It's actually impossible to gain this information, no matter what.
You forget that this God idea is not based on science, and has a notion that God is omniscient. If the information exists, the omniscient beings have it.
Or you could flip it around saying that an omniscient God cannot exist since nothing which interacts with this universe could know both the position and momemntum of any given particle with infinate accuracy.
Or... if the information does not exist, then not knowing it does not make one any less omiscient, since not knowing about something which doesn't exist doesn't fall outside the realm of infinate knowledge.
You can't win this God argument, it's like vi vs. emacs.
What makes you think that they would abuse it, whereas Gnome/Gtk-guys would not?
What are you talking about? Gnome and Gtk cannot strongarm commercial development, they have no power over commercial development. That's why Gtk uses the LGPL. That's why the LGPL exists.
As for the BSD'ing of Qt, as I read the FreeQt agreements, only the last "FreeQt" licensed version of Qt is BSD'd only when TT neglects Qt or goes bankrupt. There's nothing in there about BSD'ing the code after being taken over by a hostile interest and making commercial development impractical. This and I'm pretty sure there hasn't been a 'FreeQt' licensed version of Qt in years.
Corporations only care about money. It doesn't matter who has control over commercial development under KDE, it's that one particular group does and they can do anything they want with it.
TT expects the GNU/Linux environment to be given to them for free, and a desktop environment to be written on top of their toolkit for free, and they expect to charge money to all commercial (closed source) software developers who use their toolkit to target the desktop environment which they didn't develop.
All they have to do in exchange is to expand thier mindshare by giving their toolkit away to people who wouldn't pay for it anyways.
They're not evil for it either, they didn't seek out the arrangement. KDE set it all up.
I'd rather see Linux standardize on a Gnome environment, polish up the Gnome/KDE interactions, and leave KDE/Qt as an optional development path for whomever prefers it. That would leave TT in a profitable situation, but without enough power over commercial desktop development to be able to abuse it.
WHy should you get the right to write closed software but you want to deny TT the same right?
This is such bizzare logic. TT has thrown a toll to write commercial software for an open platform. The platform without TT was open. TT is writing a library, not applications. TT is denying the ability to write all (closed) commercial software for KDE without going through them. There is a big difference between me writing a closed application and TT writing a core toolkit for a desktop environment used on an open platform.
Whether or not you perceive it as a problem, it certainly represents a different set of freedoms when developing under KDE than when developing under the rest of Linux.
I agree with you in so far as to say that if you believe in strict open-source development, and don't care about commercial acceptance, then yes, it's not a big deal.
The absolute success of KDE means that Troll tech will have a monopoly over commercial entrance to the Linux Desktop. Given that, why should anyone want KDE to become a standard desktop?
Yes, I recognize that other toolkits can interact with the KDE environment, but if you need to use other toolkits or explain why Troll tech can exact a fee, why even support KDE as a standard desktop?
It's not the money itself, it's the long and complex explanation as to why purchasing would have to be enaged to develop for a "free" software platform, and the fact that you can't develop closed commercial software for KDE without paying it. Every Linux distributor would have to explain it, every new Linux customer would have to understand it, and every closed commercial developer would have to deal with it.
Win32 doesn't even have this problem, and Gtk certainly doesn't have this problem.
Ummm... I don't think you're trolling, so I'll respond...
The KDE/FreeQt foundation never had anything to do with commercial interests. It existed because KDE was built on Qt which was built on the FreeQt license. The FreeQt license said roughly: "you cannot modify and distribute this code". If Troll Tech went bankrupt, was bought out, or neglected the code, KDE would be in trouble. So the KDE/FreeQT foundation was formed to protect KDE.
This all happened years ago. The KDE/FreeQT foundation is a historical artifact from the old FreeQt license which was eventually superceded by the QPL and GPL.
It's tough to pitch free software when the first thing management sees is a $2000/developer price tag with no guarantee that it will remain under that price or scheme in the future.
