Does anybody have info as to how expensive this Linux licensing is going to be? It's quite possible that many companies may just pay the fee instead of going through the time, effort, cost and liability of doing otherwise. It's sad to see SCO actually get rewarded for how they're conducting themselves...
Paying the fee actually opens companies to liability from Linux developers. Because now they have received a copy of Linux code in violation of the GPL because whoever they got their Linux from could not have given it to them. Since, they did not receive the code in accordance with the GPL, they have no license for the code whatsoever and standard copyright law applies giving them no rights with regards to Linux.
So, Linux developers can sue, and win, because by paying the fee to SCO they acknowledge that they have kowingly received Linux in violation of the GPL, and have no license to do anything with said software. Are developers likely to sue linux customers... No, they will do everything they can not to, but it may come down to that to at least prevent SCO from hijacking Linux.
You do not understand the arrogance of McBride and his brethren. He has claimed in interviews that all of Linux, and every other UNIX clone, is a derivative of UNIX, whether the code was developed from scratch or not. He even hinted that Windows was not immune to this, that the license bought by Microsoft did not protect them from being sued for violating SCO rights concerning UNIX.
Except the people who developed most of Linux did not sign a contract stating that SCO owned their code. Therefore, there code can only be distirbuted under the GPL. There are only two choices SCO has if their code is in Linux.
1) SCO licenses the code under the GPL. 2) SCO does not license the code under the GPL and all of Linux is in violation of either SCO's IP or Linux developers IP and therefore cannot be distributed or used at all.
Note, the idiots who say the GPL is a distribution license are missing an important point. Just because you happen to have the code now, doesn't mean it was legally distributed to you. If SCO's code is in the kernel, either you received the kernel illegally according to the GPL or you received the kernel illegally according to SCO.
Basically, SCO doesn't seem to realize that by claiming copyright infringement and requiring a license fee to be paid to them, they are going for a scorched earth policy with Linux. No one should pay SCO to license their Linux code because it will not protect them at all, and actually open the purchasers to litigation for illegally using all the other code in Linux.
Maybe SCO is hoping that instead of causing all recent Linux kernels to become illegal Linux developers will let this go, but I doubt that will happen.
I think you are hitting on a subtle and possibly very important point. Assume hypothetically that SCO is correct in its assertions. I have a kernel that I bought from Redhat. This redistribution by RH would then turn out to have been illegal. But I have the kernel, and the GPL has no effect on me if I use it and don't redistribute, so the GPL can't stop me from using the kernel. But it would be illegal to use the proprietary code "stolen" from SCO. A license from SCO would allow me to run the kernel, but not redistribute it, because that would violate the GPL. I think if SCO's assertions were valid, then they could indeed sell licenses that would allow people to use kernels they already have.
No, they can't sell licenses. For a couple reasons. Assuming SCO is right and decides to try and license their code, you received your RedHat kernel illegally because Redhat couldn't have distributed it to you under the GPL. Let's say that problem is overlooked. Now your saying that SCO could still license their code to you. This is false as well, becuase the SCO code in Linux requires Linux in order to be functional. Therefore, SCO cannot distribute it under any license, but the GPL, even as a patch. Just because you happen to already have a copy doesn't mean SCO is not distributing the code. It would still be considered distribution.
Basically, the error you are making is that just because you have already have a copy of the code means that there is no distribution involved in licensing the SCO code. But, it doesn't work that way.
Anyone who likes the GPL (in case you can't tell, I don't) should hope this case is not the test case to prove its validity. If there are 2 conflicting liscenses, and one guy says "I don't care what you do with yours, or how you combine it with mine, all I want is you to pay me if you use mine", and the other guy says "someone somewhere combined the two, and so now my liscense applies to both", who do you think a judge will agree with?
Actually, neither and both. A judge would say that SCO can license their code anyway they want, and so can the Linux developers. The fact that some one somewhere combined code with conflicting licenses means that the combined code licensed to no one. Not even those that pay SCO.
If SCO is right (and they aren't) about SCO IP being in the kernel, the most they could do was collect license fees from infected versions of te kernel. Newer (and SCO IP free versions) of the kernel would be beyond their touch. In effect, they wouldn't be collecting licenses on the GPL'ed kernel, but on the ir IP that was included against their will.
