Rather it is that W3C working group members could have gained the right to charge implementors for patents held by the members that they deliberately embedded in the standard. This is called "patent farming".
The grant of patents with the W3C standards is not for all uses. It is only for the work necessary to implement the standard. So, you can use the algorithm in one place in your code, and not another. It's the best compromise we could get out of the patent holders. So, RMS has a valid point.
To date, W3C has attempted to create unencumbered standards. You can't ever be sure that they are unencumbered, of course, some turkey could assert yet another patent on the Internet.
But W3C was under pressure to create encumbered standards, mostly from big companies that would have made money from the royalties. Some companies that are usually considered our friends were working against us in this regard. Of course we didn't want to see them erect toll-booths on the Internet that would have, as a side-effect, locked out Open Source implementations.
I think there may be a problem right now regarding the VoiceXML standard, which was chartered before this new policy is accepted.
MS might disclose its source code, as so-called "shared source". Shared source does not have the list of rights available for it that are included with Open Source. I think the request we are seeing is for MS to disclose its code, not for it to change its fundamental business model. There is a technical term for what is being asked for. It's called disclosed source code, not Open Source.
I'm not sure I agree with you about the semantics of virus vs. trojan. Please call me at the phone number on my web site to discuss this, if you wish to continue the argument.
Also, we need to get better about signing our archives and heeding the signatures. Com'on folks! I wrote about this in the old linuxworld.com webzine in 1996!
In handling the press and public perception for this, it's important that we make the point that binary programs are trojaned all of the time. In fact, most viruses have as their sole purpose the modification of binaries to insert a trojan copy of the virus into the binary, and to execute the virus payload. Much proprietary software has been distributed in infected state.
The difference is that with Open Source you have an additional means of detecting the corruption - not only by its effects (as with the binary), but by reading the source.
Remember Interbase? It came with a trojan from Borland. The Open Source folks found it only AFTER the program was made open source. It had the trojan for at least 6 years before it became Open Source. It was running airplane reservation systems. Somebody got a lot of free flights.
Why do you think only an employee can trojan a binary, anyway? Most viruses modify binaries. Certainly many virus-infected binaries have been distributed professionally.
Uh, I'm not so sure. How do you check binaries to see if they have been trojaned? You run a virus scanner. What do viruses do? Most of them trojan a binary with a copy of themselves. How does a virus get found? By its effects. How does a source-code trojan get found? By people reading the source, or by its effects.
Well, consider the alternative. What do you call a program that trojans a binary? Most viruses do just that, don't they? So, we have ample proof that binaries can be trojaned, and there is less chance for you to find out because you don't have the source.
You don't need the source to trojan something. In fact, most trojans are simply virus-infected binaries. The entire purpose of most viruses is to trojan binary programs with another copy of the virus.
It is transactional with Sleepycat, and ACID with InnoDB. Subselects are currently in development for 4.1 . Stored procedures are planned for 5.0 . They are looking at triggers.
The underlying database, which was Sleepycat the last time I checked, has been transactional for quite some time. Go look at their site or even read their book. I don't know what the status is of transactions in the SQL engine.
I thought it was Sleepycat Software's Berkeley DB with a SQL engine.
Bruce
Re:Is this some sort of a MS tradition?
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 2
Well, CNET called me to check it out and I was noncommittal. They took the best quote they could out of what I said, check out news.com . But they say that they have an unnamed source who confirms it's real.
I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
Bruce
Re:Is this some sort of a MS tradition?
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Just about every engineering job comes with an NDA. The one I had at HP was standard for all employees.
Today I offer a consulting service to companies that want to use or produce Free Software. In order to do this, I enter into non-disclosure agreements with the companies, so that they can discuss possibilities with me without them ending up on Slashdot. Often I ask for the right to talk about things after they are released, if they are released, and sometimes I get it. The companies simply will not talk to me otherwise. So, I had to balance the cost of having information that I could not divulge against the benefit of being able to get some additional companies to participate in Free Software. Guess which one won?
And yes, some stuff I do simply ask them not to show me, and there are some people in the world with whom I would not enter into an NDA.
They can't pay me to change my mind or to shut up. They can pay me to honor their secrets, and once I take that payment, I'm honor-bound much as it might irk me. The point is not to take it from someone who would be hostile to us.
Bruce
Re:Is this some sort of a MS tradition?
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
To clarify: MS admitted that one of the memos was real, long ago. They haven't said anything about this one.
Bruce
Re:Is this some sort of a MS tradition?
on
Halloween VII
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Well, MS admitted that one was real, but I agree that this may simply be something they do to pull the wool over Eric & Company. Strategy documents at HP were appreciably longer than two pages. Also, I got to see some MS strategy (under NDA to HP so you won't hear about it as much as I'd like to tell) and it didn't look like this.
Slashdot Mirror
Bruce
A submarine is... a long tube filled with seamen.
I'll go away now.
Bruce
Bruce
That and a dollar will get you a ride on the subway :-)
Rather it is that W3C working group members could have gained the right to charge implementors for patents held by the members that they deliberately embedded in the standard. This is called "patent farming".
Bruce
Hey folks, there are 100 other standards organizations where we have yet to win this fight.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
But W3C was under pressure to create encumbered standards, mostly from big companies that would have made money from the royalties. Some companies that are usually considered our friends were working against us in this regard. Of course we didn't want to see them erect toll-booths on the Internet that would have, as a side-effect, locked out Open Source implementations.
I think there may be a problem right now regarding the VoiceXML standard, which was chartered before this new policy is accepted.
Bruce
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
The difference is that with Open Source you have an additional means of detecting the corruption - not only by its effects (as with the binary), but by reading the source.
Bruce
Why do you think only an employee can trojan a binary, anyway? Most viruses modify binaries. Certainly many virus-infected binaries have been distributed professionally.
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
Bruce
Today I offer a consulting service to companies that want to use or produce Free Software. In order to do this, I enter into non-disclosure agreements with the companies, so that they can discuss possibilities with me without them ending up on Slashdot. Often I ask for the right to talk about things after they are released, if they are released, and sometimes I get it. The companies simply will not talk to me otherwise. So, I had to balance the cost of having information that I could not divulge against the benefit of being able to get some additional companies to participate in Free Software. Guess which one won?
And yes, some stuff I do simply ask them not to show me, and there are some people in the world with whom I would not enter into an NDA.
They can't pay me to change my mind or to shut up. They can pay me to honor their secrets, and once I take that payment, I'm honor-bound much as it might irk me. The point is not to take it from someone who would be hostile to us.
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce