John Naughton, author of the excellent "Brief History of the Future" wrote an interesting article about the costs of Windows versus the cost of Linux on the desktop. He's definitely not an unbiased observer (no pun intended), but his article has real numbers in it.
But to understand what is happening in business, you have to see that much of what makes Windows attractive on the home market is anathema to the desktop market.
AAAARGH! That should read... is anathema to the business market
There are two types of desktop. There's the desktop in business, where "all types of multimedia" and games are not important. In fact on the business desktop, I think Linux's lack of games will be seen as an advantage by the suits. There's also the home desktop, where of course Microsoft will continue to hold sway for now. But to understand what is happening in business, you have to see that much of what makes Windows attractive on the home market is anathema to the desktop market.
This is just another testimonial for Knoppix. Quite apart from all the other nice things people are saying about it, when I plug in my NEX IIe MP3 player, Knoppix recognizes it straightaway and places a link to its filesystem on the desktop!
"Can't afford anything else"? "Third world nation"? What the fuck are you talking about?
Re:Open Source goes Communist
on
XFree86 Politics
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Wow, so that's the end of Linux then, is it? Microsoft won in the end. Who'd have thought it?
What nonsense! This is Open Source. KP can create a fork if he wishes. Eventually, either his version will win out, or the original XFree86 will win out, or both will prove to be successful projects, or they'll find some rapprochement and re-merge the projects.
It turns out that it doesn't really matter. The net result will be that in 2004, there will be a better X for Linux than in 2003. And in 2005 X on Linux will be still better. Had there been no fork, the same would have happened. This is just how Open Source / Free Software works.
The reason I ask is because of this (emphasis mine):
2. That you are not allowed to combine or distribute the Software with other software that is licensed under terms that seek to require that the Software (or any intellectual property in it) be provided in source code form, licensed to others to allow the creation or distribution of derivative works, or distributed without charge.
This is significantly different to the GPL, and important, I think. This talks about prohibiting distribution with GPLed software. Which means that you couldn't even put your software on the same CD as GPLed software. It might also have implications for downloading arrangements. This looks like an attempt to cloud the issue of "linking" - under the GPL this explicitly does not apply to distribution on the same media.
There are lots of documents on the Free Software Foundation site. Don't be put off if some of the documents are not terribly new; the ideas are still valid.
This explanation of the (first version of) the Open Source Definition compares some licences.
No it doesn't. That tells you how many people using web browsers access Google from Windows boxes. What has that to do with the number of developers who are developing for Windows or Linux?
For most MS Office users, the re-training costs will be negligible, so long as they are sensible in the way the desktop is set up. The issue of spending money on licences versus spending it on training is interesting. Which would you rather do? Spend money on training Texans and broaden their skill base, or spend money on MS's shareholders? I know which I would prefer if it was up to me.
Presumably you mean that "Unix" brought this on itself? I want to be clear about this: you're claiming that an operating system brought a lawsuit on itself? Does Hugh Loebner know about this?
I've never read anyone here saying that Linux is perfect. Perhaps you could provide a link?
Plenty of people here claim that Linux is better than Windows, but that was trivially proven by Code Red and Nimda. Surely no computing professional would dispute that?
I've never seen SCO Unix (is that what it's called) anywhere. I wonder if it would be better for our community to kill SCO with kindness? I'm considering writing to SCO (in my own name) asking for information on their products. I won't put anything in my letter about a protest or about this issue at all. I will just ask them to send me some details. I wonder what the effect of hundreds of thousands of people doing this would be. At the very least it might make it difficult for them to identify real would-be customers.
Is this legal? Is it a good idea? Would it have any effect at all?
So, if one employee gives the program to another, he must do so under the GPL. Which means granting the reciever full permission to give further copies to whoever he wants.
The problem with your analysis is here. (Actually, there are two problems; the other one is that you are not a lawyer, anymore than I am). The question of the employees' contracts is important. As contracted employees, they are not independent entities. So the software is not being "distributed" when it's passed from the company to the employees.
I think the Adobe comparison is bogus; with the GPL you can make multiple copies for your own use; with a commercial licence typically you can't.
Why can't this happen? Because the assumption that "one corporation is a single entity for purposes of the GPL" is incorrect. A company cannot modify a GPL program for "internal use only", unless they're willing to take the risk that a random employee will post it to USENET's comp.source, and they'll have no legal recourse.
IANAL, but I don't think the basis for your analysis is correct. If an organization modifies some GPLed software and hands a copy to an employee to work with, the employee does not have the rights to distribute the software. I don't believe that the organization installing the SW on the employee's PC counts as distribution in the sense that the GPL means. As an employee with a contract, they are just a part of the organization - they're not an independent entity in this situation. This answer which you cited last week seems pretty clear to me.
The GPL states explicitly that it's not possible under the terms of the licence to restrict the use of the SW. You're not allowed say that the software is not to be used by the military or peace campaigners or Al Qaeda or anyone else.
Well it is the issue that the poster was asking about (DNSs etc).
As to your specific point, I'm afraid I don't know much about the process of executing Java programs. But what you describe sounds enough like the process of dynamic linking to make me think that the GPL still applies: if you want to make a program which needs that GPLed JAR to work (whether at "compile" time or at run-time), then you have to GPL your program.