They can't charge a license fee. Period. There is only one way to distribute Linux with your own source code as SCO has done. And, that way is to license your code under the GPL. You cannot distribute Linux with your code under a different license because then you have no license for all the other code in Linux.
SCO has only two choices with regard to their code in Linux. License it under the GPL, and still get a settlement from IBM for including the code in Linux against contract. Or, get an injunction against all kernels with their code making those kernels at least undistributable, and probably unusable. Then, the kernel developers will have to write out the code to get a distributable new kernel.
No no no. The GPL issue is with SCO distributing the GPL'd code, not with the end user's use of the software. The GPL has exactly zero restrictions on use of software, only on its distribution. They have tainted intellectual property (if such a thing is anything more than a legal hallucination), but they do not have stolen property.
But, if a portion of the code belongs to SCO, then SCO has to distribute the Linux under the GPL. If SCO did not distribute the code according to the GPL, then the users of that code cannot use it. Because either/and:
1) They are not licensed to use SCO's code. 2) SCO is not licensed to Distribute Linux wth SCO's code because they did not distribute under GPL.
There are only two choices: SCO's code is distributed in Linux according to the GPL. Or, SCO's code is not GPL's and therefore Linux distributed with SCO's code is illegally distributed because the Linux code requires GPL to distribute.
An interesting implication here is that SCO cannot get royalties for their code in Linux. They can get judgements/settlements for copyright violation, but if they don't want their code GPL'd then it cannot be in Linux. Kernel hackers will have to remove the code and all versions with SCO code will have to be removed. The GPL does not allow SCO to license their code under a different license.
Note, this is not relevant to the IBM case. If IBM put the code in Lnux in violation of their license they are still on the hook., whether SCO chooses to leave the code GPL'd in the future, or force it to be removed is a decision SCO can make independent of the IBM results.
Potentially, although I still don't think that this situation gets all linux users/distros out of the woods. In other words, SCO might be on the hook to Linus (who owns copyright on the kernel), but Red Hat et al might be on the hook for distributing SCO's code - and they don't have any copyrights to fight back with (well, none that matter here). And I don't know how that will shake out - I don't know for sure that they cancel. Basically we have a Mexican standoff, but Red Hat doesn't have a gun. The question might be how far Linus would go to protect them.
But, the point is that either everyone is off the hook or no one is. SCO cannot pick and choose who is licensed to use their code and who isn't because they can only distribute Linux code with modifications under the GPL. So, either they distribute it to their customers under the GPL, and by extension everyone. Or, they distribute it to no one, and everyone is using Linux and their code without a license, and hence illegally.
First, he claims that Linux is fine becuase SCO indemnified users. No, only customers of SCO linux. There's a big difference there.
Not that big of a difference because there is only 1 way to indemnify SCO linux users.... License Linux including their code to their customers under the GPL.
Here is why.
If the SCO code in Linux is not licensed to their customers under the GPL. Then, those customers cannot use SCO Linux because they are not licensed to use the rest of the Linux code because that code is licensed under the GPL.
Basically, what it comes down to for SCO is that either they have licensed the SCO code in Linux to their customers under the GPL, and by extension everyone. Or, they have not, and therefore no one is licensed to use Linux. There is no middle ground where some are licensed under a different license, and some have no license at all.
So while we couldn't have the protection that the GPL offers today, we would have BSD-like Free Software (you don't deny that the BSDs are FS/OSS?) plus the right to re-distribute, change or disassemble any binaries anybody might publish.
Which would be a great incentive for people to do everything they can to keep source code, and ideas secret. Obfuscate binaries to make them difficult to disassemble. It could very easily result in less source code availability.
Dastardly
Re:Is Open Source the answer?
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 1
I read the NDA posted earlier, and a potential grey area could be just saying where the code was in Linux. Would it violate the NDA to say "Take a look at lines 30-40 of pci.c"?
and a drop the size of a pin head will kill an adult male...i could be wrong though..maby its just the most poisonous element...however, either way your basically dead.
Actually, plutonium is very insoluble. Very little makes it through the stomach and intestine walls.