Second, QT is one small component of a Linux or Unix environment. It is sad that the kernel, compiler, libraries, GUI and desktop environment could all be freely contributed, whereas the toolkit for the desktop environment would slap a tariff on the end for commercial development.
This is not what the GPL was for, this was a very clever use of the GPL to appease the strict Free Software developers, while still keeping commercial control over the toolkit.
QT is a library. That's why the LGPL was written and that's why Gtk is LGPL'd. By GPL'ing the library, Troll Tech ensures that no product can be written for the library unless it too is under the GPL. The only way for a corporation to get out from under that bind is to pay Troll Tech. That's the point, and that's how Troll Tech makes their money.
Unfortunately there is nothing to protect non-GPL (or non-QPL) development under QT and thus KDE.
Trolltech are successfully creating and supporting free software, and managing to make money. I don't see that as something to be wary of.
Yep, it's a great arrangement... now... as long as they're making money.
There's nothing to stop Troll Tech from becoming unreasonable in their licensing demands... crippling all commercial KDE development. Since KDE is a desktop environment, commercial development is pretty important.
That's $10 after taxes, rent, insurance, food, water, heat, electricity, phone, transportation, clothes (work clothes too), all taxed again to bring them to your door etc.
I'm a cheap bastard with a reasonable salary, living relatively close to work, and after all the expenses listed above, that $10/day represents about 1/8 of my disposable income.
The problem is that cities are built wrong and people have funny goals.
As I see it:
It takes too long to commute
Public transit is underdeveloped in most of North America
Anything larger than a skateboard has no place on the sidewalk and anything smaller than a good scooter has no place on the road
Bicycles and motorcycles are exposed to the elements
Most workplaces don't have showers and changerooms for the cyclists who travel more than 5k and work in an office
Anything which protects you from the elements and doesn't require human-power, is not manuverable enough to avoid being squashed, so it needs to be armoured and bulked up to protect the occupants from cars
Only an internal combustion engine is powerful enough to drive anything which isn't too big to be squashed, and...
For those walking on the sidewalk or riding on the streets, or just breathing in rush hour traffic, internal combustion engines are disgusting
IMHO, the ideal would be to all but discard the car as a method of transportation and focus on public transportation, alternative methods of transportation and high speed networking infrastructure to encourage those who can to work from home.
Workplaces should have (or locate near heath clubs with) safe bicycle racks, changerooms and showers, and the roads should have wide lanes so that those who really do need to drive don't try to sqeeze cyclists, inline skaters, slow scooters, segways and other junk off the road.
But, that can't happen overnight... so you need some stupid new technology to inspire people to think about how dumb they all are spending hours transporting a thousand kilograms of metal and glass back and forth across the city on a daily basis.
"... If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program...."
If you read the text like a conniving a$$hole, then maybe SCO has something here.
When the GPL talks very specifically about distribution, not usage. With the kind of stealthy patents which are out there, like Gif and MP3, this may be intentional to protect the author or distributor of original works from being trapped by the GPL between copyright violation and patent violations.
This may be how SCO is arguing that even though they are distributing Linux, they can still encumbur it with patents regarding its usage.
But to the best of my knowledge, SCO has been rattling on about copyright and trade secret, not patents.
It's really about a bunch of senior executive yes-men overreacting. Usually what happens is something like this:
Exec: "Oh look, somebody is trying to extend my member. I hate spam."
Assistant: (takes mental note and walks into a neighbouring execs office, usually somebody in IT, and says) "--insert head hancho's name-- is getting deluged with spam, it's a real problem. Could we have somebody come up here and do something?"
IT Exec: "That's unfortunate, I'll see what I can do"
IT Exec: (calls personal friend in technical support (kiss-ass middle management), chats about golf, the latest corporate results, a couple real business related things, and adds: --insert head hancho's name-- is having a real problem with Spam, can we do anything?
Kiss-ass middle managment: (calls lower management of tech support) "--insert head hancho's name-- has a critical presentation to do and their computer won't work anymore! Send somebody up there quick! I don't care what they're doing, this takes priority, this is --insert head hancho's name--!"
