The difference is not whether their doing right or wrong technically. With free software, user's freedoms are preserved. Period. No matter how bad the software or how evil the company, your rights as a user are preserved. With proprietary software, you are at the mercy of the company. And in this case, the company has no mercy.
The point is, MS has enough money that they can outlast anyone. Examples:
Windows - Windows 1.0 - complete failure. Windows 2.0 - complete failure. Windows 3.0 - complete failure. Windows 3.1 - success
MSN - until 2001 - complete failure
Internet Explorer - 1.0 - complete failure. 2.0 - complete failure. 3.0 - success
Do you see a pattern here? MS has so much money that they can continue to pump it into crappy, failing products until they overtake the market. Eventually they usually do become better than the alternatives, but that's after millions of R&D and marketing, while the competitors had a good product to start with.
Basically, anything MS is willing to put pressure on, they end up winning at least after a while.
Actually, with true laissez-faire, MS wouldn't stand a chance. It's the government interference with granting copyrights and patents that causes this. Calling non-thing "property" is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
In addition, you are also allowed to study the code to write your own implementation. So, I can use the GPL code as a reference for my own implementation.
In a way, it still needs that protection. Take RMS's example of X. It was released under BSDish license. However, the end users got no such freedom, because of the licensing of the UNIX vendors. Even though the code started free, the freedom stopped before it reached the users. This effectively makes it non-free for the user.
Actually, they might not have to follow those restrictions. They might be able to do this and be privately traded. Also, since their French, I don't know how that affects the rules.
This is _not_ donations. How on Earth could buying ownership of a company be considered donations?
Investment that is entirely profit-motivated is unethical (i.e. - you shouldn't invest in a company which does things you believe are immoral, and you should always check to find out. This pretty well rules out mutual funds).
Anyway, this is a great idea. Why? If you were a big company, wouldn't it be nice to own a piece of Microsoft? Owning the companies that supply your daily needs can be very beneficial.
The difference is that on the Internet people seem to be much more willing to do bad things. Therefore, you have to be totally up on security. Let's look at it from this perspective:
In other areas of life, security isn't that big of a deal. It's easy to break into cars, it's easy to break into stores. I can deface just about any building in town if I wanted to. However, fewer people consider this allowable behavior, so you don't need the same kind of security to prevent this.
In the same way, you could probably murder entire buildings worth of people simply by putting dangerous chemicals in their air-conditioning system, because most air-conditioning systems aren't well-guarded at all. However, most people have more of a respect for life than that. On the internet, there isn't much respect for anything. So, you can either accept that you're going to get hacked, or spend all day keeping up with updates.
It's not hypocrasy, it's irony, hence the name, copyleft. It's using copyright against itself. Software should not be owned. The fact is, though, with our current laws, _someone will_ own the software. If you release it in the public domain, then anyone can go and own the software you created. Copyleft prevents this. It makes sure that free things stay free, and aren't hijacked into being owned by someone else, and distributed in such a manner. If there was no software ownership at all, there would be no need for the GPL. Since there _is_, then there is a strong need for the GPL.
I did check my facts. I can't currently find the article about the eventual phase-out of MIPS, but here's the ones dealing with putting Linux on an IA-64 Origin.
The fact is that SGI is the only ones really using the MIPS chips. So they decided to use standard parts, and do they intense customizations themselves like they've always done. The problem is that it was going to be insanely hard to port IRIX, so instead, they decided it would be easier to make Linux into IRIX than to port IRIX to a new chip. On top of that, you get the support of the free software community - and the people who will be buying SGI are those in-the-know.
As for the Origin, they are still planning on doing the major engineering work to make it completely robust, only using the more popular Itanium chips.
Also, IRIX is no longer needed. Why? Previously they needed an O.S. that was geared directly to their hardware. With Linux being free software, they can tailor it completely to their hardware without the problems of completely writing an operating system. They can use the standard Linux tools and configurations rather than having their own.
I think it's a great move.
SGI needs to get back to what it knows how to do - make kick-butt super-high-end hardware. When they went down to the midrange with their NT boxes, they found out they couldn't compete. It's still hurting them. If they can throw off all of the unnecessary junk - proprietary operating system, strange chipsets, etc., and just stick to making super-high-end graphics production boxes, they will do well.
Even so, does that mean they all belong in Mozilla? The UNIX philosophy is "do one thing and do it well". So, there should be separate applications for P2P, mail, news, and whatever. The argument is that if you bundle everything together, it's a bad idea, which I agree with. Since everyone for their daily tasks uses a notepad, a browser, a filemanager, a spreadsheet, and a word processor, does that mean that they should all be one application? I don't think so.
