For someone with "NFC with regard to business strategy" he's done pretty good with his business. Good businessmen aren't born, they are crafted.
Henry Ford stumbled upon the idea of the production line, which was stolen from England factories. Bill Gates stumbled upon the OS after sending IBM away the first time they came to him; he thought BASIC was the only important software for a computer. Though I don't know much about him, I'm sure Jack Welch came into his business intelligence through years of experience.
Bob Young may or may not be business-saavy. He really hasn't been given the time to make a judgement. Unlike many other CEOs and owners, Young is travelling a less-travelled path (I won't say he's a pioneer). He has crafted a successful company based on free software; adhering to its restrictions and profiting from its benefits. The fact that he even makes money in an industry where so many are suspicious (to the point of paranoia) of commercial endevours is quite amazing.
He is not the commercial equivalent of Richard Stallman; but by no means should the achievments and insights of the man and his company be understated. -- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
You're absolutely right! By the way, how much did you pay Linus and Alan Cox the FSF and all the other contributors to Linux and its free software utilities?
Boy, all those people were pretty stupid. They could have kept their software proprietary in order to ensure that no one used it without due compensation.
Or better yet, Stallman could have written the GPL so as to make sure no one could in any way make money from distributing (in physical form), supporting or marketing any GPL'd software. That way no one could "exploit" those poor programmers. The fact that few non-techinical, non-hobbyists would be able to access or use the software...well, that's irrelevant. -- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
No...RCS itself sucks without a frontend like CVS to it; by itself it's only good for small projects. -- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Considering Linus works for Transmeta, presumably an Intel competitor, I think your logic is faulty. -- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
I too worked at a place where they switched from ClearCase to Perforce. Actually I like the MVFS concept, although I do admit Atria's (now Rational's) implementation in ClearCase is very slow and bandwidth intensive. ClearCase is much more robust than Perforce, but if you don't need that robustness, then there's no point in paying for it. Perforce also has a Linux client (which can be downloaded for free, separate from the server), so that's a plus.
Despite the Linux and Unices clients, though, Perforce (last I used it, which was last summer) did not seem very interested in those of us developing *on* Unix workstations. There was no graphical tools, which are almost necessary for complex branching (which of course, they tell you not to do, but branching is necessary in a large project) and other complex operations. The company I worked for had to write a Tcl/Tk interface for it. Of course there was a win32 interface already.
I didn't use Perforce much (I left the company during the transition), but I don't see it as much but a upgrade of the functionality of CVS. I doubt there is much Perforce can do that a relatively simple frontend for CVS could do. And CVS is free software.
That being said, if there was a VFS interface for CVS, then most of what ClearCase is good for would be co-opted as well. -- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
What version? How's it compare to the Windows version (in terms of features and compatibility)? I worked at a co-op where both ClearCase and Rose are the main obstacles to 100% Linux development. If Rose for Solaris worked good, then it could run on the Linux display. A native Linux version would still be good, because then the astronomical server resource consumption can be distributed to the workstations. -- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
I've worked with ClearCase before (as recently as a week, actually). I've never heard of a Windows-based vob server (vobs are where the versions are stored, like a the CVSROOT in CVS). I'm sure they exist, but no one in their right mind would use them. ClearCase is available for Windows (9X/NT), Solaris, HP-UX, IRIX, AIX and probably other unices. The best part about it is the MVFS (the filesystem); although it is probably not suited well for remote development, where a local copy of the source tree is preferable to a shared filesystem. They do have a version called Attache which I think does use a local copy, like CVS; but if your development is going to use this extensively, you might as well use CVS or Perforce or something, which is considerably cheaper.
The best thing about ClearCase on Linux is it is one less obstacle for maverick employees to install Linux on their workstations at work;-)
Now if they would only port Rose 98.... -- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
On the subject of Electronic Owls...
on
Robotic Fish
·
· Score: 1
I'd rather have that one from Clash of the Titans.
-- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
According to section 2.b of the GPL, the modified and/or derivative works must be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the license, and source code must also be available to such licensees (under section 3). And since the GPL is non-exclusive and is transferable (that is, a licensee of a GPL'd product can then license the product themselves), there's no practical way to keep the product out of the hands of those who want it, free of charge. -- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
That's the benefit of GPL'd software. Even if they did try to sneak something like that in (pretty Microsoft-esque wouldn't you say?), since the source code would be available (it would *have* to be available), it could be found pretty easily and removed. -- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Would you rather have people forewarned that they might have to actually know something about their computer if they plan on using and maintaining Linux, or send them blindly towards Linux, have them learn the hard way, and turn them off of Linux forever?
Let's face it, Linux is not as easy to set up and use as Windows 9X. Some of that can be fixed, but some can't, because Linux is so much more robust than Windows, and gives a level of control that Windows can't. Think of it as flying a plane vs. driving a car. Lots of people can drive a car and be perfectly happy with that; but if you want to get there faster (and actually safer), then you can fly a plane, which takes alot more skill. In Linux's case, it just so happens that the plane is free and maintained by the community. -- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Actually there is (or was) a web based version at the SciFi channel's homepage, which took screen shots of whatever was on SciFi at the time (every 2 minutes or so) and visitors were encouraged to make their own captions. It is (or was) called "Caption This!" and was pretty fun. -- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Actually, GNU is supposed to be a self-contained operating system, with HURD as its kernel and the various GNU utilities. It just happened that all the GNU utilitities came about without a completed kernel, and so they got incorporated into the "GNU/Linux" OS, as Linux had the kernel with no utilities. I just call it Linux though, because there's no ambiguity (there's no such thing as Solaris/Linux or Windows/Linux [thank god!]). -- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
No but if I want to put high-octane fuel in my Chevy, then I better still be able to repair the car. -- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Red Herring is admittedly a business-oriented publication. I was surprised with the relative level of accurate and insightful information contained here, since most OSS articles seem to either proclaim the era of OSS or discard it offhand.
Some of the comments were misleading, specifically the license issues (the article touched upon copyleft, but didn't distinguish the different licensing models very well).
I thought the comments on how the different companies are utilizing (or capitilizing, as the case may be) on OSS were very well put forward.
One point made in the article which I whole-heartedly agree with the idea that OSS will prosper most in the software infrastructures. For instance, Sendmail and Apache are always used as examples of popular OSS systems. They are because so many computers depend on the services they provide in order to run the internet. Similarly, Linux (not to leave you *BSD guys out either) are popular because every modern computer needs an OS, so it's only natural for an OSS operating system to spring up to fill that need. The higher-specialized applications will continue to be proprietary, because the OSS model simply isn't capable of generating the public interest which would be needed to make the project feasible. Although there certainly are cases of OSS software being used in "cutting-edge" technologies, those are more the exception than the rule. There are some technologies which benefit more from OSS than others (for instance, device drivers for advanced technology) and therefore are often found in OSS even when not in proprietary systems (and when they are it's usually driven by politics). The article touched on this with the hardware vendors, for whom proprietary software is a bottleneck.
As technology becomes more necessary across the board, it will be commoditized in OSS. We're just beginning to see sophisticated office applications in OSS, as such applications become in increasing demand on OSS platforms.
Therefore OSS is relegated to minor, low-level software, but rather it's mission is to commodotize those services which can best benefit from commodization. So, while Microsoft "integrates" essential technologies into their platforms, OSS will liberate those technologies. Both are different means to the same end: to provide the essential services to the people who need them. In most cases, the later model shows itself superior, if not as spiffy. -- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
I think the story is about Red Hat in particular, with general background info including the history of Linux. You have to remember, CNN-Forbes is a financial news magazine. They probably picked Red Hat because Red Hat is the biggest Linux distributor in America, with significant investments from Intel and Netscape, and is now getting major support from IBM (although IBM has hinted that they may support other distros in the future).
These journalists aren't up with all the politics in the Linux world, and so, from a purely business-oriented view, Red Hat seems the most logical Linux-based company to profile (the segment is, apparently, on how a company can build a business model around Linux [and free software in general]).
-- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
No one knows about the K8, but AMD has said they are already working on it (as of a year or two ago). -- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
How can they say what the SPECint95 and SPECfp95 ratings will be when they don't even have a prototype? And what secret knowledge have they scryed from Intel and HP that they know enough of the inner-workings of the Merced chips to tell what those specs will be?
