It must suck for these people working in these sweatshops to be making the highest real wages in their country.
Wasn't it Nike who had a (subcontracted) factory of imprisoned illegal immigrant slaves in the US a couple of years ago? I'd be surprised if they were earning more than Bill Gates.
But in general, don't rely on "Market forces" in very poor countries to ensure that people like Nike aren't screwing their workers. In many places, there's very little employment law, not much advice or assistance available for workers, trade unions are often illegal, and it's dead easy for a megacorporation to bully their workers senseless (possibly through the police). Sure, in an information-rich, human-rights-guaranteeing society, you can say "Well if the wages/conditions were so bad the workers would just walk away." A lot of the developing world doesn't work like that.
The New International Version of the Bible does not permit unrestricted copying. You can quote up to 50 verses without paying royalty (I think), but not the whole thing. Personally I find this completely unacceptable when we're talking about a holy religious text - not because All Books Should Be Free, but because the NIV people are saying "if you want to have the best interpretation of the word of God, you have to pay us". Which strikes me as a bit of a scam (though that may not be their actual intention).
Of course, feel free to disagree - just thought that snippet might interest some people.
The guy made an effort NOT to bully an Open Source group. He didn't send threatening lawyer letters. He asked people to be reasonable.
I dunno, he made some pretty snide FUDy remarks, like "OpenSSH is encouraging insecurity cos it implements SSH1 not SSH2". There was really no need for that attack, which was somewhat incorrect in any case, it wouldn't bolster his legal position and it wasn't phrased in a way to persuade the OpenSSH people.
All it takes to be 'insightful' is to say 'Screw the business, he just wants money, open source gets to do what they want'.
While I don't know the intentions of the moderators, that wasn't the intention of my comment.
I happen to believe that in this instance, Tatu has given up any rights he had on the name "SSH" by saying people can modify it (and must rename it if it doesn't work like SSH - i.e. they don't have to rename it if it does).
Open source is great
You presumably believe in the principle that an apparently open-source license should not be revokable then. I happen to believe that he's permitted people to use the name "ssh" in his license. You may disagree, but don't assume I'm just company-bashing because of that.
In no way does GTK provide enough human interface abstraction to be used as a cross platform tool
Actually, I disagree. I've seen the GTK Freeciv client running on Windows, and it's sufficiently close to Windows' native widgets that I've never seen anyone get stuck. And that's without using a special theme, which you could do if you wanted.
When using real software like Oracle under linux...
Aye, you're right in that example. But I think the article means generally all binary apps, not just those as big as Oracle. Say, a non-free decompression util.
The guy creates a product. The guy builds a business around his product. Other people use the product to create a different product of their own.
You missed out sentences 2 and 3: "He releases it under a Free license. That free license helps it to gain popularity." He's already given away his right to limit modification and redistribution (and by doing so, gained a vast amount of uptake for his product). He can't now take that back. It's like a bank offering zero-interest 5-year loans, then saying "hang on, this is damaging our business, you have to pay us interest after all".
Since one common pronounciation of SSH is "escher", It would be good if the new name could rhyme with that. Or does Tatu Ylonen think he has trademarked that pronounciation too?
Really? I could have sworn that OpenSHH was renamed ssh, and ssh renamed ssh-NON-FREE. Which, of course, was an improvement over previously, where ssh was called ssh2.
Yeah, but that is actually a bigger clash of namespace than what the poster was alluding to. There's similar issues with things like lynx-ssl etc., too.
Do you have figures which are unarguably better than the Netcraft ones that everyone uses? Apache at 60%, MS at 20%. It's been like that for over a year. (Actually, Apache has increased its share from about 52%, but hey).
I would be willing to wager that each of the organizations you mentioned use MS software to run their business.
Quite possibly, but what's that got to do with power? I would be willing to wager that almost every employee at any of those companies buys music/TV/film off Time Warner. That doesn't make Time Warner the most powerful.
M$ [...] could easily bring our economy to it's knees.
How? By suddenly revoking licenses they've already sold? By stopping developing Windows? By putting a big enough security hole in that everyone jumps ship to Unix? I can't see how M$ could bring the American economy to its knees.
You arent in a hurry to get into law school, that's for sure.
Please, no. There are less immoral ways of making money fast (theft?:-)
On the totem pole of legal bindings, licenses place dead last. Often they are ignored completely. Do you know why? Because they were invented by the licensee.