If Microsoft was distributing it as part of IE, then yes, it would. In fact, you can't create a GPL plug-in for IE (well, at least you can't distribute the binaries). This was the same problem KDE had a while back before QT released their code under the GPL.
The problem with that argument is that you have to use the actual headers for the link. Thus the license breakage. If you were able to create your own headers independently that allowed linking, you would probably be okay for that reason. However, if you use their headers to create the link, you ARE including their program into yours.
Different Unixes have different syscall numbers, but many of them are adding Linux's. Solaris, for example, can run Linux binaries. I think FreeBSD has the same thing.
There's no real need to have the kernel headers to write a C library. It's a maintenance nightmare, but it would work.
As for whether or not it's legal to link in a binary fashion if you don't actually use headers from the original library, of couse it's okay. Why? because the program isn't using anything, and therefore no copyright protection can be claimed. The _user_ is the one doing the linking, and according to the GPL, there is no restriction on what the user can do.
This actually has happened. Sun released a compiler that built Linux device drivers into the Sun kernel. Obviously, if you distributed such drivers in binary form, you would have a problem. But any individual user has full rights to compile it in such a fashion.
Actually, #1 is incorrect. The reason commercial people can write applications is because they link with libc, which is under the LGPL, not with the kernel.
However, simply having kernel calls is _not_ linking, because nothing with that is inherently tied to Linux. It's just a system call number, provided by libc (LGPL). There are many OSs which implement the same system calls, and its easy enough just to say you were linking to them. Because there are no direct ties between the program and the kernel, you can't say that there is linking. On the other hand, there are direct ties between an application and a library, because the application must include the library's headers. I imagine that if you managed to produce an appropriate executable without using _any_ library headers, even if the linking information pointed to that library, you wouldn't need to follow the GPL or LGPL.
It's more complicated. I don't know what you're background is, so this may or may not make sense:
Linux (just the kernel, not the O.S.) is GPL'd. Any change to Linux has to be made available under the GPL to anyone who gets a binary copy. Applications written on top of the kernel do not have any restrictions imposed on them.
For any distinct program, the same applies. For a library, there are two licenses to deal with, the LGPL and the GPL. If you use a GPL library, your whole application has to be redistributed under the GPL. If the library is LGPLd, you only have to redistribute the changes you made to the library itself.
My guess is that they used a modified kernel, standard LGPL libc, and some standard utilities. So, the only thing they would have to supply the source for would be their kernel modifications, and the existing sources to the libraries and utilities.
Re:What can we do to stop this from happening agai
on
Mandrake Shakeup
·
· Score: 2
Why do you say that? Many people who don't work for software companies get paid developing free software. If you work in an IT department and contribute code to the projects you use, you are getting paid for writing free software.
Re:What can we do to stop this from happening agai
on
Mandrake Shakeup
·
· Score: 2
"People go to Redhat because they want Linux solutions, not because they think it's a service"
I think you are misunderstanding the idea behind "service". Solutions are a service.
GPL is not aimed at removing ownership, it's aimed at removing ownership of software.
Lawyers do not _own_ the arguments they come up with, but they are paid enormous amounts of money to come up with them. Once the arguments are made, they are public record, and anyone can use them again. Yet lawyers get more money than just about anyone else.
As long as software creates solutions for problems, developers will be paid, even if the final results are freely available.
I think providing free downloads before it hits the shelves is just plain dumb. Dists should at least allow a few weeks where its only available in stores before providing free downloads, especially of the ISOs themselves.
Re:IT rhetoric at it's worst
on
Shared Source?
·
· Score: 2
The question I have is, if Microsoft thinks I shouldn't use the GPL because of the redistribution terms, what redistribution terms will Microsoft allow me?
It calls the GPL "complicated". However, _any_ use normally allowed by copyright laws is allowable with the GPL. It is MS who makes it complicated by revoking several user rights under copyright. You only get to the "complicated" parts of the GPL for the rights not granted by normal copyright. With MS, you never get extra rights.
It's like saying, they have more features than we do, but on the features that they have that we don't, it's more complicated.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is not whether their doing right or wrong technically. With free software, user's freedoms are preserved. Period. No matter how bad the software or how evil the company, your rights as a user are preserved. With proprietary software, you are at the mercy of the company. And in this case, the company has no mercy.