Lower management to techie(this response can really vary): "--insert head hancho's name--'s computer is messed up, I need you to pop up and have a look. --kiss assed middle management-- is very concerned, so this is unfotunately high profile."
Techie, calls Assistant: "What's up?"
Assistant: "We're being killed with spam, --insert head hancho's name-- is furious, get up here now!"
Techie to Exec: "Hello, --assistant-- says you're being killed with spam, do you have any of it left?"
Exec: "No, I deleted it, don't worry about it"
Techie: "Next time you get one, hang on to it and we might be able to do something about it. --spout summarized corporate spam policy--. Do you need anything else?"
Exec: "No, that's all for now, thanks."
...and the end result is that everyone it the IT department thinks that the top exec doesn't know how to hit the delete key.
Not to say that there aren't technophobes in senior management, but in my experience, they're quick learners. Just tell them what to do and they'll remember. Often to your detriment.
The strange tall and narrow design seems to be only possible because of the heavy lead ballast. I wonder if you could use a lighter power source and use gyroscopes to stabilize, similar to the Segway.
Eco-geeks might smack me...
Throw in an internal combustion engine and a stabilizing gyroscope. It would be quite the feat to include regenerative breaking and turn it into a hybrid... or, and I've heard of this being tried somewhere, maybe it was done in the '70s... have a mechanical engineering lunatic devise a way of tapping/storing energy in the gyroscope... I suppose you could do it today with some electrical trickery, some fantastic bearings and by lining coils around the gyroscope.
The gyro would have to be on a gimbal to twist on the front-back axis for hills.
Absolutely, and while you're up there, try to get some time to see them dump slag, and find some INCO tailings sites, and a few miles of the open-pit-smelting burnt rock which used to occupy most of the Sudbury basin. No, I'm serious, this is fascinating geek-stuff. If you can, get into a mine shaft, but most of what you'll see will be the tourist stuff.
Yeah, I admitted that I missed that little detail in a parallel thread.
However, I've been thinking about it, and although equally demented, the logic can be stretched to apply to the current situation.
The former Caldera could argue that they didn't know that they were breaking the law until they bought SCO and had time to investigate SCO's intellectual property. Since copyright isn't criminal, and Caldera now owns SCO, there's no legal recourse between SCO and Caldera. However...
So the presenet SCO/Caldera would be trapped under the clause right now saying that they're not allowed to distribute the GPL'd software period, because of their license requirements.
But...
That also means that Caldera would have realized that they never had the right to distribute linux... and that they and everyone else were breaking the law.
If Caldera didn't by SCO, then SCO could have sued Caldera... but Caldera did buy SCO... on a totally unrelated matter, before finding this stuff out.
I don't think the law is black and white in this case, a judge still may apply some discretion in interpreting SCO/Caldera's responsibilities in regard to being on both sides of the "illegal Linux distributor"/"copyright victim" battle.
I still hold however that even if all the above were argued successfully, that at least the #3 scenario will fall into place... the Judge will force SCO to reveal where the violations are so that the Linux community can remove them.
I think you're giving SCO more credit than they deserve.
Somebody with common sense, honesty and decency would acknowledge that the acts were done in the open and under their eye for years.
Regarding licensing and IBM, SCO is arguing about copyright over portions of the code now, their original argument was that IBM violated some agreements.
In the ugly scenario, SCO is off the hook for agreeing to the GPL because SCO didn't know Caldera was committing an illegal act when they bought them...
...That doesn't mean Caldera and other Linux distributors are off the hook for committing an illegal act. SCO can still sue them. It's just not in SCO's best interest to sue Caldera.
I have no idea how it works against the Linux end-user who never distributes the code though. It's sort of like finding a pirated CDROM on the street. Its production and distrbution were illegal, but using it and reading it?
Slashdot Mirror
It says he developed cancer in his leg in 1985.
