"Stop living in the Slashdot bubble - most people don't know that NetWare is a derivative of Unix, and even more people don't know what NetWare *is*."
Um, dude, NetWare is definately not a UNIX derivative. (Though at one time, you could run NetWare under UNIX. Remember UNIXWare?) They did steal a lot of low-end business from UNIX vendors, especially at the low-end. My comment was meant as a joke. (Who'da thunk it would be modded "Informative"?)
Cnet snippet: "As customers go from Unix to Linux, Cornett said, SCO's business is falling off at twice the pace of other software, like Novell's NetWare, a Unix derivative."
Holy crap! NetWare is a UNIX derivative! Now there's one outta left field!;)
Why should Sun push this functionality into Linux?? Open sourcing Solaris doesn't mean that Sun is going to put cool Solaris features into Linux, but rather that...they are going to open the source. They don't have to touch Linux with a ten foot clown pole if they don't want to, and probably won't. They have their own OS already, why press for another.
I'll answer that! Because they can't Open Source Solaris totally, for it is a System V UNIX derivative. SCO is correct that they own this code. Sun licensed it, but cannot open source it. (Hint: Read The Fine Article.;)
Now, with that said, where would you put it? Linux? BSD? Or maybe a completely rewritten product called OpenSolaris? (I prefer Sol as a product name...) They own the frosting (at least I suspect they will when the SCO/IBM dust settles...). They just don't own the cake!
You know, I just had the thought that, after IBM disembowels SCO at trial and the stock tanks, Darl and company may very well sell "do whatever you want with it" licenses to make a little money on the side before the Feds come looking for him. Then you'd be right. OpenSolaris all the way, baby...
You haven't been following the case, have you? Their latest argument is that everything in every OS derived from UNIX is theirs.
Here, let me quote the parent:
"While Sun may not be able to open source Solaris due to SCO license restrictions, as soon as a judge declares that IBM enhancements to AIX are not the property of SCO, Sun can roll whatever "high-end Solaris" code they have into Linux."
Whether or not you read the article is up to you, but please read the posts you reply to...
Sun can roll whatever "high-end Solaris" code they have into Linux.
Why bother, when it's already in Solaris?
Because the stated goal was to Open Source Solaris... Without that, this whole exercise is meaningless.
While bolting on Solaris functionality to Linux would be a formidable task, it would also put Sun squarely in the middle of Linux development as a strong Linux consulting and implementation partner. Pretty cool way to beef up your Linux "street cred" if you ask me...
Have you any clue as to how many years more advanced than Linux Solaris is at the high end?
Agreed, but how much of that "high-end Solaris" is under SCO license restrictions? (None, or it would be in SCO's products.) While Sun may not be able to open source Solaris due to SCO license restrictions, as soon as a judge declares that IBM enhancements to AIX are not the property of SCO, Sun can roll whatever "high-end Solaris" code they have into Linux. This would have the added benefit of destroying whatever is left of SCO.
that isn't helpful. The netgear has port 80 open for administrative purposes. The problem is that if you put in the super/password (or post patch superman/21241036) user/pass combo, even if you have changed from the default admin/password, you get access. It's a backdoor into the admin screens.
If the admin interface is active on the external interface (don't care if there's a backdoor account or not) and cannot be disabled, the device is broken. Beat the engineer, preferably with the device in question.
I recently purchased a Netgear WGT624 v2 so I could have wi-fi at home for my laptop. Does anyone know if this FW/Router also suffers from the same problem?
Why don't you port scan the external interface? If you get a hot port, you're in trouble...
Like if I submit a fix/enchancement to MySQL in the GPL version, can they as the 'owners' put that in their commercial license which their customers can release without the source code?
Assuming your fixes are GPL, they cannot put your changes in the commercial version without first negotiating a separate license from you.