If it were a case of "either break Canadian law or break the GPL", you'd be right.
But it ain't. At most it's a case of "break Canadian law or break the GPL or don't distribute the software", and if so, Corel's gotta choose option 3.
But actually, Canadian law doesn't say this. It is perfectly legal to distribute GPLed software to a minor. The copyright holder may not be able to enforce the GPL properly on the minor, but that doesn't make it illegal to distribute to him.
XML is a subset of SGML. All XML is valid SGML, but some SGML is not valid XML. For example, as the previous post pointed out, XML forces you to close your tags, wheras sometimes SGML lets you do it implicitly.
And... HTML is an SGML application
Yep, but it doesn't lie in the subset which is XML - well, XHTML does, but not plain HTML.
The W3c should release a standardised way of dealing with b0rken HTML.
There is one - at least for XHTML (and anything else which is XML-based). The browser should tell the user "hey, this page is broken", and only then start making guesses.
We are seeing the germination of different developer communities based on language, and not on a shared enthusiasm for Linux.
This may be true to some extent as a general rule about *users*. However, I don't think it's true for the people actually writing the software in the first place. Both GNOME and KDE have developers all over the world and are localised into many different languages. Mozilla too. Wine is headed by someone from Switzerland and has contributors all over the world. Linux is headed by a Finn living in America and has contributors from all over the world. Apache is headed by a group of people from many different places, and has contributors all over the world. Samba, Perl, etc. You get the idea. Smaller projects do not necessarily have developers worldwide, but they still often have developers from more than one continent.
For as long as the developers are not balkanised, the actual potential danger of fragmentation is quite small. There's no reason why developers will balkanise, cos there's no reason to turn away good patches just because the contributor is from Baklaliviatatlaglooshen.
Well, I don't know about "gone down", but you have to admit that a lot of things which have been done in the name of Christianity have been cons (which is not quite the original claim, I know). Things like the millions of people killed in the crusades. Things like Jews getting knifed because they are "christ-killers". Things like fighting a war against China to obtain the right to sell drugs there. Things like theological justifications of slavery.
Nothing against Christianity there per se, but a lot against the way many supposed Christians have used it as a con trick.
IHPBT. IAHAND. One of the mistakes you make in your post is to assume that most of the software market consists of home users. In fact, most software sales go to businesses. And this is an area where people *will* pay for support - more, quite often, than they pay for software licenses.
One of the mistakes you make in the post you reference is to assume that people like IBM are funding Linux development for charity. Public companies are not *allowed* to do that - everything they do has to be designed to maximise the return for their shareholders. The only reason IBM funds Linux development is because they think it will profit their shareholders in some way - whether that's by bashing Microsoft, or by creating open standards, or by helping IBM to make a profit selling Linux services.
They werent illegal. They were required by canadian law which stipulates no one under the age of 18 can be held accountable to a license
From paragraph 7 of the GPL v2: "If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all."
If Canadian law really prevented them from offering the software to under 18s, then they wouldn't've been allowed to distribute the software at all.
Actually, Canadian law does no such thing. It might make it so that the original copyright holder can't enforce the license against a minor, but that's not Corel's problem, and they shouldn't have to (and indeed cannot) change the license to avoid that.
Re:The decision is obvious, different buyers targe
on
Is It OK To Sucks?
·
· Score: 1
The comment about being a French speaker in your bio is extremely funny.
Not quite. Anyone running a DNS in any country can make www.lockheedmartinsucks.com point to whatever IP address they like. The US Govt only has the power to regulate this if foreigners choose to point their DNS servers at a root server in the US.
Hence WIPO can disagree with the US government. If it wants to, WIPO can say that a.root-servers.net violates international treaties. If it wants to, WIPO can rule that member countries should block traffic to a.root-servers.net. So a significant number of people would be able to see 216.182.45.14 at "www.lockheedmartinsucks.com", no matter what the US government wanted.
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't it Nike who had a (subcontracted) factory of imprisoned illegal immigrant slaves in the US a couple of years ago? I'd be surprised if they were earning more than Bill Gates.
