Well, there are two distinct things that.NET refers to. The first is the.NET Infrastructure - this consists of a Runtime environment for portable bytecode (similar to the JRE) and a set of class libraries, a garbage collector, and various code-related items.
The.NET _marketing_ is about Microsoft rebranding itself with a special term. If you see a.NET product, it means that, yes, there is some use of the.NET infrastructure, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything for users. Really we just wanted to push more product out the door and came up with this marketing gimmick.
The great thing about the GPL is that it gives you some leverage in regards to keeping your own source code. For example, if a company needs some custom work, you can say
"Well, I can write the code myself in 2 months. Or, I could write the code in two weeks using open-source product A. The only restriction is that if we use product A we have to contribute our changes back to the community."
Give them the price for 2 weeks vs 2 months, and I'm pretty sure I know which one they will choose. Now, I know that this isn't the exact implications of the GPL, but it is the practical ones, because of problems of upgrading patched software.
In addition, if it's open, you have all of the benefits of packaged software.
Plus, you get free bugfixes AND ENHANCEMENTS from others, an extended community support system,and a larger base of people familiar with the software. In fact, this is exactly why Cisco opened up their printing system - they wanted the benefits of free software. It was more beneficial to them to distribute the code freely (even though they were _paying_ developers to develop it) than it was to not do so.
The mistake most people make is that they forget that in order to have new software, you have to have software producers. Just because one _specific_ _method_ of payment becomes no longer available (although I doubt that will happen, too), does not mean that software producers will not get paid. As long as there are
a) people who need software
and
b) people who can write software but need money
Software producers will be paid, it just might not be in the same fashion.
Actually, the GPL is even more enforceable than that, because the end-user does NOT have to accept it, even to use the program. The end-user can simply ignore the GPL and use the program as if it had no license attached.
In which case, normal copyright laws apply, which means you can't redistribute at all.
The problem with most EULAs is that they restrict rights after purchase. The GPL is completely different in that it adds rights under specific conditions. If you don't meet those conditions, you never had those rights to begin with.
In addition, A can charge for the source. It has to be a "reasonable charge" but that doesn't mean they have to be responsible for the production costs.
Actually, when used within an organization, the organization is the user, not the individual. If an individual posts the modified code, they are violating the copyright of Microsoft.
You see, the GPL doesn't take force unless there's redistribution. If the copyright holder (in this case, Microsoft), isn't distributing outside out itself, then the software isn't under the GPL, and therefore that individual does not have the authority to redistribute it, and can be sued.
Yes it is, because any filter, by definition, has a bias. This is definitely not a first amendment conflict, although it may be problematic elsewhere.
This has nothing to do with free speech. Blocking sites and other censorship is not a free speech issue, as long as the censorship does not penetrate into privately-owned land. Free Speech is the right to speak, not the right to be heard.
One thing to remember, too, is that this guy is not the only one responsible for the Linux Router Project. In fact, it wouldn't be possible without.... Linux.
Without an existence of GPL code, he would have had to write the operating system from scratch instead of having a 500-mile head start on everyone else by using Linux.
I'm also curious, if he did eventually receive moderate compensation for his efforts, would he have shared them with the kernel hacking folks who enabled _his_ project?
I'm all for this guy making money - I hope he does. I also think that the companies who base their work off of his are shooting themselves in the foot by not contributing or hiring him, but such is life in the free market. He freely used GPL code in his project, others freely used his GPL code in theirs.
If the code is available in books such as Lion's commentary and Maurice Bach's "The Design of the UNIX Operating System", I think that would nullify any claims against Linux or IBM. It may be grounds for complaint against Mr Lion or Mr. Bach.
You are confusing capitalism with mercantilism. Capitalism is _free_ markets, while the problems you describe above are problems that are related to the closing of markets.
Going postal _is_ the exception. However, less-severe effects are not. Mind-altering drugs are just that - mind altering. They are dangerous, and it is really dangerous to use them for a disease that may not even exist, especially when the symptoms are usually fixable through diet.
Most people who use LSD, Cocaine, etc. do not go out and commit heinous acts, but it makes them much more predisposed to doing it. Often, these drugs make the person in question feel better. That does not make them safe or necessary, and it certainly doesn't mean that they started out with a disease.
The fact that there is an exception or multiple exceptions does not disprove the fact that this happens generally.
Think of smoking - smoking causes lung cancer but there exist many people who smoke until they are 90 with no side effects. That doesn't mean that the literature concerning smokings side-effects are wrong, only that *gasp* different people are different.
