My point is that it seems like NuSphere did buy the right to use the trademarked name (MySQL). in this case they should have the right to register mysql.org.
I guess the problem is that NuSphere payed alot of cash and now have to be able to make it back (witch is kind of hard to do without charging for the software). Maybe they didn't understand the GPL?
After all the typical school PC hardware costs like ten times the school licenses (licenses to school are _alot_ cheaper than business licenses) of the microsoft software that they install on them.
Excause me, but this is just bullshit all the way.
"People complain day in day out on/. that the cost of music CD's are over priced and that they should sell for less. Software is overpriced!!!! It should be sold at the same cost as a music CD as it is to OEM's"
I'll tell you why...
There are houndreds of developers developing Office. Houndreds more making documentation. It takes several years between each version.
It takes half a year or so for an artist to make a record.
You don't think it is just a little more expensive to pay the people that makes the software?
Really? When why is it that all I get is "Application error" when I try to install OpenOffice (any version). Click away this window an I'm left with graphical errors all over my screen.
Don't look like quality for me...
Expensive? Have you ever looked at products from SUN, Oracle and others?
Try buy 512Mb to a sun enterprise server, that alone will cost you about 50 000 USD (thats right, you can buy a small house on the country-side for those small chips).
Microsofts products are quite cheap.
The reason why open source are ignored is because they are more expensive. Licensees and hardware are typically quite cheap if you compare it to the work force thats involved.
"Jollans also disagrees with Microsoft's argument that the GPL and intellectual property are incompatible. "That is a false argument," he said. "Both (open source and intellectual property) innovate in their own ways, and you can combine them in different ways. You can take the best of breed from both." "
I guess what he means here is that big companies like IBM uses intellectual property like trademarks while the individual looses all his rights to his own work.
The best of two worlds, free labour while you have a strong trademark.
So if I joe code is developing a piece of software, exactly how can I stop Redhat from selling it instead of me?
They will use another kind of intellectual property (trademark) at the same time they want all the normal people (developers like myself) to give our work away for free so they can sell it instead.
Yes it does. There is absolutely nothing that has created so much third-party (as in not-microsoft-employed individuals) wealth and entrepreneurship as microsofts products (like backoffice and others).
"Red Hat "proposed several ways where we would be a subcontractor" for the database effort, Batten said in an interview. Under all of the proposals, "they'd get most of the revenue" and control the product's brand name--terms Great Bridge found unacceptable. "
Redhat wanted to take Postgres, let the postgres people continue to develop it basically without payment while Redhat took all the money.
Do you think this is fair.
This is the biggest problem with open source, the individual becomes powerless compared to big companies since you don't own your work anymore but the companies use other kind of IPs like tademark.
Slashdot Mirror
"This approach would also lead to a world that's both awful and quite unlike anything we've ever seen in human history, however. "
Why on earth do you think a world where people are getting paid for their honest work would be awful?
Eh? I really think people should be free to determine for themself what they want or don't want. Thats not any of mine or your business.
If they don't want a TV or paying for shows, thats fine. It's up to them.
And it's up to the provider to make sure they are payed for their honest work.
Simple as that.
My point is that it seems like NuSphere did buy the right to use the trademarked name (MySQL). in this case they should have the right to register mysql.org.
One could wonder what exactly NuSphere payed mysql ab for?
Mysql AB don't seem to think that NuSphere has anymore rights than anyone else. But if that is the case, what is the point in paying them 2.5 MUSD?
I don't get it. You got assload of cash from progress, giving them the right to do the following:
"MySQL AB agreed to allow Progress to participate in the announcement that the MySQL server would be released under the GPL License. "
Okaaaay...
"Under the interim agreement, Progress was allowed certain use of the trademark, "
You mean I can't download the GPL'd MySQL and advertise that I sell support for the product? What rights are we talking about here?
"to sell and distribute MySQL under the GPL license "
What do you mean? They already have this right. They don't need to buy it.
"to sell hardcopy printed MySQL documentation. "
Can't hardly be worth 2.5 million USD.
I think some real answers would be a good thing. What did they really buy?
I guess the problem is that NuSphere payed alot of cash and now have to be able to make it back (witch is kind of hard to do without charging for the software). Maybe they didn't understand the GPL?
Outrageous prices?
