you don't understand the issue here (or I don't, that's a possibility as well:)). It's not at all about SCO disclosing it's own code; it's about IBM disclosing Unix code licensed to them by SCO. So this was not their fault. That SCO happened to be a Linux-company is practically irrelevant to this case since it could easily be shown by SCO that they did not know until recently that they were redistributing that very same code.
Why would you want a HD now that memorycards have become so cheap? 1gb CF can be had for something like $350. You really won't need more with the state batteries are in; on 1gb you can fit something like 10 hours of 160x112 mpeg but your battery will have run out hours before that.
If SCO owned Unix, and then released a Linux distro under the GPL
I believe it's the other way around (but I may be wrong - please correct/add). Caldera was originally a Linux-company which then bought the rights to Unix from SCO. About that time SCO changed it's name to something like tarantella or so and shortly after that Caldera also acquired the rights to the name SCO. Then they changed their name to SCO, stopped selling Linux (which used to be their core business) and the rest you know.
No it doesn't. The fact that matters is that while newspapers CAN be used illegaly (just like p2p), they aren't. So how can a p2p-software maker be held accountable for the actions of others?
But there's something else that crumbles the analogy and that's that newspapers should not be compared to p2p software; newspapers provide the content (articles) along with the medium (paper) while p2p software doesn't; it provides only a medium. Therefore the comparison is wrong. He'd better compared p2p software to the postal services; they also only provide the medium.
Well you couldn't have:) Maybe I should just have read the article:P I was just expressing my unhappyness with the fact that 1GB Memorysticks are extremely expensive (over $500):)
What we all should realize is that patents on software often involve patents on ways to communicate. When I create and publish e.g. an image, it's a way of communication. So is a button on a site with certain functionality behind it. So in these cases software patents in a way abridge free speech and therefore should be considered illegal.
This site [tiobe.com] claims that Java is the world's most popular programming language...
Here in the Netherlands about 29% of all programmer job-offers are for Java, MS is somewhere around 23% and the rest is below that. So at least over here Java appears to be the most used language.
True. Europe is working on this. But our juridical (is that english?:)) system has more ways to protect individuals than in the USA. We don't have tons of blackmail agreements ("You pledge guilty and get 5 years or you go to court and possibly get 20 years") to handle a case outside of court or a point-system - a case without a trial is considered not done in Europe. Furhermore in our system a case against a large company won't leave you bankrupt even before trial. So I'd say Europe is suited a lot better than the USA to protect individuals against such ridiculous legislature.
Webapps are still the only kind of app that doesn't require any (additional) software to be installed at the client. The amount of sysadminwork and helpdeskwork this saves can be incredible. It' also the only kind of network-enabled app that works everywhere (i.e. even on networks that only allow http access and only through a proxy). And it's the only kind of application that's really platform independent. It's not always slow and clunky and drag-and-drop is not necessary. ActiveX and Java Applets are not platform-independent and therefore shouldn't even be mentioned.
Disclaimer: I make a pretty good living building webapps:)
Implement your good idea, release it with a GPL license to a friend or a lawyer or whatever, ask him to keep it quiet, submit to contest, win $25K, tell friend to release software[, smoke weed], win lawsuit on prior art[, smoke weed]. Repeat.
Wrong. The other way to make money on music in the future will be called concerts. Besides - i know a lot of people that still like to buy CD's while they have a 10MBit pipe coming out of their livingroomwall.
Those are the days of xterminals. They've been around forever and will be forever. It's just MS's stupid licensing scheme that causes you not to see them a lot anymore. They'll come back. Along with Linux or any other unix. Especially when we get sound integrated into X. You really don't want to know how much company-money can be saved by ditching windows, office and way too powerfull desktops and replacing them with a xserver/xterminal-setup in which the admin only has to admin a single box.
The GPL takes away your right to distribute in binary form only or to distribute without the GPL-license. So I ask my question again: if GPL-software is downloaded from a website and agreements about anything publicly available on a website don't matter (as seems to be the case), then why would this all of the sudden matter if the agreement is called "GPL" and the data is.tgz?!
So then how does a websites' terms of agreement differ in any way from the license of GPL software for which you don't have to register? They're both human-readable information that is publicly downloadable with a browser without disclosing your identity. If one can legally republish information from a website whose terms of agreement specifically state that's not allowed, then one can also republish GPL code downloaded from a website and republish it under another license. It's exactly the same.
I do this with a lot of clients - many of them only send PDF now. There are other arguments than money as well - security, being able to read the documents in the long run etc. Just explain why you don't have windows and mention the money as a side-effect. If you're a programmer that doesn't work on windows, it's even simpler; just explain that you have to develop on a non-windows box and therefore would like to receive documents in a (more) open format because otherwise you have to move to another PC to read the documents blabla. Just say RTF is ok but PDF would be perfect - a lot of them will feel they have done a good thing sending PDF, others stick to RTF and others you just don't ask because they're too stupid:) Anyway - it works. And my clients are fine with it.
And quite honestly, I dont see anything wrong with that, as long as they confine their practices to their product (ie. they arent making Office the only suite that can run on windows)
How is that any different? They do open up their Windows API so people can write software for it but they don't open up the document format so people can write documents for it. How is closing up windows so it can run only office any different from closing up word so it can open only office documents?