You mean like pointing out that it's not a real condition and that noone has been able to point out anything about ADHD except that kids are *shock* hyperactive?
Actually, Ritalin has been shown to cause manic episodes, which include murderous thoughts. This is a causal connection, not just a correlative one. See the links I provided in a message on down...
SUMMARY - the benefits of Ritalin-like drugs can be obtained simply by getting a better diet. The side-effects of Ritalin-like drugs are dangerous, especially since ADHD is not even something that can be tested for.
The problem with Ritalin is that it tends to remove a person's sense of right and wrong. ALL of the kids who were involved in these mass school shootings were on Ritalin or similar substances. Obviously, it doesn't usually affect a person to that degree, but the effect is there nonetheless.
The sad thing is that such medication often curbs great talent that could be channeled through other means.
Note that I'm not talking about any individual case (I'm sure there _are_ valid uses of Ritalin), just that, for the most part, it is being misperscribed because society wants children to "sit still and listen" when they (especially boys), have the need to roam and explore. People who do not go along with the status quo are labelled as having a disorder, when actually they are the ones who keep society living and vibrant.
Sadly, instead of channelling their talents, we are drugging them out of them.
The technology may be, but it's still a copyright violation if they directly copied the code from SCO. However, I think a more adequate explanation is that they both got the code from Sequent.
It has nothing to do with the GPL. YOU retain copyrights to any code YOU write. The GPL (or any other license) cannot take that away.
If I use code in a proprietary product AND a GPL product, that code is mine in both cases, just distributed under two different licenses. While the GPL'd code will continue to be GPLd, I can continue to use _my portion_ of the code in any way I see fit.
Interestingly, I don't think that the GPL's "no linking" rule can actually stand up in court, if the person compiling it writes their own header files for the linking. This is because the entire work would be independent (remember, it hasn't been linked yet - so who knows _what_ the license is of the program it's going to be linked to), and the user - who has free reign to do anything with GPL software - is the one doing the linking.
This is ONLY true if you write your own header files for the software in question and write your own stubbed library. If you use their header files, then it _is_ a derivative work.
Derivative works really don't matter. If IBM developed the code, IBM has full copyright protection for their own code. If they added it to AIX and made a derivative work, that's fine, but if they add it to Linux as well, Linux is not then a derivative work, because it contains no pieces of SCO - the material in question is entirely IBMs.
So, while IBM may be limited in what they can do with AIX, it does not prevent them from adding the same code to Linux.
"NO Multiple Document Interfaces? Thats why photoshop is mainstream and not GIMP."
Are you aware that Photoshop having the MDI interface is actually a giant kludge dating back from porting it from a Mac? The Macintosh interface does not work like that. In fact, almost all developers are moving _away_ from MDI because it sucks so bad.
Photoshop is not popular _because_ of MDI, it's popular despite it. However, since that's now the standard, people have trouble thinking about how the easiest and most efficient way of working with their apps might be, and just complain because it isn't just like Photoshop. No it's not. It's better.
It also doesn't clutter your task bar if you use a decent one. My task bar has all GIMP windows grouped together in a single one, which I can click on to bring up a menu of GIMP windows.
So what if you have Photoshop files that GIMP can't handle? What does that have to do with usability? That has to do with _upgradability_, not usability.
I would say the two are totally unrelated. If that were true, how would you explain emacs, gcc, glibc, and all of the other great software at GNU.
The truth is, HURD is exploring some ideas never done before. One thing they are working on is the concept of "soft reboots" - being able to restart your operating system with your applications still running.
In addition, HURD is massively multithreaded, which means in 20 years when we are all running 30CPU boxes, HURD will be our OS of choice. Linux is capable of handling multiple processors, but is not as wildly multithreaded as HURD is.
HURD is really an amazing system, and actually seems to work decently well these days (actually, I haven't used it in 3 years, but it was starting to stabilize then).
Anyway, I think the difference is that Linus was able to implement Linux quickly because he was re-creating UNIX, while the HURD guys are trying to re-think the operating system altogether.
No, it means you can disregard the EULA entirely. If I buy a house, and then when I get there there is a sign on the door saying "by entering this house you agree to the following conditions..." I can freely rip that sign off the house because I have already bought it. They CAN'T add additional qualifications.
Now, that does not invalidate their copyright - their copyright exists even without the EULA. However, any term of the EULA that goes above normal copyright law can be simply ignored.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there are two distinct things that .NET refers to. The first is the .NET Infrastructure - this consists of a Runtime environment for portable bytecode (similar to the JRE) and a set of class libraries, a garbage collector, and various code-related items.
