You're not seeing things the right way. The only Open Source they use in their mainline products is under the BSD or similar. It's a on-way function: code goes in but no code comes out.
I get the feeling Microsoft is a little schizophrenic about OSS whenever I see this sort of thing.
Microsoft tries (with, unfortunately, some success) to equate "Open Source" with "GPL". BSD licensed software is, of course, both Open Source and Free Software.
> zlib isn't open source in the traditional sense. > zlib is simply released with no strings attached > whatsoever.
That is Open Source. It is also Free Software. The zlib license is also not significantly different from the BSD license (and it does "attach strings").
> most people equate OSS with the GPL or a > BSD-style license.
In theory a computer is completely under its owner's control, but many people lack sufficient understanding of their machines to control it properly; what is the situation when a computer is hijacked by some malware that (unknown to the owner) causes damage (needless to say this happens frequently) ?
The hijacker is liable. The owner may also be liable but only if the plaintiff can show that he was negligent.
Far more likely that you would settle for a very small fraction of their initial demand so that they can avoid spending tens of thousands on legal fees that they would never recover.
BTW US Federal courts make substantial allowances for pro se defendants.
For this sort of thing you want a not-for-profit/non-profit corporation (This is not necessarily a charity). It's a corporation with a charter which forbids it to distribute any money to those who founded and/or control it. It is normally run by a self-perpetuating board of directors. This is how commercial trade associations are usually organized.
If you don't want your children to play such games don't let them do so. They are your children. You control them.
If I had any children I might want to permit them to play such games. You would deny me the right to decide what is best for my children, just because you are too lazy or inept to control yours.
Such laws do not affect only children. They make selling the restricted items much more difficult and risky, thus increasing cost and decreasing availability.
Re:This is no different than BitKeeper
on
Microsoft Sues EU
·
· Score: 1
They are being told no such thing.
Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?
on
Microsoft Sues EU
·
· Score: 1
In the absence of competition your "goodness" tends to disappear. And a single point of failure is always to be avioded. Monopolies are single points of failure.
Re:Microsoft Scared of Open Source?
on
Microsoft Sues EU
·
· Score: 1
> If Linux were to take over the server market > entirely, everyone would be using much the same > technologies and software.
There are multiple implementations of just about anything you'd want to run on a Linux server. Unlike Microsoft, Free Software encourages choice.
> The main problem with Deuterium-Tritium fusion, > even IF you get to breakeven and beyond is that > the energy released has a very substantial > neutron component.
Which you soak up with lithium, generating more tritium.
>...the reaction chamber walls into radioactive > isotopes which in most cases, are actually far > "hotter" than the low-level nuclear waste from > fission power plants.
Slashdot Mirror
> Of course, I am not an expert on any of this...
This is very clear. The balance point is at geosynchonous orbit, not "where the earth's atmosphere meets space".
You're not seeing things the right way. The only Open Source they use in their mainline products is under the BSD or similar. It's a on-way function: code goes in but no code comes out.
> zlib isn't open source in the traditional sense.
> zlib is simply released with no strings attached
> whatsoever.
That is Open Source. It is also Free Software. The zlib license is also not significantly different from the BSD license (and it does "attach strings").
> most people equate OSS with the GPL or a
> BSD-style license.
"Most people" are wrong.
> So... whatever that means :)
It means that they are already shipping Open Source software and have been doing so for many years.
Far more likely that you would settle for a very small fraction of their initial demand so that they can avoid spending tens of thousands on legal fees that they would never recover.
BTW US Federal courts make substantial allowances for pro se defendants.
Not that relaxed. The RIAA still has to present evidence. Mere assertions won't do.
For this sort of thing you want a not-for-profit/non-profit corporation (This is not necessarily a charity). It's a corporation with a charter which forbids it to distribute any money to those who founded and/or control it. It is normally run by a self-perpetuating board of directors. This is how commercial trade associations are usually organized.
We can only hope.
> Bugger me if I knew how it worked
Absorption.
It most certainly does.
If you don't want your children to play such games don't let them do so. They are your children. You control them.
If I had any children I might want to permit them to play such games. You would deny me the right to decide what is best for my children, just because you are too lazy or inept to control yours.
Such laws do not affect only children. They make selling the restricted items much more difficult and risky, thus increasing cost and decreasing availability.
No. You belong in trade school. I suggest welding or truck driving.
...Can't let that happen. Microsoft must retain the title of bloat king.
> How does Joe Sixpack back up 500Gb?
He doesn't. He never backs up anything.
They are being told no such thing.
In the absence of competition your "goodness" tends to disappear. And a single point of failure is always to be avioded. Monopolies are single points of failure.
> If Linux were to take over the server market
> entirely, everyone would be using much the same
> technologies and software.
There are multiple implementations of just about anything you'd want to run on a Linux server. Unlike Microsoft, Free Software encourages choice.
And if you don't like Linux try one of the BSDs.
> ...broad licenses for the source code of
> communications protocols...
That's a lie. Publication of protocols does not require the publication of any source code whatsoever. Same goes for file formats.
> The main problem with Deuterium-Tritium fusion,
...the reaction chamber walls into radioactive
> even IF you get to breakeven and beyond is that
> the energy released has a very substantial
> neutron component.
Which you soak up with lithium, generating more tritium.
>
> isotopes which in most cases, are actually far
> "hotter" than the low-level nuclear waste from
> fission power plants.
Hotter, and therefor shorter lived.
If a CD boycott was truly sucessessful (no chance) they'd be doing their blaming in bankruptcy court.
Yes. Let's all live in grass huts and eat windfalls.