Maybe there's a "camp" (as you call it) because there's a consensus that it's so.
You, Tom, and Bob Metcalfe.
Translation: They really don't want to be competitive. Rather, they want to force their competitors to reveal the technology which might keep them ahead of the game. This is anti-competitive, not competitive.
Wrong. Their competitors are not forced to do anything unless those competitors choose to be partners on the same piece of code. Don't use the code, you don't have to obey the license. Together, the collaborators on an open source project are a bigger and better competitor.
But then, the GPL is, too. The GPL is intended to undermine programmers and hurt their livelihoods by giving away equivalents of their products for free and denying them access to that code so they can't add value.
Actually, that's not true. You can add value to your own GPL code and put it out with a commercial license. It's only other people's code where you have to obey the sharing rules. Didn't I explain this one to you last time?
So, they will put their own code behind whatever license I come up with.
Hmmm. Since when did you become "King Bruce?" It seems that, by attempting to dictate terms and restrict access to code, you are in fact becoming the very thing that open source was originally designed to avoid.
Who said dictate? They asked me to make a license for them.
No, the GPL specifically targets commercial software developers by attempting to force them to give away the fruits of their labor. Uh, excuse me, but there aren't many poor GPL Linux programmers these days. Is this a particular personal income problem?
True sharing means sharing with everyone.
You've almost got that right. When I give you GPL code, you must share that with me and everyone else equally. When I give you code under the X11 license, for example, you need not share it equally with anyone. You are allowed by the X11 license to just take, take, take. That doesn't sound like sharing to me.
If you are ethical
Here you go accusing me of being unethical again, Brett. It doesn't shed a good light on you.
Oops, here comes another representative of the bitter and hurtful camp!
You got it backwards, Brett. Can you guess why I am working on the problem of modifying a license (not necessarily the GPL) for the situation of ASPs? Because some ASPs asked me to. Why did they ask me? To protect their work and their competetiveness. They want to put out Open Source software and benefit from the collaboration of other ASPs and the community. They want to create a commons in which no one party to has an unfair advantage over the other in this collaboration. So, they will put their own code behind whatever license I come up with. And you can bet that will be compliant with the OSD. It's part of their business strategy.
The GPL treats commercial software developers the same way as everyone else. In fact, only paragraph 3(c) of the GPL even has a reference to commercial vs. non-commercial distribution, and not in a way that would impair commercial distribution.
You can't understand this sharing thing, can you? Want to use my GPL code? Fine! Share it with this excellent set of sharing rules we've cooked up called the GPL. Return value equal to the value I put in, and treat me as I treat you. But you're saying no share! gimmie! I want to use the code any way I want, and not give a thing back if that's how I feel, and who cares how much work you put into it! My work is more important to me than your work, so give me your work on my terms! Go over to freshmeat.net and look at all the GPLs on new code. Every one is offering you partnership in that code, if you can just learn to share.
And it happens that yes, I am on some corporate boards. I'd rather have me there than someone who doesn't believe in Open Source, and I bet a lot of people out there feel the same way. Why am I there? I tell them how they can make money while being good citizens of the Open Source community. I do it for some of them for nothing, and others have kindly offered me some shares in compensation. No cash or sale of shares has happened to date, nor does one appear to be close.
And what's all of this stuff about depriving programmers of their livelyhoods? I've got several nice positions advertised on my company web site for people who want to code Free Software. And I'm hardly the only one with open positions. The only reason you don't have one of those jobs is your attitude - unless you can't do the work? I've never seen your resume.
If you've got a mission to carry out, Brett, it would work a lot better if you did it positively. Gee - people accuse the free software folks of whining!
Yes, but the instruction set I write might not be related to the PPC, ARM, or 68k. It might be something new entirely. Why not go through all of the operations GCC generates at its processor-independent level and write instructions that implement those operations most optimally?
Regarding the 2 years to write a bios, I'd imagine the code morphing and bootstrapping an instruction set onto the CPU is in there, but still it sounds like a long time.
Let's go through this again, just to make sure you have all of my points.
I want to the Open Source world to use this CPU to write microcode and implement new instruction sets. I actually have personal experience in writing microcode, by the way, so I know what I'm talking about.
I don't care if the chip changes. I will provide new microcode when that happens, and programs written in my instruction set will continue to run independent of which chip they are on - all chips have different microcode to implement the same instruction set.
Transmeta can accomodate this without giving away their prized advantages. Whatever patents they have are licensed for the chips they sell, thus there's a license wherever the microcode runs.
Proprietary vendors can even establish an aftermarket in microcode, selling optimized implementations of an instruction set that might even be available publicly in a sub-optimal form.
Transmeta makes money from sales of their hardware into this market, and protects those hardware sales with their patents. What software people do after the chip is sold isn't of concern to them.