Then I will sign-off with the idea (certainly not the first one to come up with this...) that the law as it is currently written is inherently contradictory in this area (First Sale doctrine, tangible goods, etc.). I found it quite amusing that the law you quote explicitly states that the tax applies to tangible property, then defines software as belonging to that group! Software is the manifestation of an idea. The ones and zeros on media is merely the respresentation of that idea. But I guess you could say we can "see" those ones and zeros I guess! I still maintain that a licence is not tangible.
"TAX, SALES OR USE - Any tax levied on, with respect to, or measured by, sales, receipts from sales, purchases, storage, or use of tangible personal property. 4 USC"
You proved my point for me... IP is not tangible property. As I said before, you might charge me sales tax for the media, but you can't change me sales tax for the license because, as you said, sales tax only applies to tangible goods.
Ask MS if, when you buy a copy of Office at CompUSA, you are buying a license to use the product. The answer is "Yes". Ask them if you are buying the media. Again, the answer is "Yes". Ask them if you can buy the media apart from the license. One more time... "Yes" (for about $15, if I recall). So why are you paying sales tax on the total "sale" if the only portion legally taxable is the media?
Or flip it around... Buy just a license from a vendor. You know what I mean, it's just a piece of paper that states I'm licenced for x number of copies of a product. Yup, you pay sales tax on the total when the only physical "goods" you receive is a piece of paper, which isn't a license but merely a proof of license. (They are NOT the same!) The paper is just a document describing the contract you are a party to, but you pay sales tax on the total amount none-the-less...
OK, here is my angle... I will do anything I see fit with my purchased software product (with respect to copyright law, of course). I will legally ignore all licensing restrictions. I will move the software to any machine I like. I will sell the used product if I care to. I can do any of this without fear of running afoul of the law. Why? Because I do not license the product, I buy it! Thanks to the First Sale Doctrine, I do not have to accept any restrictions of my rights. And if I have to prove my point in a court of law, state governments will have to support my view or prepare to refund sales taxes to everyone who has ever purchased software in their respective state...
I won't continue my tirade further but I would appreciate a response in regard to whether or not I've convinced you.
(Replying to your own post is lame...) You are paying sales tax on a purchase of the license.
But it's not a purchase. Permission to use IP within license terms is not a sale. You cannot put restrictions upon the use of something you buy (First Sale Doctrine). It's a contract (albeit, a flimsy one... a Shrinkwrap Agreement).
Do you think MS paid sales tax on the IP they licensed from SCO? Then why would you pay sales tax on the IP you licensed at CompUSA? It's just a license, right? What's the difference between the contract you enter by tearing off the shrinkwrap versus the contract you enter by signing a document at a laywer's office? The vendors' themselves say the shrinkwrap licence is legally binding... Why is it treated differently when it comes to taxes?
You are paying sales tax on a purchase of the license.
But it's not a purchase. Permission to use IP within license terms is not a sale. You cannot put restrictions upon the use of something you buy (First Sale Doctrine). It's a contract (albeit, a flimsy one... a Shrinkwrap Agreement).
I think part of the idea is that currently custom software is both defined and exempt from tax (unlike prepackaged retail software) and one possibility here is that they would eliminate the distinction and take their 6.25%.
That's what has always bugged my about packaged software. According to the vendor, I don't own the software, I merely license it. If I don't own it, I didn't buy it. If I didn't buy it, then why am I paying sales tax on the "purchase"? If they argue that I own the media but not the contents, then why do I pay sales tax on the full amount and not just the portion of the sale related to the physical media?
Your argument only holds water when there are myriad vendors producing similar products in virtual parity of market share, which is in no way happening in the spreadsheet market.
And this article is about what exactly? Rivers start with trickles, my friend.
If your product uses a format incompatible with MS, you will not encroach on MS market share. If your product uses MS's format, you can start to chip away... You MUST use the dominate format to get users to your product. This is the "Embrace" part of "Embrace, extend, destroy." By making it impossible to change the format, you effectively negate the "extend and destroy" part...