We might as well read the Farmer's Almanac to determine this "supposed" chip's ratings. Their design may be innovative or it may be non-existant, but we won't know until something is done with it. Blech. -- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
As I see it, FSF is an organization devoted to the GNU project (HURD + GNU utilities), whereas SPI and OSI are both broader based, devoted more to free software in general (some more than others).
I'm not clear on the splitup which formed OSI (although note that the www.opensource.org web page [I thought that was OSI's?] is listed as a part of SPI on SPI's homepage), but I wonder if the initial objections against SPI have been more or less resolved. It seems to me that OSI could in fact resolve its conflict with SPI by becoming part of SPI. OSI can focus on the "open source" definition and trademark, which may move into some gray areas of free software (for instance the different "open source" licenses which may or may not be considered "free software" licenses).
Rather than provide a rubber stamp for "open source", OSI should provide a resource for users to learn about the many different licenses, and their relative freedoms. Rather than have a single "open source" mark, there should be different levels of evaluation. For instance, proprietary "open source" (such as the MPL or upcoming QPL) versus non-proprietary "open source" (such as the Artistic, BSD or GPL licenses). OSI should review new licenses which wish to be considered "open source" and place them in such a category based on the terms of the license.
ESR talked about the egos of the programmers being the driving force behind the free software movement. Apparently, this is not just technical ego but political ego as well. For all the curses heaped upon Richard Stallman, he has stayed away from these battles of the bulge, content, it seems, to play the role of free software advocate (whether you agree with him or not). Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond at times seem to want to be the king of the hill, seeking glory as being the driving force behind the open source and free software movements rather than simply being a part of the movements. That's not to say they are bad people, both have done alot for the movement and both have good insight and have alot to add yet. But unfortunately, their egos seem to get in the way too often and cause these types of conflicts.
I'm curious as to Richard Stallman's take on the SPI vs. OSI conflict. I don't always agree with his opinions, but he does represent a third party, with much respect in the open source community, and is seemingly uninvolved in this battle. Has he made any past comments on SPI and/or OSI? -- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
I'm not talking about damages resulting from copyright infringement, I'm talking about damages resulting from violation of the EULA. You yourself said that the license with the end user is between end user and OEM. Therefore any violations of the license must be managed by the OEM and not Microsoft (unless you purchases a shrink-wrapped edition). Not just copying [which would be a violation of copyright], but reverse-engineering, transferring to another computer (not a violation of copyright as long as one copy exists), etc, etc. Microsoft can only ensure that the OEM is not violating *it's* license between it and Microsoft. -- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Every major OEM (Dell, Gateway, etc) licenses Windows on a *per-platform* basis, not *per-computer*. What that means is that the copy of Windows you are getting was licensed by Microsoft as part of every copy of Windows on that particular model of computer.
This does *not* mean the copy of Windows was free. What it does mean is that the real value will be the cost of the OEM's license divided by the number of computers of that model the OEM has installed the software onto. So you shouldn't expect to get very much (unless it's a new model with a small production size), but since money was never the real motivation here, you can give all the affected OEMs a big headache when you demand to know how much your license was worth.
IANAL here, but the most secure way of getting a refund would probably be to find out before hand how much the individual license would be sold for (by the OEM) if it were listed seperately from the computer; because otherwise, the OEM can just argue that the license had no value by itself and therefore you would receive a refund of nothing (although you could probably make them accept the unused software at their expense, and print you a check for $0.00;-) Then if you wanted to fight, you'd have to bring an anti-trust suit against the OEM for bundling the software with the hardware (note that Microsoft would not be liable for this, pricing schemes notwithstanding, unless their license with the OEM specifically stated they could *not* remove the software prior to sale).
Perhaps this scenario is even better for the movement than people getting $90 bucks back, because it would highlight Microsoft's licensing schemes with OEMs (which could be considered exclusionary, or predatory pricing) and would also highlight the OEMs' bundling practices. It also sets up MS and numerous big OEMs for a class-action anti-trust suit (has there every been such a thing?) with a much more solid argument than anything having to do with Internet Explorer bundling. Here, the bundling is clear because hardware and software are obviously seperate products. -- Aaron Gaudio "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Slashdot Mirror
Therefore he should have used Puerto Rico or Guam.