.NET _marketing_ is about Microsoft rebranding itself with a special term. If you see a .NET product, it means that, yes, there is some use of the .NET infrastructure, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything for users. Really we just wanted to push more product out the door and came up with this marketing gimmick.
The
The great thing about the GPL is that it gives you some leverage in regards to keeping your own source code. For example, if a company needs some custom work, you can say
"Well, I can write the code myself in 2 months. Or, I could write the code in two weeks using open-source product A. The only restriction is that if we use product A we have to contribute our changes back to the community."
Give them the price for 2 weeks vs 2 months, and I'm pretty sure I know which one they will choose. Now, I know that this isn't the exact implications of the GPL, but it is the practical ones, because of problems of upgrading patched software.
In addition, if it's open, you have all of the benefits of packaged software.
Plus, you get free bugfixes AND ENHANCEMENTS from others, an extended community support system,and a larger base of people familiar with the software. In fact, this is exactly why Cisco opened up their printing system - they wanted the benefits of free software. It was more beneficial to them to distribute the code freely (even though they were _paying_ developers to develop it) than it was to not do so.
The mistake most people make is that they forget that in order to have new software, you have to have software producers. Just because one _specific_ _method_ of payment becomes no longer available (although I doubt that will happen, too), does not mean that software producers will not get paid. As long as there are
a) people who need software
and
b) people who can write software but need money
Software producers will be paid, it just might not be in the same fashion.
Actually, the GPL is even more enforceable than that, because the end-user does NOT have to accept it, even to use the program. The end-user can simply ignore the GPL and use the program as if it had no license attached.
In which case, normal copyright laws apply, which means you can't redistribute at all.
The problem with most EULAs is that they restrict rights after purchase. The GPL is completely different in that it adds rights under specific conditions. If you don't meet those conditions, you never had those rights to begin with.
In fact, they do this. It's called Microsoft Interix.
In addition, A can charge for the source. It has to be a "reasonable charge" but that doesn't mean they have to be responsible for the production costs.
Actually, when used within an organization, the organization is the user, not the individual. If an individual posts the modified code, they are violating the copyright of Microsoft.
You see, the GPL doesn't take force unless there's redistribution. If the copyright holder (in this case, Microsoft), isn't distributing outside out itself, then the software isn't under the GPL, and therefore that individual does not have the authority to redistribute it, and can be sued.
Yes it is, because any filter, by definition, has a bias. This is definitely not a first amendment conflict, although it may be problematic elsewhere.
This has nothing to do with free speech. Blocking sites and other censorship is not a free speech issue, as long as the censorship does not penetrate into privately-owned land. Free Speech is the right to speak, not the right to be heard.
One thing to remember, too, is that this guy is not the only one responsible for the Linux Router Project. In fact, it wouldn't be possible without.... Linux.
Without an existence of GPL code, he would have had to write the operating system from scratch instead of having a 500-mile head start on everyone else by using Linux.
I'm also curious, if he did eventually receive moderate compensation for his efforts, would he have shared them with the kernel hacking folks who enabled _his_ project?
I'm all for this guy making money - I hope he does. I also think that the companies who base their work off of his are shooting themselves in the foot by not contributing or hiring him, but such is life in the free market. He freely used GPL code in his project, others freely used his GPL code in theirs.
If the code is available in books such as Lion's commentary and Maurice Bach's "The Design of the UNIX Operating System", I think that would nullify any claims against Linux or IBM. It may be grounds for complaint against Mr Lion or Mr. Bach.
You are confusing capitalism with mercantilism. Capitalism is _free_ markets, while the problems you describe above are problems that are related to the closing of markets.
Going postal _is_ the exception. However, less-severe effects are not. Mind-altering drugs are just that - mind altering. They are dangerous, and it is really dangerous to use them for a disease that may not even exist, especially when the symptoms are usually fixable through diet.
Most people who use LSD, Cocaine, etc. do not go out and commit heinous acts, but it makes them much more predisposed to doing it. Often, these drugs make the person in question feel better. That does not make them safe or necessary, and it certainly doesn't mean that they started out with a disease.
The fact that there is an exception or multiple exceptions does not disprove the fact that this happens generally.
Think of smoking - smoking causes lung cancer but there exist many people who smoke until they are 90 with no side effects. That doesn't mean that the literature concerning smokings side-effects are wrong, only that *gasp* different people are different.
You mean like pointing out that it's not a real condition and that noone has been able to point out anything about ADHD except that kids are *shock* hyperactive?