If you had 10 nuke plants for California, then if one goes down it's rolling blackout time.
Actually, that is true now. Look at when rolling blackouts were happening in California, and then look at when a San Onofre reactor was down for maintenance, then down due to a turbine being damaged. At something like 1700MW, there would have been no energy crisis and no rolling blackouts had it not broken. Yet, for some reason no a single reporter or politician seemed to correlate the reactor being down with the power crisis.
If we had some way of safely launching the waste into the sun, I would be all for nuclear power generation. But the way it is, we have literally thousands of tons of hot waste sitting around in pools of water, waiting for a place to put it. And noone wants to take care of it. It's the "hot" potato that noone wants to end up with.
Actually, one of the best ideas I saw was to deep core drill a hole in the ocean bed near a subduction zone. You drill a hole 4 km into the sea floor, and dump the cannisters into the hole about 10m apart filling the space between with the sediment you drilled out. You stop dropping cannisters at about 1km. and fill the rest back up. Simulations showed that even if the cannisters completely degraded the material might seep a few meters into the surrounding sediment.
The nice thing here is you don't have to worry about 10,000 year safety life. In 10,000 years, the stuff ends up melted into the mantle.
This concept got shot down in favor of Yucca Mountain. Probably having to do with putting nuclear waste on ships. On the other hand the ocean can surely absorb a certain amount of waste with little effect. So, you minimize the amount of waste on the water at a time in order to minimize the consequences of an accident. Put the waste in containers that will survive sinking, and have features to ease recovery and risk should be limited.
This triggered a thought. So, you sign an NDA that says I will not reveal any SCO source code that is shown to me. Then, leave and show the Linux source code that is a copy of SCO's source code. Have you busted the NDA?
Let's say you can't do the above. So, instead you go out and find a source for the exact same code that is not SCO or Linux, say BSD or a textbook. Can the NDA really enjoin you from showing that code and saying code exactly like this was shown to me by SCO?
I thought Linus transferred the copyright on the Linux Kernel to the Free Software Foundation, so the FSF would handle GPL infringement. Wouldn't that make Linus a bad target? Shouldn't the FSF be the target of a lawsuit?
From a financial standpoint it makes very little sense for a programmer to write open source software, and almost no sense for a corporation [1]. OSS will always be around because it is driven by other considerations.
I disagree. It only makes no sense for a software corporation to develop open source software. It makes a lot of financial sense for a non-software corporation to make open source software. It can be a lot less expensive to pay your portion of the development costs of software by employing a programmer or two (who might double as administrators), than to pay for thousands of licenses.
In the end Open Source development gets paid for one way or another. The question is does it makes sense to pay for it in the form of license fees, salaries to a staff programmer, support fees to Red Hat, or bundled in a hardware purchase. The point of Open Source is to ditch the sales, marketing, profit margin... of a for profit software company and turn it into savings for your company.
Which is a really weird one to use since most people have never seen an Olympic sized swimming pool except on TV. At least based on the number of people I hear say, "Is that an Olympic sized pool?" when walking up to a 25 yard pool.
Dastardly
Re:The situation's aren't comparable.
on
RIAA vs The Economy
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
P2P is distributing the RIAA's member's works for free to anyone that requests them. You CANNOT compete with someone taking YOUR PRODUCT and giving it away for free.
Hmmm... The RIAA seemed to do pretty good with cassettes that let you copy their product and give it to some one else.
CD burners have been available longer than P2P and don't seem to have hurt them much.
Oh, and the movie industry seems to do allright with video tapes.
The PC game industry seems to have done pretty good against people copying games and giving them away.
People are taking the RIAA's property and giving it away for free without permission, there is no way around this fact, no matter HOW you try and justify it.
Correct. But, as the cases above show it is possible to compete with very inexpensive. Oh, and just like the other cases of this same thing it is not free. Just very inexpensive. The cases mentioned above you still payed for media. With P2P you pay for your internet connection.
There is no justification for stealing, the problem is that a disruptive technology has entered the marketplace, and rather than embrace it as the opportunity it presents RIAA members have decided to try to put the genie back in the bottle. There attempts at embracing the technology have been feeble due to infighting (two subscription services that couldn't share catalogs). Not presenting a product that the consumer wants (subscription services only allow you to play music on your computer). Pricing that was unacceptable $10 a month whether you download music or not.