;-)
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
For someone with "NFC with regard to business strategy" he's done pretty good with his business.
Good businessmen aren't born, they are crafted.
Henry Ford stumbled upon the idea of the production line, which was stolen from England factories. Bill Gates stumbled upon the OS after sending IBM away the first time they came to him; he thought BASIC was the only important software for a computer. Though I don't know much about him, I'm sure Jack Welch came into his business intelligence through years of experience.
Bob Young may or may not be business-saavy. He really hasn't been given the time to make a judgement. Unlike many other CEOs and owners, Young is travelling a less-travelled path (I won't say he's a pioneer). He has crafted a successful company based on free software; adhering to its restrictions and profiting from its benefits. The fact that he even makes money in an industry where so many are suspicious (to the point of paranoia) of commercial endevours is quite amazing.
He is not the commercial equivalent of Richard Stallman; but by no means should the achievments and insights of the man and his company be understated.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
You're absolutely right! By the way, how much did you pay Linus and Alan Cox the FSF and all the other contributors to Linux and its free software utilities?
Boy, all those people were pretty stupid. They could have kept their software proprietary in order to ensure that no one used it without due compensation.
Or better yet, Stallman could have written the GPL so as to make sure no one could in any way make money from distributing (in physical form), supporting or marketing any GPL'd software. That way no one could "exploit" those poor programmers. The fact that few non-techinical, non-hobbyists would be able to access or use the software...well, that's irrelevant.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Gee, you must have read the article in which Young said as much.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
No...RCS itself sucks without a frontend like CVS to it; by itself it's only good for small projects.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Considering Linus works for Transmeta, presumably an Intel competitor, I think your logic is faulty.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
I too worked at a place where they switched from ClearCase to Perforce. Actually I like the MVFS concept, although I do admit Atria's (now Rational's) implementation in ClearCase is very slow and bandwidth intensive. ClearCase is much more robust than Perforce, but if you don't need that robustness, then there's no point in paying for it. Perforce also has a Linux client (which can be downloaded for free, separate from the server), so that's a plus.
Despite the Linux and Unices clients, though, Perforce (last I used it, which was last summer) did not seem very interested in those of us developing *on* Unix workstations. There was no graphical tools, which are almost necessary for complex branching (which of course, they tell you not to do, but branching is necessary in a large project) and other complex operations. The company I worked for had to write a Tcl/Tk interface for it. Of course there was a win32 interface already.
I didn't use Perforce much (I left the company during the transition), but I don't see it as much but a upgrade of the functionality of CVS. I doubt there is much Perforce can do that a relatively simple frontend for CVS could do. And CVS is free software.
That being said, if there was a VFS interface for CVS, then most of what ClearCase is good for would be co-opted as well.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
What version? How's it compare to the Windows version (in terms of features and compatibility)? I worked at a co-op where both ClearCase and Rose are the main obstacles to 100% Linux development. If Rose for Solaris worked good, then it could run on the Linux display. A native Linux version would still be good, because then the astronomical server resource consumption can be distributed to the workstations.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
I've worked with ClearCase before (as recently as a week, actually). I've never heard of a Windows-based vob server (vobs are where the versions are stored, like a the CVSROOT in CVS). I'm sure they exist, but no one in their right mind would use them. ClearCase is available for Windows (9X/NT), Solaris, HP-UX, IRIX, AIX and probably other unices. The best part about it is the MVFS (the filesystem); although it is probably not suited well for remote development, where a local copy of the source tree is preferable to a shared filesystem. They do have a version called Attache which I think does use a local copy, like CVS; but if your development is going to use this extensively, you might as well use CVS or Perforce or something, which is considerably cheaper.
;-)
The best thing about ClearCase on Linux is it is one less obstacle for maverick employees to install Linux on their workstations at work
Now if they would only port Rose 98....
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
I'd rather have that one from Clash of the Titans.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
According to section 2.b of the GPL, the modified and/or derivative works must be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the license, and source code must also be available to such licensees (under section 3). And since the GPL is non-exclusive and is transferable (that is, a licensee of a GPL'd product can then license the product themselves), there's no practical way to keep the product out of the hands of those who want it, free of charge.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
That's the benefit of GPL'd software. Even if they did try to sneak something like that in (pretty Microsoft-esque wouldn't you say?), since the source code would be available (it would *have* to be available), it could be found pretty easily and removed.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Would you rather have people forewarned that they might have to actually know something about their computer if they plan on using and maintaining Linux, or send them blindly towards Linux, have them learn the hard way, and turn them off of Linux forever?