Actually, Ritalin has been shown to cause manic episodes, which include murderous thoughts. This is a causal connection, not just a correlative one. See the links I provided in a message on down...
http://www.oism.info/ospiti/adhd/002rit.htm
"Testimony of Bruce Wiseman. Presented to The Pennsylvania House Democratic Policy Committee
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania July 20, 1999
Bruce Wiseman is National President of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) "
Also check out http://www.resultsproject.net/
SUMMARY - the benefits of Ritalin-like drugs can be obtained simply by getting a better diet. The side-effects of Ritalin-like drugs are dangerous, especially since ADHD is not even something that can be tested for.
The problem with Ritalin is that it tends to remove a person's sense of right and wrong. ALL of the kids who were involved in these mass school shootings were on Ritalin or similar substances. Obviously, it doesn't usually affect a person to that degree, but the effect is there nonetheless.
The sad thing is that such medication often curbs great talent that could be channeled through other means.
Note that I'm not talking about any individual case (I'm sure there _are_ valid uses of Ritalin), just that, for the most part, it is being misperscribed because society wants children to "sit still and listen" when they (especially boys), have the need to roam and explore. People who do not go along with the status quo are labelled as having a disorder, when actually they are the ones who keep society living and vibrant.
Sadly, instead of channelling their talents, we are drugging them out of them.
The technology may be, but it's still a copyright violation if they directly copied the code from SCO. However, I think a more adequate explanation is that they both got the code from Sequent.
It has nothing to do with the GPL. YOU retain copyrights to any code YOU write. The GPL (or any other license) cannot take that away.
If I use code in a proprietary product AND a GPL product, that code is mine in both cases, just distributed under two different licenses. While the GPL'd code will continue to be GPLd, I can continue to use _my portion_ of the code in any way I see fit.
Interestingly, I don't think that the GPL's "no linking" rule can actually stand up in court, if the person compiling it writes their own header files for the linking. This is because the entire work would be independent (remember, it hasn't been linked yet - so who knows _what_ the license is of the program it's going to be linked to), and the user - who has free reign to do anything with GPL software - is the one doing the linking.
This is ONLY true if you write your own header files for the software in question and write your own stubbed library. If you use their header files, then it _is_ a derivative work.
Derivative works really don't matter. If IBM developed the code, IBM has full copyright protection for their own code. If they added it to AIX and made a derivative work, that's fine, but if they add it to Linux as well, Linux is not then a derivative work, because it contains no pieces of SCO - the material in question is entirely IBMs.
So, while IBM may be limited in what they can do with AIX, it does not prevent them from adding the same code to Linux.
"NO Multiple Document Interfaces? Thats why photoshop is mainstream and not GIMP."
Are you aware that Photoshop having the MDI interface is actually a giant kludge dating back from porting it from a Mac? The Macintosh interface does not work like that. In fact, almost all developers are moving _away_ from MDI because it sucks so bad.
Photoshop is not popular _because_ of MDI, it's popular despite it. However, since that's now the standard, people have trouble thinking about how the easiest and most efficient way of working with their apps might be, and just complain because it isn't just like Photoshop. No it's not. It's better.
It also doesn't clutter your task bar if you use a decent one. My task bar has all GIMP windows grouped together in a single one, which I can click on to bring up a menu of GIMP windows.
So what if you have Photoshop files that GIMP can't handle? What does that have to do with usability? That has to do with _upgradability_, not usability.
Huh? RedCarpet is not command-line based.
I would say the two are totally unrelated. If that were true, how would you explain emacs, gcc, glibc, and all of the other great software at GNU.
The truth is, HURD is exploring some ideas never done before. One thing they are working on is the concept of "soft reboots" - being able to restart your operating system with your applications still running.
In addition, HURD is massively multithreaded, which means in 20 years when we are all running 30CPU boxes, HURD will be our OS of choice. Linux is capable of handling multiple processors, but is not as wildly multithreaded as HURD is.
HURD is really an amazing system, and actually seems to work decently well these days (actually, I haven't used it in 3 years, but it was starting to stabilize then).
Anyway, I think the difference is that Linus was able to implement Linux quickly because he was re-creating UNIX, while the HURD guys are trying to re-think the operating system altogether.
Why do people still make Bill Gates synonymous with Microsoft? He stepped down as CEO. Now it's Ballmer, not Gates.
No, it means you can disregard the EULA entirely. If I buy a house, and then when I get there there is a sign on the door saying "by entering this house you agree to the following conditions..." I can freely rip that sign off the house because I have already bought it. They CAN'T add additional qualifications.
Now, that does not invalidate their copyright - their copyright exists even without the EULA. However, any term of the EULA that goes above normal copyright law can be simply ignored.