The "edge" to which the parent refers is that of letting Microsoft define the format all the time. If Microsoft constantly sets the standard, then other developers who are creating "clones" spend most of their time trying to fiddle with the file format, rather than improve/extend the functionality of the software.
But that edge is lost when changing the format drives away your customers when they can no longer interoperate with users with competing products. It's a critical mass issue. When so many people are using MS's format with competing products that MS can't change the format for fear of a user backlash of not being able to interoperate, you've frozen the format and can now move into "open" formats with greater functionality... functionality MS has to duplicate just to stay in the game. Now who is copying whom?
If you want to make a better product, you can't "embrace and extend." You have to make a better product. By providing file-reading compatibility, you only re-enforce the proliferation of closed file formats.
Uh, by "cloning" a "closed" file format, you actually "open" the format to other uses. When you get a large number of vendors using the "closed" format, the original vendor now has to consider very carefully additional changes to the format for fear of breaking competitor's products. The fear is not breaking the other products but reducing compatibility of their own product. Using "closed" formats is a good thing, depending on market conditions.
I don't want to offend anyone, but I'd really love a gay robot. That way I don't have to strain myself over choosing what to wear in the morning - the robot would have that kind of knowledge embedded in him - some say it's genetics, some say it's the way he was raised, but either way he makes a snappy dresser.
Queer (Robotic) Eye for the Straight (Scientist) Guy?
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a BBC story about a raid in SF... and here's a blog post about a geek in SF getting raided and having his gear taken by the FBI...
"Stop living in the Slashdot bubble - most people don't know that NetWare is a derivative of Unix, and even more people don't know what NetWare *is*."
Um, dude, NetWare is definately not a UNIX derivative. (Though at one time, you could run NetWare under UNIX. Remember UNIXWare?) They did steal a lot of low-end business from UNIX vendors, especially at the low-end. My comment was meant as a joke. (Who'da thunk it would be modded "Informative"?)
Cnet snippet: "As customers go from Unix to Linux, Cornett said, SCO's business is falling off at twice the pace of other software, like Novell's NetWare, a Unix derivative."
;)
Holy crap! NetWare is a UNIX derivative! Now there's one outta left field!
Why should Sun push this functionality into Linux?? Open sourcing Solaris doesn't mean that Sun is going to put cool Solaris features into Linux, but rather that...they are going to open the source. They don't have to touch Linux with a ten foot clown pole if they don't want to, and probably won't. They have their own OS already, why press for another.
;)
I'll answer that! Because they can't Open Source Solaris totally, for it is a System V UNIX derivative. SCO is correct that they own this code. Sun licensed it, but cannot open source it. (Hint: Read The Fine Article.
Now, with that said, where would you put it? Linux? BSD? Or maybe a completely rewritten product called OpenSolaris? (I prefer Sol as a product name...) They own the frosting (at least I suspect they will when the SCO/IBM dust settles...). They just don't own the cake!
You know, I just had the thought that, after IBM disembowels SCO at trial and the stock tanks, Darl and company may very well sell "do whatever you want with it" licenses to make a little money on the side before the Feds come looking for him. Then you'd be right. OpenSolaris all the way, baby...
You haven't been following the case, have you? Their latest argument is that everything in every OS derived from UNIX is theirs.
Here, let me quote the parent:
"While Sun may not be able to open source Solaris due to SCO license restrictions, as soon as a judge declares that IBM enhancements to AIX are not the property of SCO, Sun can roll whatever "high-end Solaris" code they have into Linux."
Whether or not you read the article is up to you, but please read the posts you reply to...
Sun can roll whatever "high-end Solaris" code they have into Linux.
Why bother, when it's already in Solaris?
Because the stated goal was to Open Source Solaris... Without that, this whole exercise is meaningless.