In the end, it appears Apple may save the music industry from itself by providing the product that people want, at a reasonable price, legally.
It isn't quite that simple. The problem comes if you want to distribute an application with a mysql backend. Because not only is mysql GPL, but the ODBC and JDBC connectors are also GPL. Which means your application has to be GPL, otherwise you have to pay Mysql AB for the license that let's you distribute a closed source application with a MySQL backend.
They still (in the current moment) would require a lot of development effort to get it to that point. All the different pieces are there, but that doesn't mean it works. I mean, I could build about 5 computers from the parts I have in my closet. It doesn't mean I have a 5 node cluster:)
Absolutely correct, but a lot of the trick to getting an Open Source project started is the ability to get something that sort of works out there. And, if the pieces exist it doesn't take as much effort to get an initial release together. Although this situation woudl require all open source.
That is one factor that can prevent certain projects from being Open Source. If a project requires many man months to get something that compiles and does something useful into the world, then it is difficult to get developers and keep them motivated. Generally, this requires some corporate backing to pay people to get things to the point where an Open Source project can take over. This is part of the reason there are so many stagnant open source projects (see sourceforge) they never got to the point of releasing something that was compiled and did somethign useful.
Just wanted to disagree with you on this one point. I think Content Management is where an open source solution could happen, or possibly a closed source solution on top of open source software. A lot of the pieces already exist, but need to be assembled into a useable framework.
I can tell you with much certainty, but not 100% that trying to secure VC for something like this would be a pipe dream. VC firms aren't going to look at the burn-rate for how long it takes to get the product done, and the expected revenues from support and laugh.
I think you typed this a little quick. So, I will try to reinterpret. You are saying that VC's would laugh at getting an investment to develop a product as Open Source, then profit from support would laugh. I agree. I was thinking more along the lines of providing large scale support for an already mostly developed open source product such as the example of Postgres we have been using. So, the initial investment would be to get through training, and get the first few support/consulting contracts.
And, my mistake I was also using the term VC incorrectly to encompass Angel investors as well.
(How ironic is that, easier to build a device and market it than it is to start a freaking software company?)
Well, in terms of Open Source business models I think the customization, support, and development of applications to run with all that database, application server, web server, and other infrastructure is the way to go.
If a proprietary company goes under, it files for bankruptcy and it's assetts are auctioned off. Including IP. Nothing is stopping you, or another company, from buying it.
I was thinking more along the lines of a company saying, "I don't want to support this anymore because it isn't worth it." I am sure there is a price where they will support it, but that price could be prohibitive because of resource choices that company makes. i.e. I get a ROI of 60% by spending that money on this product, therefore if I am going to use that money to support you I want a 60% ROI, making the cost prohibitive.
Not really a big deal since trying to get some one to support something that is abandoned but the source available may not be as costly, but still may be prohibitive.
The difference is, after initial development, you have capital from sales to support service agreements.
Where did the money for initial development come from??? I think we agree without knowing it. The state of Postgres, Inc. right now doesn't give it a chance at providing Oracle, Inc. level support. I am just saying that this has little to do with open source vs closed source aside from the issue of VCs described below.
Where as offering shitty support for free, while building capital, then offering it after your people are adequately trained, works. That's the major difference between a closed-source startup and an open-source startup.
No, the major difference is that with closed source the initial investment goes to making the software. In open source the initial investment goes towards training the support staff. I have no idea whether the difficulty of convincing a VC to make an initial investment that gets used to train and pay support staff vs getting a VC to provide initial investment to pay programmers to create a closed source product is different. But, is this problem really an Open Source problem, or a VC problem?
Slashdot Mirror
Also if the code SCO owns is in the Linux kernel, and they sell it, aren't they required to distribute it under the GPL for free?
Under the GPL, yes. Free, no. Of course the first person to get the code can redistribute it at any price they want under the GPL.
Dastardly
Does anybody have info as to how expensive this Linux licensing is going to be? It's quite possible that many companies may just pay the fee instead of going through the time, effort, cost and liability of doing otherwise. It's sad to see SCO actually get rewarded for how they're conducting themselves...
