Well, I hold a similar opinion to the US Government, until there is more than one supplier for X, it's never going to be sensible to go with X over something else for which there is already multiple suppliers. I'm sure a lot of other people share this opinion, so opening your software so that more than just your company can provide support for that software is likely to result in a huge increase in your market.
If you're making money at the moment without selling support then congratulations, you're one of the few companies that do, don't rock the boat and keep doing exactly what you're doing now. Chances are you're fucked anyway, but at least the gravy train will last for a while. If, however, you're like 99% of companies out there and make your money from selling support, opening your source code will not change the bottom line one bit.
You made absolutely no argument as to why we "shouldn't tolerate it". For all I know you think it is "against god's law" or something. You sound just like the religious right when they're talking about homosexuality.
Hence, discrepancies between what the scientists see in biological experiments and what they see in the simulations allows them to test the models. If there is a mismatch it suggests the model is incorrect and needs to be refined.
Wow, that kinda sounds like.. umm, what's the word I'm after here, umm, science, yes, that's it.
The world's a better place because homosexuality has been mainstreamed. It'll be a better place still when pedophilia is absolutely and explicitly denied the same path and the same acceptance.
Apparently, what people do is they put a big ass warning on their library: This software is for research purposes only, it contains material that is covered by US Patent [whatever], if you use this library in a commericial product or for non-research purposes, you will need to obtain a license from [whoever]. As it is always legal to practice an invention for research purposes (so you can improve on the patent) this is perfectly legal. Of course, claiming that you're distributing The Gimp solely for research purposes is not likely to work for ya.
Also, in Europe, non-commercial use is not covered by patents. But essentially, yes, I conceed the point.
Yah, I know, I was replying to someone who was claiming they could sell their receipt. If you can sell your receipt then you can be forced to give it up unwillingly.
No, sorry. The reason why people have so much trouble accepting what is going on is that there is simply no workable solution to solve the problem. "Change the way we live" is not a workable solution. It's a heck of a lot easier to ignore the issue than it is to accept that.
They can demand anything they want, but if they try to sue you they'll quickly discover that it is pointless. The judge will throw it out in discovery simply because the person they are suing has no money and the case is therefore frivolous.
Yeah, I still think you're on crack. Patents cover commercial applications, not open source libraries. If you want to make a commercial application with my open source library it's up to you to go get a license on any patents I might be infringing.
Meh, stupid analogies aside, I've found security flaws in software by accident. It's really not that uncommon if you happen to do a lot of reverse engineering for interoperability. Also, it's often the case that software that crashes is software that has a security flaw. Under windows, I get a popup asking me if I want to attach my debugger to software that has crashed. It's the defaut behaviour if you have Visual Studio installed. I often hit "Yes" because I can then press "Stop" in the debugger and the OS doesn't write a crash dump (and in doing so, turn my machine into a paper weight for 25 seconds or so). A number of times I've spotted obvious security flaws as a result of that.
But yeah, if he wants to make money, all he has to do is go contact one of the 5 or 6 legitimate companies that pay for security flaws.. or, ya know, the russian mafia.
Slashdot Mirror
Getting into trouble and into the unexpected is not my idea of fun for my holidays.
That's cause you're a boring fuck. What are you, like, 50? Grow a pair.
hehe, well done guys.
Well, I hold a similar opinion to the US Government, until there is more than one supplier for X, it's never going to be sensible to go with X over something else for which there is already multiple suppliers. I'm sure a lot of other people share this opinion, so opening your software so that more than just your company can provide support for that software is likely to result in a huge increase in your market.
If you're making money at the moment without selling support then congratulations, you're one of the few companies that do, don't rock the boat and keep doing exactly what you're doing now. Chances are you're fucked anyway, but at least the gravy train will last for a while. If, however, you're like 99% of companies out there and make your money from selling support, opening your source code will not change the bottom line one bit.
don't forget: warez.
Bay of Pigs Invasion.
You made absolutely no argument as to why we "shouldn't tolerate it". For all I know you think it is "against god's law" or something. You sound just like the religious right when they're talking about homosexuality.
He didn't say that. He didn't make any form of logical argument.
Hence, discrepancies between what the scientists see in biological experiments and what they see in the simulations allows them to test the models. If there is a mismatch it suggests the model is incorrect and needs to be refined.
Wow, that kinda sounds like.. umm, what's the word I'm after here, umm, science, yes, that's it.
Maybe.
The world's a better place because homosexuality has been mainstreamed. It'll be a better place still when pedophilia is absolutely and explicitly denied the same path and the same acceptance.
How can you argue with logic like that?
Might be just as difficult, but at least it is something people can understand.
If language didn't change we'd all still be saying "thou".
Looks like a word to me. 774,000 hits on Google, looks like its in common use too.
Cool, in that case I won't mention all the original ideas and research that I've entered into wikipedia over the years, glad I did it anonymously.
Apparently, what people do is they put a big ass warning on their library: This software is for research purposes only, it contains material that is covered by US Patent [whatever], if you use this library in a commericial product or for non-research purposes, you will need to obtain a license from [whoever]. As it is always legal to practice an invention for research purposes (so you can improve on the patent) this is perfectly legal. Of course, claiming that you're distributing The Gimp solely for research purposes is not likely to work for ya.
Also, in Europe, non-commercial use is not covered by patents. But essentially, yes, I conceed the point.
Yah, I know, I was replying to someone who was claiming they could sell their receipt. If you can sell your receipt then you can be forced to give it up unwillingly.
No, sorry. The reason why people have so much trouble accepting what is going on is that there is simply no workable solution to solve the problem. "Change the way we live" is not a workable solution. It's a heck of a lot easier to ignore the issue than it is to accept that.
Nah, see, what's really scary is the people who modded me up to +4 without reading the article. That's democracy.
All employees are required to vote for the boss' favourite party, bring receipts on Monday or find a new job.
They can demand anything they want, but if they try to sue you they'll quickly discover that it is pointless. The judge will throw it out in discovery simply because the person they are suing has no money and the case is therefore frivolous.
Yeah, I still think you're on crack. Patents cover commercial applications, not open source libraries. If you want to make a commercial application with my open source library it's up to you to go get a license on any patents I might be infringing.
Meh, I have no desire to continue arguing over stupid analogies.
Meh, stupid analogies aside, I've found security flaws in software by accident. It's really not that uncommon if you happen to do a lot of reverse engineering for interoperability. Also, it's often the case that software that crashes is software that has a security flaw. Under windows, I get a popup asking me if I want to attach my debugger to software that has crashed. It's the defaut behaviour if you have Visual Studio installed. I often hit "Yes" because I can then press "Stop" in the debugger and the OS doesn't write a crash dump (and in doing so, turn my machine into a paper weight for 25 seconds or so). A number of times I've spotted obvious security flaws as a result of that.
But yeah, if he wants to make money, all he has to do is go contact one of the 5 or 6 legitimate companies that pay for security flaws.. or, ya know, the russian mafia.
and work on a standardization of bureaucratic nerdiness.
Losers.