The point is, MS has enough money that they can outlast anyone. Examples:
Windows - Windows 1.0 - complete failure. Windows 2.0 - complete failure. Windows 3.0 - complete failure. Windows 3.1 - success
MSN - until 2001 - complete failure
Internet Explorer - 1.0 - complete failure. 2.0 - complete failure. 3.0 - success
Do you see a pattern here? MS has so much money that they can continue to pump it into crappy, failing products until they overtake the market. Eventually they usually do become better than the alternatives, but that's after millions of R&D and marketing, while the competitors had a good product to start with.
Basically, anything MS is willing to put pressure on, they end up winning at least after a while.
Actually, with true laissez-faire, MS wouldn't stand a chance. It's the government interference with granting copyrights and patents that causes this. Calling non-thing "property" is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
Are you clearsigning your emails, or are you making a separate signature file? If you just clearsign, it shouldn't come through as an attachement.
In addition, you are also allowed to study the code to write your own implementation. So, I can use the GPL code as a reference for my own implementation.
In a way, it still needs that protection. Take RMS's example of X. It was released under BSDish license. However, the end users got no such freedom, because of the licensing of the UNIX vendors. Even though the code started free, the freedom stopped before it reached the users. This effectively makes it non-free for the user.
Actually, they might not have to follow those restrictions. They might be able to do this and be privately traded. Also, since their French, I don't know how that affects the rules.
This is _not_ donations. How on Earth could buying ownership of a company be considered donations?
Investment that is entirely profit-motivated is unethical (i.e. - you shouldn't invest in a company which does things you believe are immoral, and you should always check to find out. This pretty well rules out mutual funds).
Anyway, this is a great idea. Why? If you were a big company, wouldn't it be nice to own a piece of Microsoft? Owning the companies that supply your daily needs can be very beneficial.
Anyway, just my 2 cents
That would be the point, to support the company. That's where your money would go.
The difference is that on the Internet people seem to be much more willing to do bad things. Therefore, you have to be totally up on security. Let's look at it from this perspective:
In other areas of life, security isn't that big of a deal. It's easy to break into cars, it's easy to break into stores. I can deface just about any building in town if I wanted to. However, fewer people consider this allowable behavior, so you don't need the same kind of security to prevent this.
In the same way, you could probably murder entire buildings worth of people simply by putting dangerous chemicals in their air-conditioning system, because most air-conditioning systems aren't well-guarded at all. However, most people have more of a respect for life than that. On the internet, there isn't much respect for anything. So, you can either accept that you're going to get hacked, or spend all day keeping up with updates.
It's not hypocrasy, it's irony, hence the name, copyleft. It's using copyright against itself. Software should not be owned. The fact is, though, with our current laws, _someone will_ own the software. If you release it in the public domain, then anyone can go and own the software you created. Copyleft prevents this. It makes sure that free things stay free, and aren't hijacked into being owned by someone else, and distributed in such a manner. If there was no software ownership at all, there would be no need for the GPL. Since there _is_, then there is a strong need for the GPL.
If you use headers from libfoo, you certainly are distributing part of it. You might have a case if you re-wrote the headers for libfoo yourself.
I did check my facts. I can't currently find the article about the eventual phase-out of MIPS, but here's the ones dealing with putting Linux on an IA-64 Origin.
0 3/ 16/010316hnorigin.xml?p=br&s=7
/ UH -PR-08-00-3.html
http://iwsun4.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/linux-scalability/
http://www.hoise.com/primeur/00/articles/weekly
Basically, they said they'd fill in the holes wherever Linux is lacking.
The fact is that SGI is the only ones really using the MIPS chips. So they decided to use standard parts, and do they intense customizations themselves like they've always done. The problem is that it was going to be insanely hard to port IRIX, so instead, they decided it would be easier to make Linux into IRIX than to port IRIX to a new chip. On top of that, you get the support of the free software community - and the people who will be buying SGI are those in-the-know.
As for the Origin, they are still planning on doing the major engineering work to make it completely robust, only using the more popular Itanium chips.
Also, IRIX is no longer needed. Why? Previously they needed an O.S. that was geared directly to their hardware. With Linux being free software, they can tailor it completely to their hardware without the problems of completely writing an operating system. They can use the standard Linux tools and configurations rather than having their own.
I think it's a great move.
SGI needs to get back to what it knows how to do - make kick-butt super-high-end hardware. When they went down to the midrange with their NT boxes, they found out they couldn't compete. It's still hurting them. If they can throw off all of the unnecessary junk - proprietary operating system, strange chipsets, etc., and just stick to making super-high-end graphics production boxes, they will do well.