Paying the fee actually opens companies to liability from Linux developers. Because now they have received a copy of Linux code in violation of the GPL because whoever they got their Linux from could not have given it to them. Since, they did not receive the code in accordance with the GPL, they have no license for the code whatsoever and standard copyright law applies giving them no rights with regards to Linux.
So, Linux developers can sue, and win, because by paying the fee to SCO they acknowledge that they have kowingly received Linux in violation of the GPL, and have no license to do anything with said software. Are developers likely to sue linux customers... No, they will do everything they can not to, but it may come down to that to at least prevent SCO from hijacking Linux.
IANAL
Dastardly
You do not understand the arrogance of McBride and his brethren. He has claimed in interviews that all of Linux, and every other UNIX clone, is a derivative of UNIX, whether the code was developed from scratch or not. He even hinted that Windows was not immune to this, that the license bought by Microsoft did not protect them from being sued for violating SCO rights concerning UNIX.
Except the people who developed most of Linux did not sign a contract stating that SCO owned their code. Therefore, there code can only be distirbuted under the GPL. There are only two choices SCO has if their code is in Linux.
1) SCO licenses the code under the GPL.
2) SCO does not license the code under the GPL and all of Linux is in violation of either SCO's IP or Linux developers IP and therefore cannot be distributed or used at all.
Note, the idiots who say the GPL is a distribution license are missing an important point. Just because you happen to have the code now, doesn't mean it was legally distributed to you. If SCO's code is in the kernel, either you received the kernel illegally according to the GPL or you received the kernel illegally according to SCO.
Basically, SCO doesn't seem to realize that by claiming copyright infringement and requiring a license fee to be paid to them, they are going for a scorched earth policy with Linux. No one should pay SCO to license their Linux code because it will not protect them at all, and actually open the purchasers to litigation for illegally using all the other code in Linux.
Maybe SCO is hoping that instead of causing all recent Linux kernels to become illegal Linux developers will let this go, but I doubt that will happen.
Dastardly
I think you are hitting on a subtle and possibly very important point. Assume hypothetically that SCO is correct in its assertions. I have a kernel that I bought from Redhat. This redistribution by RH would then turn out to have been illegal. But I have the kernel, and the GPL has no effect on me if I use it and don't redistribute, so the GPL can't stop me from using the kernel. But it would be illegal to use the proprietary code "stolen" from SCO. A license from SCO would allow me to run the kernel, but not redistribute it, because that would violate the GPL. I think if SCO's assertions were valid, then they could indeed sell licenses that would allow people to use kernels they already have.
No, they can't sell licenses. For a couple reasons. Assuming SCO is right and decides to try and license their code, you received your RedHat kernel illegally because Redhat couldn't have distributed it to you under the GPL. Let's say that problem is overlooked. Now your saying that SCO could still license their code to you. This is false as well, becuase the SCO code in Linux requires Linux in order to be functional. Therefore, SCO cannot distribute it under any license, but the GPL, even as a patch. Just because you happen to already have a copy doesn't mean SCO is not distributing the code. It would still be considered distribution.
Basically, the error you are making is that just because you have already have a copy of the code means that there is no distribution involved in licensing the SCO code. But, it doesn't work that way.
IANAL
Dastardly
Anyone who likes the GPL (in case you can't tell, I don't) should hope this case is not the test case to prove its validity. If there are 2 conflicting liscenses, and one guy says "I don't care what you do with yours, or how you combine it with mine, all I want is you to pay me if you use mine", and the other guy says "someone somewhere combined the two, and so now my liscense applies to both", who do you think a judge will agree with?
Actually, neither and both. A judge would say that SCO can license their code anyway they want, and so can the Linux developers. The fact that some one somewhere combined code with conflicting licenses means that the combined code licensed to no one. Not even those that pay SCO.
IANAL
Dastardly
If SCO is right (and they aren't) about SCO IP being in the kernel, the most they could do was collect license fees from infected versions of te kernel. Newer (and SCO IP free versions) of the kernel would be beyond their touch. In effect, they wouldn't be collecting licenses on the GPL'ed kernel, but on the ir IP that was included against their will.