Let's face it, Linux is not as easy to set up and use as Windows 9X. Some of that can be fixed, but some can't, because Linux is so much more robust than Windows, and gives a level of control that Windows can't. Think of it as flying a plane vs. driving a car. Lots of people can drive a car and be perfectly happy with that; but if you want to get there faster (and actually safer), then you can fly a plane, which takes alot more skill. In Linux's case, it just so happens that the plane is free and maintained by the community.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Actually there is (or was) a web based version at the SciFi channel's homepage, which took screen shots of whatever was on SciFi at the time (every 2 minutes or so) and visitors were encouraged to make their own captions. It is (or was) called "Caption This!" and was pretty fun.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
They could have the report given by a quadrapalegic Scottsman on a horse and please all.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Actually, GNU is supposed to be a self-contained operating system, with HURD as its kernel and the various GNU utilities. It just happened that all the GNU utilitities came about without a completed kernel, and so they got incorporated into the "GNU/Linux" OS, as Linux had the kernel with no utilities. I just call it Linux though, because there's no ambiguity (there's no such thing as Solaris/Linux or Windows/Linux [thank god!]).
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
No but if I want to put high-octane fuel in my Chevy, then I better still be able to repair the car.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Red Herring is admittedly a business-oriented publication. I was surprised with the relative level of accurate and insightful information contained here, since most OSS articles seem to either proclaim the era of OSS or discard it offhand.
Some of the comments were misleading, specifically the license issues (the article touched upon copyleft, but didn't distinguish the different licensing models very well).
I thought the comments on how the different companies are utilizing (or capitilizing, as the case may be) on OSS were very well put forward.
One point made in the article which I whole-heartedly agree with the idea that OSS will prosper most in the software infrastructures. For instance, Sendmail and Apache are always used as examples of popular OSS systems. They are because so many computers depend on the services they provide in order to run the internet. Similarly, Linux (not to leave you *BSD guys out either) are popular because every modern computer needs an OS, so it's only natural for an OSS operating system to spring up to fill that need. The higher-specialized applications will continue to be proprietary, because the OSS model simply isn't capable of generating the public interest which would be needed to make the project feasible. Although there certainly are cases of OSS software being used in "cutting-edge" technologies, those are more the exception than the rule. There are some technologies which benefit more from OSS than others (for instance, device drivers for advanced technology) and therefore are often found in OSS even when not in proprietary systems (and when they are it's usually driven by politics). The article touched on this with the hardware vendors, for whom proprietary software is a bottleneck.
As technology becomes more necessary across the board, it will be commoditized in OSS. We're just beginning to see sophisticated office applications in OSS, as such applications become in increasing demand on OSS platforms.
Therefore OSS is relegated to minor, low-level software, but rather it's mission is to commodotize those services which can best benefit from commodization. So, while Microsoft "integrates" essential technologies into their platforms, OSS will liberate those technologies. Both are different means to the same end: to provide the essential services to the people who need them. In most cases, the later model shows itself superior, if not as spiffy.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
I think the story is about Red Hat in particular, with general background info including the history of Linux. You have to remember, CNN-Forbes is a financial news magazine. They probably picked Red Hat because Red Hat is the biggest Linux distributor in America, with significant investments from Intel and Netscape, and is now getting major support from IBM (although IBM has hinted that they may support other distros in the future).
These journalists aren't up with all the politics in the Linux world, and so, from a purely business-oriented view, Red Hat seems the most logical Linux-based company to profile (the segment is, apparently, on how a company can build a business model around Linux [and free software in general]).
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Yeah...as long as you don't need to do any sort of division you'll be fine.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
No one knows about the K8, but AMD has said they are already working on it (as of a year or two ago).
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
How can they say what the SPECint95 and SPECfp95 ratings will be when they don't even have a prototype? And what secret knowledge have they scryed from Intel and HP that they know enough of the inner-workings of the Merced chips to tell what those specs will be?