Microsofts licenses doesn't costs much for school. And how the hell did they afford to pay for the hardware that costs ten times more or so?
"Why must a school system buy insanely expensive textbooks every few years? "
Textbooks aren't insainly expensive. Neither are the software licenses.
There is something seriously wrong with the administration and the financing.
We ARE paying taxes enough for this to work so blaim the polititians instead.
After all the typical school PC hardware costs like ten times the school licenses (licenses to school are _alot_ cheaper than business licenses) of the microsoft software that they install on them.
Excause me, but this is just bullshit all the way.
Did you really read the article?
MS didn't bully them at all, read it again to the end and you will see.
It isn't microsofts fault that the school doesn't have enough money and it sure isn't their reposibility to save money for the schools.
They are entitled to request money for their products just like anyone else in the world.
Are you going to bitch at Ford as well and request them to give away cars to schools for free?
"People complain day in day out on /. that the cost of music CD's are over priced and that they should sell for less. Software is overpriced!!!! It should be sold at the same cost as a music CD as it is to OEM's"
I'll tell you why...
There are houndreds of developers developing Office. Houndreds more making documentation. It takes several years between each version.
It takes half a year or so for an artist to make a record.
You don't think it is just a little more expensive to pay the people that makes the software?
Really? When why is it that all I get is "Application error" when I try to install OpenOffice (any version). Click away this window an I'm left with graphical errors all over my screen. Don't look like quality for me...
Expensive? Have you ever looked at products from SUN, Oracle and others?
Try buy 512Mb to a sun enterprise server, that alone will cost you about 50 000 USD (thats right, you can buy a small house on the country-side for those small chips).
Microsofts products are quite cheap.
The reason why open source are ignored is because they are more expensive. Licensees and hardware are typically quite cheap if you compare it to the work force thats involved.
"Jollans also disagrees with Microsoft's argument that the GPL and intellectual property are incompatible. "That is a false argument," he said. "Both (open source and intellectual property) innovate in their own ways, and you can combine them in different ways. You can take the best of breed from both." "
I guess what he means here is that big companies like IBM uses intellectual property like trademarks while the individual looses all his rights to his own work.
The best of two worlds, free labour while you have a strong trademark.
So if I joe code is developing a piece of software, exactly how can I stop Redhat from selling it instead of me?
They will use another kind of intellectual property (trademark) at the same time they want all the normal people (developers like myself) to give our work away for free so they can sell it instead.
Is this what you call ethical?
Everything. How many commercial applications for Linux are you aware of that isn't cloned right away and given away for free?
I don't think I know a single one.
Exactly, now compare that to the income of the common sourceforge developer. :)
Yeah, what a great idea!
Now they are just underpaid, they should instead use the GPL and give everything away for free.
And excellent method for generating wealth!
Did you read the article?
Yes it does. There is absolutely nothing that has created so much third-party (as in not-microsoft-employed individuals) wealth and entrepreneurship as microsofts products (like backoffice and others).
"but I still like to connect to Napster to get lesser-known (and not banned yet) songs."
Is it really that good that obvious criminals are the ones that posts stories?
Jesus I'm tired of this "they dont get it" and "we geeks know everything about economics" attitude.
There is no alternative business model. You have to charge for the use of the software, end of story.
Interview with the postgres people:
"Red Hat "proposed several ways where we would be a subcontractor" for the database effort, Batten said in an interview. Under all of the proposals, "they'd get most of the revenue" and control the product's brand name--terms Great Bridge found unacceptable. "
Redhat wanted to take Postgres, let the postgres people continue to develop it basically without payment while Redhat took all the money.
Do you think this is fair.
This is the biggest problem with open source, the individual becomes powerless compared to big companies since you don't own your work anymore but the companies use other kind of IPs like tademark.
Sucks!
Redhat and other big companies who goes to market with Linux and open source has strong Trademarks.
If only the small person who develops the software that does so without claiming IP rights over it. The big companies still use IP.
Redhat and IBM should skip their Tedemarks and PLAY BY THE SAME RULES AS US.
So now only big companies like Redhat should be able to charge for their work and the rest (us) should not own our own products so they can sell it.
How nice...
If Redhat is against IP they SHOULD NOT have trademarks on "Redhat" and other words to use against their competitors.