While bolting on Solaris functionality to Linux would be a formidable task, it would also put Sun squarely in the middle of Linux development as a strong Linux consulting and implementation partner. Pretty cool way to beef up your Linux "street cred" if you ask me...
Have you any clue as to how many years more advanced than Linux Solaris is at the high end?
Agreed, but how much of that "high-end Solaris" is under SCO license restrictions? (None, or it would be in SCO's products.) While Sun may not be able to open source Solaris due to SCO license restrictions, as soon as a judge declares that IBM enhancements to AIX are not the property of SCO, Sun can roll whatever "high-end Solaris" code they have into Linux. This would have the added benefit of destroying whatever is left of SCO.
that isn't helpful. The netgear has port 80 open for administrative purposes. The problem is that if you put in the super/password (or post patch superman/21241036) user/pass combo, even if you have changed from the default admin/password, you get access. It's a backdoor into the admin screens.
;)
If the admin interface is active on the external interface (don't care if there's a backdoor account or not) and cannot be disabled, the device is broken. Beat the engineer, preferably with the device in question.
(There! That's helpful!
I recently purchased a Netgear WGT624 v2 so I could have wi-fi at home for my laptop. Does anyone know if this FW/Router also suffers from the same problem?
Why don't you port scan the external interface? If you get a hot port, you're in trouble...
I thought they were satirical editorial cartoons!
how does Japan manage to stay lightyears ahead of everyone else in wireless?
Can't tell you how, but why is obvious... You can't run cable through paper walls...
lets Slashdot readers (and others) write to their Congresscritter with one click,
In other news: Amazon sues the EFF
I don't think so. As far as I know the Amazon patent covers only buying with one click, not writing. But iANAL
Er, I take it you're not familiar with how one influences a congressman...
Like if I submit a fix/enchancement to MySQL in the GPL version, can they as the 'owners' put that in their commercial license which their customers can release without the source code?
Assuming your fixes are GPL, they cannot put your changes in the commercial version without first negotiating a separate license from you.
Then I will sign-off with the idea (certainly not the first one to come up with this...) that the law as it is currently written is inherently contradictory in this area (First Sale doctrine, tangible goods, etc.). I found it quite amusing that the law you quote explicitly states that the tax applies to tangible property, then defines software as belonging to that group! Software is the manifestation of an idea. The ones and zeros on media is merely the respresentation of that idea. But I guess you could say we can "see" those ones and zeros I guess! I still maintain that a licence is not tangible.
Thanks, it has been fun.
Glad you bit!
"TAX, SALES OR USE - Any tax levied on, with respect to, or measured by, sales, receipts from sales, purchases, storage, or use of tangible personal property. 4 USC"
You proved my point for me... IP is not tangible property. As I said before, you might charge me sales tax for the media, but you can't change me sales tax for the license because, as you said, sales tax only applies to tangible goods.
Ask MS if, when you buy a copy of Office at CompUSA, you are buying a license to use the product. The answer is "Yes". Ask them if you are buying the media. Again, the answer is "Yes". Ask them if you can buy the media apart from the license. One more time... "Yes" (for about $15, if I recall). So why are you paying sales tax on the total "sale" if the only portion legally taxable is the media?
Or flip it around... Buy just a license from a vendor. You know what I mean, it's just a piece of paper that states I'm licenced for x number of copies of a product. Yup, you pay sales tax on the total when the only physical "goods" you receive is a piece of paper, which isn't a license but merely a proof of license. (They are NOT the same!) The paper is just a document describing the contract you are a party to, but you pay sales tax on the total amount none-the-less...
OK, here is my angle... I will do anything I see fit with my purchased software product (with respect to copyright law, of course). I will legally ignore all licensing restrictions. I will move the software to any machine I like. I will sell the used product if I care to. I can do any of this without fear of running afoul of the law. Why? Because I do not license the product, I buy it! Thanks to the First Sale Doctrine, I do not have to accept any restrictions of my rights. And if I have to prove my point in a court of law, state governments will have to support my view or prepare to refund sales taxes to everyone who has ever purchased software in their respective state...