But in general, don't rely on "Market forces" in very poor countries to ensure that people like Nike aren't screwing their workers. In many places, there's very little employment law, not much advice or assistance available for workers, trade unions are often illegal, and it's dead easy for a megacorporation to bully their workers senseless (possibly through the police). Sure, in an information-rich, human-rights-guaranteeing society, you can say "Well if the wages/conditions were so bad the workers would just walk away." A lot of the developing world doesn't work like that.
The New International Version of the Bible does not permit unrestricted copying. You can quote up to 50 verses without paying royalty (I think), but not the whole thing. Personally I find this completely unacceptable when we're talking about a holy religious text - not because All Books Should Be Free, but because the NIV people are saying "if you want to have the best interpretation of the word of God, you have to pay us". Which strikes me as a bit of a scam (though that may not be their actual intention).
Of course, feel free to disagree - just thought that snippet might interest some people.
While I don't know the intentions of the moderators, that wasn't the intention of my comment.
I happen to believe that in this instance, Tatu has given up any rights he had on the name "SSH" by saying people can modify it (and must rename it if it doesn't work like SSH - i.e. they don't have to rename it if it does).
You presumably believe in the principle that an apparently open-source license should not be revokable then. I happen to believe that he's permitted people to use the name "ssh" in his license. You may disagree, but don't assume I'm just company-bashing because of that.George, Can you remember the name of the American President?
If it were a case of "either break Canadian law or break the GPL", you'd be right.
But it ain't. At most it's a case of "break Canadian law or break the GPL or don't distribute the software", and if so, Corel's gotta choose option 3.
But actually, Canadian law doesn't say this. It is perfectly legal to distribute GPLed software to a minor. The copyright holder may not be able to enforce the GPL properly on the minor, but that doesn't make it illegal to distribute to him.
This may be true to some extent as a general rule about *users*. However, I don't think it's true for the people actually writing the software in the first place. Both GNOME and KDE have developers all over the world and are localised into many different languages. Mozilla too. Wine is headed by someone from Switzerland and has contributors all over the world. Linux is headed by a Finn living in America and has contributors from all over the world. Apache is headed by a group of people from many different places, and has contributors all over the world. Samba, Perl, etc. You get the idea. Smaller projects do not necessarily have developers worldwide, but they still often have developers from more than one continent.
For as long as the developers are not balkanised, the actual potential danger of fragmentation is quite small. There's no reason why developers will balkanise, cos there's no reason to turn away good patches just because the contributor is from Baklaliviatatlaglooshen.
Well, I don't know about "gone down", but you have to admit that a lot of things which have been done in the name of Christianity have been cons (which is not quite the original claim, I know). Things like the millions of people killed in the crusades. Things like Jews getting knifed because they are "christ-killers". Things like fighting a war against China to obtain the right to sell drugs there. Things like theological justifications of slavery.
Nothing against Christianity there per se, but a lot against the way many supposed Christians have used it as a con trick.
IHPBT. IAHAND. One of the mistakes you make in your post is to assume that most of the software market consists of home users. In fact, most software sales go to businesses. And this is an area where people *will* pay for support - more, quite often, than they pay for software licenses.
One of the mistakes you make in the post you reference is to assume that people like IBM are funding Linux development for charity. Public companies are not *allowed* to do that - everything they do has to be designed to maximise the return for their shareholders. The only reason IBM funds Linux development is because they think it will profit their shareholders in some way - whether that's by bashing Microsoft, or by creating open standards, or by helping IBM to make a profit selling Linux services.
From paragraph 7 of the GPL v2: "If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all."
If Canadian law really prevented them from offering the software to under 18s, then they wouldn't've been allowed to distribute the software at all.
Actually, Canadian law does no such thing. It might make it so that the original copyright holder can't enforce the license against a minor, but that's not Corel's problem, and they shouldn't have to (and indeed cannot) change the license to avoid that.
The comment about being a French speaker in your bio is extremely funny.
Not quite. Anyone running a DNS in any country can make www.lockheedmartinsucks.com point to whatever IP address they like. The US Govt only has the power to regulate this if foreigners choose to point their DNS servers at a root server in the US.
Hence WIPO can disagree with the US government. If it wants to, WIPO can say that a.root-servers.net violates international treaties. If it wants to, WIPO can rule that member countries should block traffic to a.root-servers.net. So a significant number of people would be able to see 216.182.45.14 at "www.lockheedmartinsucks.com", no matter what the US government wanted.