It's perfectly fine for creating documents but opening MS Office documents doesn't work quite perfectly - things like numbered lists being continuously numbered all through the document, or parts just missing. I still cannot open Visio-drawing and the fonts are still about 10 times more ugly than their Windows-equivalents.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe you don't understand the issue here (or I don't, that's a possibility as well:)). It's not at all about SCO disclosing it's own code; it's about IBM disclosing Unix code licensed to them by SCO. So this was not their fault. That SCO happened to be a Linux-company is practically irrelevant to this case since it could easily be shown by SCO that they did not know until recently that they were redistributing that very same code.
Why would you want a HD now that memorycards have become so cheap? 1gb CF can be had for something like $350. You really won't need more with the state batteries are in; on 1gb you can fit something like 10 hours of 160x112 mpeg but your battery will have run out hours before that.
Woohoo! The United States, land of the free (fundamentalist god-fearing christians trying to force their opinion onto others).
I believe it's the other way around (but I may be wrong - please correct/add). Caldera was originally a Linux-company which then bought the rights to Unix from SCO. About that time SCO changed it's name to something like tarantella or so and shortly after that Caldera also acquired the rights to the name SCO. Then they changed their name to SCO, stopped selling Linux (which used to be their core business) and the rest you know.
No it doesn't. The fact that matters is that while newspapers CAN be used illegaly (just like p2p), they aren't. So how can a p2p-software maker be held accountable for the actions of others?
But there's something else that crumbles the analogy and that's that newspapers should not be compared to p2p software; newspapers provide the content (articles) along with the medium (paper) while p2p software doesn't; it provides only a medium. Therefore the comparison is wrong. He'd better compared p2p software to the postal services; they also only provide the medium.
Well you couldn't have:) Maybe I should just have read the article:P I was just expressing my unhappyness with the fact that 1GB Memorysticks are extremely expensive (over $500):)
Where did I say that I considered RAM unfairly priced, then?
As long as you still have a harddisk with an almost historic spinning platter inside, RAM is way to expensive.
Fiction, my friend. Like santa-claus.
I've never really used NTLM but from what I understand it's extremely convenient. Does anybody know if there's an open equivalent for this?
What we all should realize is that patents on software often involve patents on ways to communicate. When I create and publish e.g. an image, it's a way of communication. So is a button on a site with certain functionality behind it. So in these cases software patents in a way abridge free speech and therefore should be considered illegal.
Here in the Netherlands about 29% of all programmer job-offers are for Java, MS is somewhere around 23% and the rest is below that. So at least over here Java appears to be the most used language.
True. Europe is working on this. But our juridical (is that english?:)) system has more ways to protect individuals than in the USA. We don't have tons of blackmail agreements ("You pledge guilty and get 5 years or you go to court and possibly get 20 years") to handle a case outside of court or a point-system - a case without a trial is considered not done in Europe. Furhermore in our system a case against a large company won't leave you bankrupt even before trial. So I'd say Europe is suited a lot better than the USA to protect individuals against such ridiculous legislature.
You can buy one here. They're not too hard to get used to. And lefthanded:)
So how do you know it's 50% then?
Disclaimer: I make a pretty good living building webapps:)
Implement your good idea, release it with a GPL license to a friend or a lawyer or whatever, ask him to keep it quiet, submit to contest, win $25K, tell friend to release software[, smoke weed], win lawsuit on prior art[, smoke weed]. Repeat.
Wrong. The other way to make money on music in the future will be called concerts. Besides - i know a lot of people that still like to buy CD's while they have a 10MBit pipe coming out of their livingroomwall.
Those are the days of xterminals. They've been around forever and will be forever. It's just MS's stupid licensing scheme that causes you not to see them a lot anymore. They'll come back. Along with Linux or any other unix. Especially when we get sound integrated into X. You really don't want to know how much company-money can be saved by ditching windows, office and way too powerfull desktops and replacing them with a xserver/xterminal-setup in which the admin only has to admin a single box.
Downloading DVDs is also impossible. So is downloading coffee.
The GPL takes away your right to distribute in binary form only or to distribute without the GPL-license. So I ask my question again: if GPL-software is downloaded from a website and agreements about anything publicly available on a website don't matter (as seems to be the case), then why would this all of the sudden matter if the agreement is called "GPL" and the data is .tgz?!
So then how does a websites' terms of agreement differ in any way from the license of GPL software for which you don't have to register? They're both human-readable information that is publicly downloadable with a browser without disclosing your identity. If one can legally republish information from a website whose terms of agreement specifically state that's not allowed, then one can also republish GPL code downloaded from a website and republish it under another license. It's exactly the same.
I do this with a lot of clients - many of them only send PDF now. There are other arguments than money as well - security, being able to read the documents in the long run etc. Just explain why you don't have windows and mention the money as a side-effect. If you're a programmer that doesn't work on windows, it's even simpler; just explain that you have to develop on a non-windows box and therefore would like to receive documents in a (more) open format because otherwise you have to move to another PC to read the documents blabla.
Just say RTF is ok but PDF would be perfect - a lot of them will feel they have done a good thing sending PDF, others stick to RTF and others you just don't ask because they're too stupid:) Anyway - it works. And my clients are fine with it.
How is that any different? They do open up their Windows API so people can write software for it but they don't open up the document format so people can write documents for it. How is closing up windows so it can run only office any different from closing up word so it can open only office documents?
It's perfectly fine for creating documents but opening MS Office documents doesn't work quite perfectly - things like numbered lists being continuously numbered all through the document, or parts just missing. I still cannot open Visio-drawing and the fonts are still about 10 times more ugly than their Windows-equivalents.