Even so, does that mean they all belong in Mozilla? The UNIX philosophy is "do one thing and do it well". So, there should be separate applications for P2P, mail, news, and whatever. The argument is that if you bundle everything together, it's a bad idea, which I agree with. Since everyone for their daily tasks uses a notepad, a browser, a filemanager, a spreadsheet, and a word processor, does that mean that they should all be one application? I don't think so.
If Microsoft was distributing it as part of IE, then yes, it would. In fact, you can't create a GPL plug-in for IE (well, at least you can't distribute the binaries). This was the same problem KDE had a while back before QT released their code under the GPL.
The problem with that argument is that you have to use the actual headers for the link. Thus the license breakage. If you were able to create your own headers independently that allowed linking, you would probably be okay for that reason. However, if you use their headers to create the link, you ARE including their program into yours.
Different Unixes have different syscall numbers, but many of them are adding Linux's. Solaris, for example, can run Linux binaries. I think FreeBSD has the same thing.
There's no real need to have the kernel headers to write a C library. It's a maintenance nightmare, but it would work.
As for whether or not it's legal to link in a binary fashion if you don't actually use headers from the original library, of couse it's okay. Why? because the program isn't using anything, and therefore no copyright protection can be claimed. The _user_ is the one doing the linking, and according to the GPL, there is no restriction on what the user can do.
This actually has happened. Sun released a compiler that built Linux device drivers into the Sun kernel. Obviously, if you distributed such drivers in binary form, you would have a problem. But any individual user has full rights to compile it in such a fashion.
Actually, #1 is incorrect. The reason commercial people can write applications is because they link with libc, which is under the LGPL, not with the kernel.
However, simply having kernel calls is _not_ linking, because nothing with that is inherently tied to Linux. It's just a system call number, provided by libc (LGPL). There are many OSs which implement the same system calls, and its easy enough just to say you were linking to them. Because there are no direct ties between the program and the kernel, you can't say that there is linking. On the other hand, there are direct ties between an application and a library, because the application must include the library's headers. I imagine that if you managed to produce an appropriate executable without using _any_ library headers, even if the linking information pointed to that library, you wouldn't need to follow the GPL or LGPL.
Since they are distributing binaries, they also have to distribute the source, even if they made no modifications.
Out of curiosity, why do you say that the free software movement is a hypocritical joke?
It's more complicated. I don't know what you're background is, so this may or may not make sense:
Linux (just the kernel, not the O.S.) is GPL'd. Any change to Linux has to be made available under the GPL to anyone who gets a binary copy. Applications written on top of the kernel do not have any restrictions imposed on them.
For any distinct program, the same applies. For a library, there are two licenses to deal with, the LGPL and the GPL. If you use a GPL library, your whole application has to be redistributed under the GPL. If the library is LGPLd, you only have to redistribute the changes you made to the library itself.
My guess is that they used a modified kernel, standard LGPL libc, and some standard utilities. So, the only thing they would have to supply the source for would be their kernel modifications, and the existing sources to the libraries and utilities.
Why do you say that? Many people who don't work for software companies get paid developing free software. If you work in an IT department and contribute code to the projects you use, you are getting paid for writing free software.
"People go to Redhat because they want Linux solutions, not because they think it's a service"
I think you are misunderstanding the idea behind "service". Solutions are a service.
GPL is not aimed at removing ownership, it's aimed at removing ownership of software.
Lawyers do not _own_ the arguments they come up with, but they are paid enormous amounts of money to come up with them. Once the arguments are made, they are public record, and anyone can use them again. Yet lawyers get more money than just about anyone else.
As long as software creates solutions for problems, developers will be paid, even if the final results are freely available.
I think providing free downloads before it hits the shelves is just plain dumb. Dists should at least allow a few weeks where its only available in stores before providing free downloads, especially of the ISOs themselves.
The question I have is, if Microsoft thinks I shouldn't use the GPL because of the redistribution terms, what redistribution terms will Microsoft allow me?
It calls the GPL "complicated". However, _any_ use normally allowed by copyright laws is allowable with the GPL. It is MS who makes it complicated by revoking several user rights under copyright. You only get to the "complicated" parts of the GPL for the rights not granted by normal copyright. With MS, you never get extra rights.
It's like saying, they have more features than we do, but on the features that they have that we don't, it's more complicated.
Well, duh.