I won't continue my tirade further but I would appreciate a response in regard to whether or not I've convinced you.
(Replying to your own post is lame...)
You are paying sales tax on a purchase of the license.
But it's not a purchase. Permission to use IP within license terms is not a sale. You cannot put restrictions upon the use of something you buy (First Sale Doctrine). It's a contract (albeit, a flimsy one... a Shrinkwrap Agreement).
Do you think MS paid sales tax on the IP they licensed from SCO? Then why would you pay sales tax on the IP you licensed at CompUSA? It's just a license, right? What's the difference between the contract you enter by tearing off the shrinkwrap versus the contract you enter by signing a document at a laywer's office? The vendors' themselves say the shrinkwrap licence is legally binding... Why is it treated differently when it comes to taxes?
There's a big difference between being mean-spirited because it's funny, and being mean-spirited because you're an ASS.
;)
/Obvious
So which one are you?
You are paying sales tax on a purchase of the license.
But it's not a purchase. Permission to use IP within license terms is not a sale. You cannot put restrictions upon the use of something you buy (First Sale Doctrine). It's a contract (albeit, a flimsy one... a Shrinkwrap Agreement).
I think part of the idea is that currently custom software is both defined and exempt from tax (unlike prepackaged retail software) and one possibility here is that they would eliminate the distinction and take their 6.25%.
That's what has always bugged my about packaged software. According to the vendor, I don't own the software, I merely license it. If I don't own it, I didn't buy it. If I didn't buy it, then why am I paying sales tax on the "purchase"? If they argue that I own the media but not the contents, then why do I pay sales tax on the full amount and not just the portion of the sale related to the physical media?
Mildly off-topic, but it does relate...
This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end
Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
I'll never look into your eyes...again
Quite appropriate, don't you think?
Your argument only holds water when there are myriad vendors producing similar products in virtual parity of market share, which is in no way happening in the spreadsheet market.
And this article is about what exactly? Rivers start with trickles, my friend.
If your product uses a format incompatible with MS, you will not encroach on MS market share. If your product uses MS's format, you can start to chip away... You MUST use the dominate format to get users to your product. This is the "Embrace" part of "Embrace, extend, destroy." By making it impossible to change the format, you effectively negate the "extend and destroy" part...
The "edge" to which the parent refers is that of letting Microsoft define the format all the time. If Microsoft constantly sets the standard, then other developers who are creating "clones" spend most of their time trying to fiddle with the file format, rather than improve/extend the functionality of the software.
But that edge is lost when changing the format drives away your customers when they can no longer interoperate with users with competing products. It's a critical mass issue. When so many people are using MS's format with competing products that MS can't change the format for fear of a user backlash of not being able to interoperate, you've frozen the format and can now move into "open" formats with greater functionality... functionality MS has to duplicate just to stay in the game. Now who is copying whom?
If you want to make a better product, you can't "embrace and extend." You have to make a better product. By providing file-reading compatibility, you only re-enforce the proliferation of closed file formats.
Uh, by "cloning" a "closed" file format, you actually "open" the format to other uses. When you get a large number of vendors using the "closed" format, the original vendor now has to consider very carefully additional changes to the format for fear of breaking competitor's products. The fear is not breaking the other products but reducing compatibility of their own product. Using "closed" formats is a good thing, depending on market conditions.
I don't want to offend anyone, but I'd really love a gay robot. That way I don't have to strain myself over choosing what to wear in the morning - the robot would have that kind of knowledge embedded in him - some say it's genetics, some say it's the way he was raised, but either way he makes a snappy dresser.
Queer (Robotic) Eye for the Straight (Scientist) Guy?
asunder> One week with 2% over in sales than Intel and you think Intel's finished?
:(
commo1> Only 1.04%, actually.
Apparently they used a Pentium for the calculations...