So, does this make sense or am I missing something?
Oh, blow it out of your anonymous orifice. I said he has an old car and a rented home, and if you've looked at what homes cost around here, a "reasonable salary" just won't cut it. If you have agression to take out, school's in session again on Monday, sonny.
Yes, I know, but I don't agree with that. I want to make instruction sets. I can change my microcode when the chip changes, too. As far as this policy is concerned, we have not yet heard the final word and I am more optimistic than you.
Well, Linus stands to make a good deal from Transmeta's IPO, whenever that happens. At the moment, I suspect he's getting a reasonable salary, not an over-the-wall one. We'll find out more about his deal when Transmeta files its S-1, but that might be a while.
Be conscious that Linus has held himself aloof from Red Hat and other companies directly involved in Linux who would gladly have paid him movie-star salaries.
If I were to be a worshipper in the "church of Linus":-), it would not be for what he's done with software, but for how nice he and Tove are and what beautiful children they are bringing up. Having a life is #1, free software comes in somewhere after that.
Linux jobs abound these days. Can you program? If so, maybe you won't be poor as a church mouse for long. Remember, free software does not require you to take an oath of poverty.
Bob Metcalfe used to be a good guy. When I first started doing business with 3com back in the VAX 780 days, Bob was returning my calls to their customer service phone line. Bob's made Billions on 3com and the Ethernet and should not have reason to feel bitter. But he keeps putting out this bitter, hurtful, and poorly informed stuff. There's little to criticize on a technical level in this piece because it is so obviously sour grapes, and for Mr. Billionare to pick on little Linus Torvalds with his old car and rented home just doesn't seem right. For Bob to pose as a "journalist" is sort of silly if he's never going to take the trouble to learn much of journalism, and instead settle for being just another crumudgeon.
What we want from Transmeta is a microinstruction set description. Period. We don't ask hardware manufacturers for their chip masks - what we ask them for is full documentation of how to use the hardware from our operating system. Frankly, we can do our own "code morphing" given an instruction set description and a patent license that goes with the chip. And it's not even clear that we'd need to do code morphing from something like the x86 - I think we'd be much more interested in designing our own instruction sets to work optimally for Linux.
OK, they've been working for a year but we still don't know who they are. Dirty tricks do happen. I'm one of those folks who thinks that some viruses are written by the virus-scanner manufacturers, too.
So, do I have it right that we need to have every router on the net disable source routing so that this packet forgery doesn't occurr?
OK, this is paranoid but I need to get it off of my chest.
Others have postulated that government is behind DoS attacks as a publicity strategy to drum up sentiment for pervasive internet monitoring. Rather than government, I wonder if it could be the supporters of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, such as members of the Software Publishers Association and the Motion Picture and Recording industries They're painting the DVD defendants as "hackers" (which they use incorrectly to mean "computer criminal"). Here's something more to stir up hysteria about "hackers".
Sure, it could be a blackmail stunt as some people say. But the perpetrators are bound to be caught if that's the case, because they will have to persist in DoS attacks for the protection racket to work, and the persistence will get them caught.
Thus, I think it might more likely be a ploy to discredit.
Slashdot Mirror
You, Tom, and Bob Metcalfe.
Translation: They really don't want to be competitive. Rather, they want to force their competitors to reveal the technology which might keep them ahead of the game. This is anti-competitive, not competitive.
Wrong. Their competitors are not forced to do anything unless those competitors choose to be partners on the same piece of code. Don't use the code, you don't have to obey the license. Together, the collaborators on an open source project are a bigger and better competitor.
But then, the GPL is, too. The GPL is intended to undermine programmers and hurt their livelihoods by giving away equivalents of their products for free and denying them access to that code so they can't add value.
Actually, that's not true. You can add value to your own GPL code and put it out with a commercial license. It's only other people's code where you have to obey the sharing rules. Didn't I explain this one to you last time?
So, they will put their own code behind whatever license I come up with.
Hmmm. Since when did you become "King Bruce?" It seems that, by attempting to dictate terms and restrict access to code, you are in fact becoming the very thing that open source was originally designed to avoid.
Who said dictate? They asked me to make a license for them.
No, the GPL specifically targets commercial software developers by attempting to force them to give away the fruits of their labor. Uh, excuse me, but there aren't many poor GPL Linux programmers these days. Is this a particular personal income problem?
True sharing means sharing with everyone.
You've almost got that right. When I give you GPL code, you must share that with me and everyone else equally. When I give you code under the X11 license, for example, you need not share it equally with anyone. You are allowed by the X11 license to just take, take, take. That doesn't sound like sharing to me.
If you are ethical
Here you go accusing me of being unethical again, Brett. It doesn't shed a good light on you.