I think the bundling point is bogus. The GPL specifically addresses the issue of distribution on the same media, and that is not treated the same as linking.
Slashdot Mirror
John Naughton, author of the excellent "Brief History of the Future" wrote an interesting article about the costs of Windows versus the cost of Linux on the desktop. He's definitely not an unbiased observer (no pun intended), but his article has real numbers in it.
AAAARGH! That should read
There are two types of desktop. There's the desktop in business, where "all types of multimedia" and games are not important. In fact on the business desktop, I think Linux's lack of games will be seen as an advantage by the suits. There's also the home desktop, where of course Microsoft will continue to hold sway for now. But to understand what is happening in business, you have to see that much of what makes Windows attractive on the home market is anathema to the desktop market.
Yep. That's the one you want. The 21st March -EN version had German as the default language!
This is just another testimonial for Knoppix. Quite apart from all the other nice things people are saying about it, when I plug in my NEX IIe MP3 player, Knoppix recognizes it straightaway and places a link to its filesystem on the desktop!
"Can't afford anything else"? "Third world nation"? What the fuck are you talking about?
Wow, so that's the end of Linux then, is it? Microsoft won in the end. Who'd have thought it?
What nonsense! This is Open Source. KP can create a fork if he wishes. Eventually, either his version will win out, or the original XFree86 will win out, or both will prove to be successful projects, or they'll find some rapprochement and re-merge the projects.
It turns out that it doesn't really matter. The net result will be that in 2004, there will be a better X for Linux than in 2003. And in 2005 X on Linux will be still better. Had there been no fork, the same would have happened. This is just how Open Source / Free Software works.
This is significantly different to the GPL, and important, I think. This talks about prohibiting distribution with GPLed software. Which means that you couldn't even put your software on the same CD as GPLed software. It might also have implications for downloading arrangements. This looks like an attempt to cloud the issue of "linking" - under the GPL this explicitly does not apply to distribution on the same media.
No it doesn't. That tells you how many people using web browsers access Google from Windows boxes. What has that to do with the number of developers who are developing for Windows or Linux?
For most MS Office users, the re-training costs will be negligible, so long as they are sensible in the way the desktop is set up. The issue of spending money on licences versus spending it on training is interesting. Which would you rather do? Spend money on training Texans and broaden their skill base, or spend money on MS's shareholders? I know which I would prefer if it was up to me.
Read ESR's analysis! Most of what SCO wants to claim credit for is not even in SCO Unix. Their complaint is preposterous.
DISCLAIMER: I am a SUSE (8.1) user, but I've never tried this.
What you do is to download their Live Evaluation CD. You then use that to download the rest via ftp. The link is to version 8.1.
Why not just use a graphical login? And you called the previous poster "inexperienced". Unbelievable!
Presumably you mean that "Unix" brought this on itself? I want to be clear about this: you're claiming that an operating system brought a lawsuit on itself? Does Hugh Loebner know about this?
I've never read anyone here saying that Linux is perfect. Perhaps you could provide a link?
Plenty of people here claim that Linux is better than Windows, but that was trivially proven by Code Red and Nimda. Surely no computing professional would dispute that?
Ugh! I worded that badly. I meant I've never seen it running. I'm 39 years old!
Why? What has SCO's product in the early 90s got to do with this issue?
I've never seen SCO Unix (is that what it's called) anywhere. I wonder if it would be better for our community to kill SCO with kindness? I'm considering writing to SCO (in my own name) asking for information on their products. I won't put anything in my letter about a protest or about this issue at all. I will just ask them to send me some details. I wonder what the effect of hundreds of thousands of people doing this would be. At the very least it might make it difficult for them to identify real would-be customers.
Is this legal? Is it a good idea? Would it have any effect at all?
You know, you could read the article. It's just an LED.
The problem with your analysis is here. (Actually, there are two problems; the other one is that you are not a lawyer, anymore than I am). The question of the employees' contracts is important. As contracted employees, they are not independent entities. So the software is not being "distributed" when it's passed from the company to the employees.
I think the Adobe comparison is bogus; with the GPL you can make multiple copies for your own use; with a commercial licence typically you can't.
IANAL, but I don't think the basis for your analysis is correct. If an organization modifies some GPLed software and hands a copy to an employee to work with, the employee does not have the rights to distribute the software. I don't believe that the organization installing the SW on the employee's PC counts as distribution in the sense that the GPL means. As an employee with a contract, they are just a part of the organization - they're not an independent entity in this situation. This answer which you cited last week seems pretty clear to me.
The GPL states explicitly that it's not possible under the terms of the licence to restrict the use of the SW. You're not allowed say that the software is not to be used by the military or peace campaigners or Al Qaeda or anyone else.
"Just reply to this message and we'll send you the password required to delete it."
Well it is the issue that the poster was asking about (DNSs etc).
As to your specific point, I'm afraid I don't know much about the process of executing Java programs. But what you describe sounds enough like the process of dynamic linking to make me think that the GPL still applies: if you want to make a program which needs that GPLed JAR to work (whether at "compile" time or at run-time), then you have to GPL your program.
I think the bundling point is bogus. The GPL specifically addresses the issue of distribution on the same media, and that is not treated the same as linking.