Maybe he did spend some time as a kid selling shoes:
http://www.mtn.org/quack/devices/shoexray.htm
You forget that this God idea is not based on science, and has a notion that God is omniscient. If the information exists, the omniscient beings have it.
Or you could flip it around saying that an omniscient God cannot exist since nothing which interacts with this universe could know both the position and momemntum of any given particle with infinate accuracy.
Or... if the information does not exist, then not knowing it does not make one any less omiscient, since not knowing about something which doesn't exist doesn't fall outside the realm of infinate knowledge.
You can't win this God argument, it's like vi vs. emacs.
What are you talking about? Gnome and Gtk cannot strongarm commercial development, they have no power over commercial development. That's why Gtk uses the LGPL. That's why the LGPL exists.
As for the BSD'ing of Qt, as I read the FreeQt agreements, only the last "FreeQt" licensed version of Qt is BSD'd only when TT neglects Qt or goes bankrupt. There's nothing in there about BSD'ing the code after being taken over by a hostile interest and making commercial development impractical. This and I'm pretty sure there hasn't been a 'FreeQt' licensed version of Qt in years.
Corporations only care about money. It doesn't matter who has control over commercial development under KDE, it's that one particular group does and they can do anything they want with it.
On that note, look who's next to SCO in the Canopy group: http://www.canopy.com/
Oh the irony.
Oh no, it's worse than that.
TT expects the GNU/Linux environment to be given to them for free, and a desktop environment to be written on top of their toolkit for free, and they expect to charge money to all commercial (closed source) software developers who use their toolkit to target the desktop environment which they didn't develop.
All they have to do in exchange is to expand thier mindshare by giving their toolkit away to people who wouldn't pay for it anyways.
They're not evil for it either, they didn't seek out the arrangement. KDE set it all up.
I'd rather see Linux standardize on a Gnome environment, polish up the Gnome/KDE interactions, and leave KDE/Qt as an optional development path for whomever prefers it. That would leave TT in a profitable situation, but without enough power over commercial desktop development to be able to abuse it.
Like I said, I REALLY fail to see the problem here.
That's right, you fail to see the problem.
WHy should you get the right to write closed software but you want to deny TT the same right?
This is such bizzare logic. TT has thrown a toll to write commercial software for an open platform. The platform without TT was open. TT is writing a library, not applications. TT is denying the ability to write all (closed) commercial software for KDE without going through them. There is a big difference between me writing a closed application and TT writing a core toolkit for a desktop environment used on an open platform.
Whether or not you perceive it as a problem, it certainly represents a different set of freedoms when developing under KDE than when developing under the rest of Linux.
I agree with you in so far as to say that if you believe in strict open-source development, and don't care about commercial acceptance, then yes, it's not a big deal.
The absolute success of KDE means that Troll tech will have a monopoly over commercial entrance to the Linux Desktop. Given that, why should anyone want KDE to become a standard desktop?
Yes, I recognize that other toolkits can interact with the KDE environment, but if you need to use other toolkits or explain why Troll tech can exact a fee, why even support KDE as a standard desktop?
It's not the money itself, it's the long and complex explanation as to why purchasing would have to be enaged to develop for a "free" software platform, and the fact that you can't develop closed commercial software for KDE without paying it. Every Linux distributor would have to explain it, every new Linux customer would have to understand it, and every closed commercial developer would have to deal with it.
Win32 doesn't even have this problem, and Gtk certainly doesn't have this problem.
Ummm... I don't think you're trolling, so I'll respond...
The KDE/FreeQt foundation never had anything to do with commercial interests. It existed because KDE was built on Qt which was built on the FreeQt license. The FreeQt license said roughly: "you cannot modify and distribute this code". If Troll Tech went bankrupt, was bought out, or neglected the code, KDE would be in trouble. So the KDE/FreeQT foundation was formed to protect KDE.
http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation .php
This all happened years ago. The KDE/FreeQT foundation is a historical artifact from the old FreeQt license which was eventually superceded by the QPL and GPL.
"...NOT pay TrollTech for their efforts?"