They can't charge a license fee. Period. There is only one way to distribute Linux with your own source code as SCO has done. And, that way is to license your code under the GPL. You cannot distribute Linux with your code under a different license because then you have no license for all the other code in Linux.
SCO has only two choices with regard to their code in Linux. License it under the GPL, and still get a settlement from IBM for including the code in Linux against contract. Or, get an injunction against all kernels with their code making those kernels at least undistributable, and probably unusable. Then, the kernel developers will have to write out the code to get a distributable new kernel.
Charging a license fee is NOT an option for SCO.
Dastardly
No no no. The GPL issue is with SCO distributing the GPL'd code, not with the end user's use of the software. The GPL has exactly zero restrictions on use of software, only on its distribution. They have tainted intellectual property (if such a thing is anything more than a legal hallucination), but they do not have stolen property.
But, if a portion of the code belongs to SCO, then SCO has to distribute the Linux under the GPL. If SCO did not distribute the code according to the GPL, then the users of that code cannot use it. Because either/and:
1) They are not licensed to use SCO's code.
2) SCO is not licensed to Distribute Linux wth SCO's code because they did not distribute under GPL.
There are only two choices: SCO's code is distributed in Linux according to the GPL. Or, SCO's code is not GPL's and therefore Linux distributed with SCO's code is illegally distributed because the Linux code requires GPL to distribute.
An interesting implication here is that SCO cannot get royalties for their code in Linux. They can get judgements/settlements for copyright violation, but if they don't want their code GPL'd then it cannot be in Linux. Kernel hackers will have to remove the code and all versions with SCO code will have to be removed. The GPL does not allow SCO to license their code under a different license.
Note, this is not relevant to the IBM case. If IBM put the code in Lnux in violation of their license they are still on the hook., whether SCO chooses to leave the code GPL'd in the future, or force it to be removed is a decision SCO can make independent of the IBM results.
IANAL
Dastardly
Potentially, although I still don't think that this situation gets all linux users/distros out of the woods. In other words, SCO might be on the hook to Linus (who owns copyright on the kernel), but Red Hat et al might be on the hook for distributing SCO's code - and they don't have any copyrights to fight back with (well, none that matter here). And I don't know how that will shake out - I don't know for sure that they cancel. Basically we have a Mexican standoff, but Red Hat doesn't have a gun. The question might be how far Linus would go to protect them.
But, the point is that either everyone is off the hook or no one is. SCO cannot pick and choose who is licensed to use their code and who isn't because they can only distribute Linux code with modifications under the GPL. So, either they distribute it to their customers under the GPL, and by extension everyone. Or, they distribute it to no one, and everyone is using Linux and their code without a license, and hence illegally.
IANAL
Dastardly
First, he claims that Linux is fine becuase SCO indemnified users. No, only customers of SCO linux. There's a big difference there.
Not that big of a difference because there is only 1 way to indemnify SCO linux users.... License Linux including their code to their customers under the GPL.
Here is why.
If the SCO code in Linux is not licensed to their customers under the GPL. Then, those customers cannot use SCO Linux because they are not licensed to use the rest of the Linux code because that code is licensed under the GPL.
Basically, what it comes down to for SCO is that either they have licensed the SCO code in Linux to their customers under the GPL, and by extension everyone. Or, they have not, and therefore no one is licensed to use Linux. There is no middle ground where some are licensed under a different license, and some have no license at all.
Assumption: The GPL is upheld as written.
IANAL
Dastardly
So while we couldn't have the protection that the GPL offers today, we would have BSD-like Free Software (you don't deny that the BSDs are FS/OSS?) plus the right to re-distribute, change or disassemble any binaries anybody might publish.
Which would be a great incentive for people to do everything they can to keep source code, and ideas secret. Obfuscate binaries to make them difficult to disassemble. It could very easily result in less source code availability.
Dastardly
I read the NDA posted earlier, and a potential grey area could be just saying where the code was in Linux. Would it violate the NDA to say "Take a look at lines 30-40 of pci.c"?
Dastardly
and a drop the size of a pin head will kill an adult male...i could be wrong though..maby its just the most poisonous element...however, either way your basically dead.