We might as well read the Farmer's Almanac to determine this "supposed" chip's ratings. Their
design may be innovative or it may be non-existant, but we won't know until something
is done with it. Blech.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
As I see it, FSF is an organization devoted to the GNU project (HURD + GNU utilities), whereas SPI and OSI are both broader based, devoted more to free software in general (some more than others).
I'm not clear on the splitup which formed OSI (although note that the www.opensource.org web page [I thought that was OSI's?] is listed as a part of SPI on SPI's homepage), but I wonder if the initial objections against SPI have been more or less resolved. It seems to me that OSI could in fact resolve its conflict with SPI by becoming part of SPI. OSI can focus on the "open source" definition and trademark, which may move into some gray areas of free software (for instance the different "open source" licenses which may or may not be considered "free software" licenses).
Rather than provide a rubber stamp for "open source", OSI should provide a resource for users to learn about the many different licenses, and their relative freedoms. Rather than have a single "open source" mark, there should be different levels of evaluation. For instance, proprietary "open source" (such as the MPL or upcoming QPL) versus non-proprietary "open source" (such as the Artistic, BSD or GPL licenses). OSI should review new licenses which wish to be considered "open source" and place them in such a category based on the terms of the license.
ESR talked about the egos of the programmers being the driving force behind the free software movement. Apparently, this is not just technical ego but political ego as well. For all the curses heaped upon Richard Stallman, he has stayed away from these battles of the bulge, content, it seems, to play the role of free software advocate (whether you agree with him or not). Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond at times seem to want to be the king of the hill, seeking glory as being the driving force behind the open source and free software movements rather than simply being a part of the movements. That's not to say they are bad people, both have done alot for the movement and both have good insight and have alot to add yet. But unfortunately, their egos seem to get in the way too often and cause these types of conflicts.
I'm curious as to Richard Stallman's take on the SPI vs. OSI conflict. I don't always agree with his opinions, but he does represent a third party, with much respect in the open source community, and is seemingly uninvolved in this battle. Has he made any past comments on SPI and/or OSI?
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
I'm not talking about damages resulting from copyright infringement, I'm talking about damages resulting from violation of the EULA. You yourself said that the license with the end user is between end user and OEM. Therefore any violations of the license must be managed by the OEM and not Microsoft (unless you purchases a shrink-wrapped edition). Not just copying [which would be a violation of copyright], but reverse-engineering, transferring to another computer (not a violation of copyright as long as one copy exists), etc, etc. Microsoft can only ensure that the OEM is not violating *it's* license between it and Microsoft.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Every major OEM (Dell, Gateway, etc) licenses Windows on a *per-platform* basis, not *per-computer*. What that means is that the copy of Windows you are getting was licensed by Microsoft as part of every copy of Windows on that particular model of computer.
;-) Then if you wanted to fight, you'd have to bring an anti-trust suit against the OEM for bundling the software with the hardware (note that Microsoft would not be liable for this, pricing schemes notwithstanding, unless their license with the OEM specifically stated they could *not* remove the software prior to sale).
This does *not* mean the copy of Windows was free. What it does mean is that the real value will be the cost of the OEM's license divided by the number of computers of that model the OEM has installed the software onto. So you shouldn't expect to get very much (unless it's a new model with a small production size), but since money was never the real motivation here, you can give all the affected OEMs a big headache when you demand to know how much your license was worth.
IANAL here, but the most secure way of getting a refund would probably be to find out before hand how much the individual license would be sold for (by the OEM) if it were listed seperately from the computer; because otherwise, the OEM can just argue that the license had no value by itself and therefore you would receive a refund of nothing (although you could probably make them accept the unused software at their expense, and print you a check for $0.00
Perhaps this scenario is even better for the movement than people getting $90 bucks back, because it would highlight Microsoft's licensing schemes with OEMs (which could be considered exclusionary, or predatory pricing) and would also highlight the OEMs' bundling practices. It also sets up MS and numerous big OEMs for a class-action anti-trust suit (has there every been such a thing?) with a much more solid argument than anything having to do with Internet Explorer bundling. Here, the bundling is clear because hardware and software are obviously seperate products.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.