It's tough to pitch free software when the first thing management sees is a $2000/developer price tag with no guarantee that it will remain under that price or scheme in the future.
Second, QT is one small component of a Linux or Unix environment. It is sad that the kernel, compiler, libraries, GUI and desktop environment could all be freely contributed, whereas the toolkit for the desktop environment would slap a tariff on the end for commercial development.
This is not what the GPL was for, this was a very clever use of the GPL to appease the strict Free Software developers, while still keeping commercial control over the toolkit.
Commercial development...
QT is a library. That's why the LGPL was written and that's why Gtk is LGPL'd. By GPL'ing the library, Troll Tech ensures that no product can be written for the library unless it too is under the GPL. The only way for a corporation to get out from under that bind is to pay Troll Tech. That's the point, and that's how Troll Tech makes their money.
Unfortunately there is nothing to protect non-GPL (or non-QPL) development under QT and thus KDE.
Trolltech are successfully creating and supporting free software, and managing to make money. I don't see that as something to be wary of.
Yep, it's a great arrangement... now... as long as they're making money.
There's nothing to stop Troll Tech from becoming unreasonable in their licensing demands... crippling all commercial KDE development. Since KDE is a desktop environment, commercial development is pretty important.
Only GPL software development is safe under KDE.
That's $10 after taxes, rent, insurance, food, water, heat, electricity, phone, transportation, clothes (work clothes too), all taxed again to bring them to your door etc.
I'm a cheap bastard with a reasonable salary, living relatively close to work, and after all the expenses listed above, that $10/day represents about 1/8 of my disposable income.
The problem is that cities are built wrong and people have funny goals.
As I see it:
IMHO, the ideal would be to all but discard the car as a method of transportation and focus on public transportation, alternative methods of transportation and high speed networking infrastructure to encourage those who can to work from home.
Workplaces should have (or locate near heath clubs with) safe bicycle racks, changerooms and showers, and the roads should have wide lanes so that those who really do need to drive don't try to sqeeze cyclists, inline skaters, slow scooters, segways and other junk off the road.
But, that can't happen overnight... so you need some stupid new technology to inspire people to think about how dumb they all are spending hours transporting a thousand kilograms of metal and glass back and forth across the city on a daily basis.
That's an interesting tidbit... and here's part of section 7 the GPL http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html:
"... If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program...."
If you read the text like a conniving a$$hole, then maybe SCO has something here.
When the GPL talks very specifically about distribution, not usage. With the kind of stealthy patents which are out there, like Gif and MP3, this may be intentional to protect the author or distributor of original works from being trapped by the GPL between copyright violation and patent violations.
This may be how SCO is arguing that even though they are distributing Linux, they can still encumbur it with patents regarding its usage.
But to the best of my knowledge, SCO has been rattling on about copyright and trade secret, not patents.
SPAM is a problem, but I think it can be fixed above SMTP by whitelisting or webs of trust. What are these "loopholes" in SMTP?
It's really about a bunch of senior executive yes-men overreacting. Usually what happens is something like this:
Exec: "Oh look, somebody is trying to extend my member. I hate spam."
Assistant: (takes mental note and walks into a neighbouring execs office, usually somebody in IT, and says) "--insert head hancho's name-- is getting deluged with spam, it's a real problem. Could we have somebody come up here and do something?"
IT Exec: "That's unfortunate, I'll see what I can do"
IT Exec: (calls personal friend in technical support (kiss-ass middle management), chats about golf, the latest corporate results, a couple real business related things, and adds: --insert head hancho's name-- is having a real problem with Spam, can we do anything?
Kiss-ass middle managment: (calls lower management of tech support) "--insert head hancho's name-- has a critical presentation to do and their computer won't work anymore! Send somebody up there quick! I don't care what they're doing, this takes priority, this is --insert head hancho's name--!"
Lower management to techie(this response can really vary): "--insert head hancho's name--'s computer is messed up, I need you to pop up and have a look. --kiss assed middle management-- is very concerned, so this is unfotunately high profile."