Actually, plutonium is very insoluble. Very little makes it through the stomach and intestine walls.
If you had 10 nuke plants for California, then if one goes down it's rolling blackout time.
Actually, that is true now. Look at when rolling blackouts were happening in California, and then look at when a San Onofre reactor was down for maintenance, then down due to a turbine being damaged. At something like 1700MW, there would have been no energy crisis and no rolling blackouts had it not broken. Yet, for some reason no a single reporter or politician seemed to correlate the reactor being down with the power crisis.
Dastardly
If we had some way of safely launching the waste into the sun, I would be all for nuclear power generation. But the way it is, we have literally thousands of tons of hot waste sitting around in pools of water, waiting for a place to put it. And noone wants to take care of it. It's the "hot" potato that noone wants to end up with.
Actually, one of the best ideas I saw was to deep core drill a hole in the ocean bed near a subduction zone. You drill a hole 4 km into the sea floor, and dump the cannisters into the hole about 10m apart filling the space between with the sediment you drilled out. You stop dropping cannisters at about 1km. and fill the rest back up. Simulations showed that even if the cannisters completely degraded the material might seep a few meters into the surrounding sediment.
The nice thing here is you don't have to worry about 10,000 year safety life. In 10,000 years, the stuff ends up melted into the mantle.
This concept got shot down in favor of Yucca Mountain. Probably having to do with putting nuclear waste on ships. On the other hand the ocean can surely absorb a certain amount of waste with little effect. So, you minimize the amount of waste on the water at a time in order to minimize the consequences of an accident. Put the waste in containers that will survive sinking, and have features to ease recovery and risk should be limited.
Dastardly
Dastardly
This triggered a thought. So, you sign an NDA that says I will not reveal any SCO source code that is shown to me. Then, leave and show the Linux source code that is a copy of SCO's source code. Have you busted the NDA?
Let's say you can't do the above. So, instead you go out and find a source for the exact same code that is not SCO or Linux, say BSD or a textbook. Can the NDA really enjoin you from showing that code and saying code exactly like this was shown to me by SCO?
Dastardly
I thought Linus transferred the copyright on the Linux Kernel to the Free Software Foundation, so the FSF would handle GPL infringement. Wouldn't that make Linus a bad target? Shouldn't the FSF be the target of a lawsuit?
From a financial standpoint it makes very little sense for a programmer to write open source software, and almost no sense for a corporation [1]. OSS will always be around because it is driven by other considerations.
I disagree. It only makes no sense for a software corporation to develop open source software. It makes a lot of financial sense for a non-software corporation to make open source software. It can be a lot less expensive to pay your portion of the development costs of software by employing a programmer or two (who might double as administrators), than to pay for thousands of licenses.
In the end Open Source development gets paid for one way or another. The question is does it makes sense to pay for it in the form of license fees, salaries to a staff programmer, support fees to Red Hat, or bundled in a hardware purchase. The point of Open Source is to ditch the sales, marketing, profit margin... of a for profit software company and turn it into savings for your company.
Dastardly
Length of an Olympic-sized swimming pool
Which is a really weird one to use since most people have never seen an Olympic sized swimming pool except on TV. At least based on the number of people I hear say, "Is that an Olympic sized pool?" when walking up to a 25 yard pool.
Dastardly
P2P is distributing the RIAA's member's works for free to anyone that requests them. You CANNOT compete with someone taking YOUR PRODUCT and giving it away for free.
Hmmm... The RIAA seemed to do pretty good with cassettes that let you copy their product and give it to some one else.
CD burners have been available longer than P2P and don't seem to have hurt them much.
Oh, and the movie industry seems to do allright with video tapes.
The PC game industry seems to have done pretty good against people copying games and giving them away.
People are taking the RIAA's property and giving it away for free without permission, there is no way around this fact, no matter HOW you try and justify it.
Correct. But, as the cases above show it is possible to compete with very inexpensive. Oh, and just like the other cases of this same thing it is not free. Just very inexpensive. The cases mentioned above you still payed for media. With P2P you pay for your internet connection.