Bruce
You got it backwards, Brett. Can you guess why I am working on the problem of modifying a license (not necessarily the GPL) for the situation of ASPs? Because some ASPs asked me to. Why did they ask me? To protect their work and their competetiveness. They want to put out Open Source software and benefit from the collaboration of other ASPs and the community. They want to create a commons in which no one party to has an unfair advantage over the other in this collaboration. So, they will put their own code behind whatever license I come up with. And you can bet that will be compliant with the OSD. It's part of their business strategy.
The GPL treats commercial software developers the same way as everyone else. In fact, only paragraph 3(c) of the GPL even has a reference to commercial vs. non-commercial distribution, and not in a way that would impair commercial distribution.
You can't understand this sharing thing, can you? Want to use my GPL code? Fine! Share it with this excellent set of sharing rules we've cooked up called the GPL. Return value equal to the value I put in, and treat me as I treat you. But you're saying no share! gimmie! I want to use the code any way I want, and not give a thing back if that's how I feel, and who cares how much work you put into it! My work is more important to me than your work, so give me your work on my terms! Go over to freshmeat.net and look at all the GPLs on new code. Every one is offering you partnership in that code, if you can just learn to share.
And it happens that yes, I am on some corporate boards. I'd rather have me there than someone who doesn't believe in Open Source, and I bet a lot of people out there feel the same way. Why am I there? I tell them how they can make money while being good citizens of the Open Source community. I do it for some of them for nothing, and others have kindly offered me some shares in compensation. No cash or sale of shares has happened to date, nor does one appear to be close.
And what's all of this stuff about depriving programmers of their livelyhoods? I've got several nice positions advertised on my company web site for people who want to code Free Software. And I'm hardly the only one with open positions. The only reason you don't have one of those jobs is your attitude - unless you can't do the work? I've never seen your resume.
If you've got a mission to carry out, Brett, it would work a lot better if you did it positively. Gee - people accuse the free software folks of whining!
Bruce
Regarding the 2 years to write a bios, I'd imagine the code morphing and bootstrapping an instruction set onto the CPU is in there, but still it sounds like a long time.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
I want to the Open Source world to use this CPU to write microcode and implement new instruction sets. I actually have personal experience in writing microcode, by the way, so I know what I'm talking about.
I don't care if the chip changes. I will provide new microcode when that happens, and programs written in my instruction set will continue to run independent of which chip they are on - all chips have different microcode to implement the same instruction set.
Transmeta can accomodate this without giving away their prized advantages. Whatever patents they have are licensed for the chips they sell, thus there's a license wherever the microcode runs.
Proprietary vendors can even establish an aftermarket in microcode, selling optimized implementations of an instruction set that might even be available publicly in a sub-optimal form.
Transmeta makes money from sales of their hardware into this market, and protects those hardware sales with their patents. What software people do after the chip is sold isn't of concern to them.
So, does this make sense or am I missing something?
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Moderate above as "Troll", please. Way out of line.
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Be conscious that Linus has held himself aloof from Red Hat and other companies directly involved in Linux who would gladly have paid him movie-star salaries.
If I were to be a worshipper in the "church of Linus" :-), it would not be for what he's done with software, but for how nice he and Tove are and what beautiful children they are bringing up. Having a life is #1, free software comes in somewhere after that.
Linux jobs abound these days. Can you program? If so, maybe you won't be poor as a church mouse for long. Remember, free software does not require you to take an oath of poverty.
Thanks
Bruce
What we want from Transmeta is a microinstruction set description. Period. We don't ask hardware manufacturers for their chip masks - what we ask them for is full documentation of how to use the hardware from our operating system. Frankly, we can do our own "code morphing" given an instruction set description and a patent license that goes with the chip. And it's not even clear that we'd need to do code morphing from something like the x86 - I think we'd be much more interested in designing our own instruction sets to work optimally for Linux.
Thanks
Bruce
So, do I have it right that we need to have every router on the net disable source routing so that this packet forgery doesn't occurr?
Bruce
Others have postulated that government is behind DoS attacks as a publicity strategy to drum up sentiment for pervasive internet monitoring. Rather than government, I wonder if it could be the supporters of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, such as members of the Software Publishers Association and the Motion Picture and Recording industries They're painting the DVD defendants as "hackers" (which they use incorrectly to mean "computer criminal"). Here's something more to stir up hysteria about "hackers".
Sure, it could be a blackmail stunt as some people say. But the perpetrators are bound to be caught if that's the case, because they will have to persist in DoS attacks for the protection racket to work, and the persistence will get them caught.
Thus, I think it might more likely be a ploy to discredit.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
The real Bruce, the one without any "." at the end of his name.
Rob Malda won't do a thing about it.
Bruce