Techie, calls Assistant: "What's up?"
Assistant: "We're being killed with spam, --insert head hancho's name-- is furious, get up here now!"
Techie to Exec: "Hello, --assistant-- says you're being killed with spam, do you have any of it left?"
Exec: "No, I deleted it, don't worry about it"
Techie: "Next time you get one, hang on to it and we might be able to do something about it. --spout summarized corporate spam policy--. Do you need anything else?"
Exec: "No, that's all for now, thanks."
...and the end result is that everyone it the IT department thinks that the top exec doesn't know how to hit the delete key.
Not to say that there aren't technophobes in senior management, but in my experience, they're quick learners. Just tell them what to do and they'll remember. Often to your detriment.
Damn... all this and openpatent.org seems to have been inactive for a few years now.
The strange tall and narrow design seems to be only possible because of the heavy lead ballast. I wonder if you could use a lighter power source and use gyroscopes to stabilize, similar to the Segway.
Eco-geeks might smack me...
Throw in an internal combustion engine and a stabilizing gyroscope. It would be quite the feat to include regenerative breaking and turn it into a hybrid... or, and I've heard of this being tried somewhere, maybe it was done in the '70s... have a mechanical engineering lunatic devise a way of tapping/storing energy in the gyroscope... I suppose you could do it today with some electrical trickery, some fantastic bearings and by lining coils around the gyroscope.
The gyro would have to be on a gimbal to twist on the front-back axis for hills.
I know... too crazy.
O.B. "The Segway sucks" comment.
The extra energy for heating and air conditioning tends not to be considered in many of these electric vehicles.
Although for defogging, I wonder how much double-paned windows would help? Or maybe just a hat, a thick coat and lots of ventilation :-(
Absolutely, and while you're up there, try to get some time to see them dump slag, and find some INCO tailings sites, and a few miles of the open-pit-smelting burnt rock which used to occupy most of the Sudbury basin. No, I'm serious, this is fascinating geek-stuff. If you can, get into a mine shaft, but most of what you'll see will be the tourist stuff.
Yeah, I admitted that I missed that little detail in a parallel thread.
However, I've been thinking about it, and although equally demented, the logic can be stretched to apply to the current situation.
The former Caldera could argue that they didn't know that they were breaking the law until they bought SCO and had time to investigate SCO's intellectual property. Since copyright isn't criminal, and Caldera now owns SCO, there's no legal recourse between SCO and Caldera. However...
So the presenet SCO/Caldera would be trapped under the clause right now saying that they're not allowed to distribute the GPL'd software period, because of their license requirements.
But...
That also means that Caldera would have realized that they never had the right to distribute linux... and that they and everyone else were breaking the law.
If Caldera didn't by SCO, then SCO could have sued Caldera... but Caldera did buy SCO... on a totally unrelated matter, before finding this stuff out.
I don't think the law is black and white in this case, a judge still may apply some discretion in interpreting SCO/Caldera's responsibilities in regard to being on both sides of the "illegal Linux distributor"/"copyright victim" battle.
I still hold however that even if all the above were argued successfully, that at least the #3 scenario will fall into place... the Judge will force SCO to reveal where the violations are so that the Linux community can remove them.
Don't short SCO stock yet, it still might climb.
I think you're giving SCO more credit than they deserve.
Somebody with common sense, honesty and decency would acknowledge that the acts were done in the open and under their eye for years.
Regarding licensing and IBM, SCO is arguing about copyright over portions of the code now, their original argument was that IBM violated some agreements.
That's pretty damning to my theory :-)
In the ugly scenario, SCO is off the hook for agreeing to the GPL because SCO didn't know Caldera was committing an illegal act when they bought them...
...That doesn't mean Caldera and other Linux distributors are off the hook for committing an illegal act. SCO can still sue them. It's just not in SCO's best interest to sue Caldera.
I have no idea how it works against the Linux end-user who never distributes the code though. It's sort of like finding a pirated CDROM on the street. Its production and distrbution were illegal, but using it and reading it?