There is no justification for stealing, the problem is that a disruptive technology has entered the marketplace, and rather than embrace it as the opportunity it presents RIAA members have decided to try to put the genie back in the bottle. There attempts at embracing the technology have been feeble due to infighting (two subscription services that couldn't share catalogs). Not presenting a product that the consumer wants (subscription services only allow you to play music on your computer). Pricing that was unacceptable $10 a month whether you download music or not.
In the end, it appears Apple may save the music industry from itself by providing the product that people want, at a reasonable price, legally.
isnt mysql $1000+ for commercial use?
No, it's GPL.
It isn't quite that simple. The problem comes if you want to distribute an application with a mysql backend. Because not only is mysql GPL, but the ODBC and JDBC connectors are also GPL. Which means your application has to be GPL, otherwise you have to pay Mysql AB for the license that let's you distribute a closed source application with a MySQL backend.
Read the licensing section on MySQL AB's site.
They still (in the current moment) would require a lot of development effort to get it to that point. All the different pieces are there, but that doesn't mean it works. I mean, I could build about 5 computers from the parts I have in my closet. It doesn't mean I have a 5 node cluster :)
Absolutely correct, but a lot of the trick to getting an Open Source project started is the ability to get something that sort of works out there. And, if the pieces exist it doesn't take as much effort to get an initial release together. Although this situation woudl require all open source.
That is one factor that can prevent certain projects from being Open Source. If a project requires many man months to get something that compiles and does something useful into the world, then it is difficult to get developers and keep them motivated. Generally, this requires some corporate backing to pay people to get things to the point where an Open Source project can take over. This is part of the reason there are so many stagnant open source projects (see sourceforge) they never got to the point of releasing something that was compiled and did somethign useful.
Dastardly
Content Management Systems
Just wanted to disagree with you on this one point. I think Content Management is where an open source solution could happen, or possibly a closed source solution on top of open source software. A lot of the pieces already exist, but need to be assembled into a useable framework.
Dastardly
I can tell you with much certainty, but not 100% that trying to secure VC for something like this would be a pipe dream. VC firms aren't going to look at the burn-rate for how long it takes to get the product done, and the expected revenues from support and laugh.
I think you typed this a little quick. So, I will try to reinterpret. You are saying that VC's would laugh at getting an investment to develop a product as Open Source, then profit from support would laugh. I agree. I was thinking more along the lines of providing large scale support for an already mostly developed open source product such as the example of Postgres we have been using. So, the initial investment would be to get through training, and get the first few support/consulting contracts.
And, my mistake I was also using the term VC incorrectly to encompass Angel investors as well.
(How ironic is that, easier to build a device and market it than it is to start a freaking software company?)
Well, in terms of Open Source business models I think the customization, support, and development of applications to run with all that database, application server, web server, and other infrastructure is the way to go.
Dastardly
If a proprietary company goes under, it files for bankruptcy and it's assetts are auctioned off. Including IP. Nothing is stopping you, or another company, from buying it.
I was thinking more along the lines of a company saying, "I don't want to support this anymore because it isn't worth it." I am sure there is a price where they will support it, but that price could be prohibitive because of resource choices that company makes. i.e. I get a ROI of 60% by spending that money on this product, therefore if I am going to use that money to support you I want a 60% ROI, making the cost prohibitive.
Not really a big deal since trying to get some one to support something that is abandoned but the source available may not be as costly, but still may be prohibitive.
Dastardly
The difference is, after initial development, you have capital from sales to support service agreements.
Where did the money for initial development come from??? I think we agree without knowing it. The state of Postgres, Inc. right now doesn't give it a chance at providing Oracle, Inc. level support. I am just saying that this has little to do with open source vs closed source aside from the issue of VCs described below.
Where as offering shitty support for free, while building capital, then offering it after your people are adequately trained, works. That's the major difference between a closed-source startup and an open-source startup.
No, the major difference is that with closed source the initial investment goes to making the software. In open source the initial investment goes towards training the support staff. I have no idea whether the difficulty of convincing a VC to make an initial investment that gets used to train and pay support staff vs getting a VC to provide initial investment to pay programmers to create a closed source product is different. But, is this problem really an Open Source problem, or a VC problem?
Dastardly