Not really. IF they use the RFC's for calendar over e-mail (RFC 2445, written by MS, no less; and RFC 3283), you just have something like procmail properly distribute messages to the calendars, and have calendar program use mail to send notices. I've played around with doing this with mh and message-harmonized calendaring (http://packages.debian.org/unstable/misc/mhc)
Interoperability depends on standard interfaces. Integration depends on dependencies. Both allow two systems to work together. The former allows ANY two programs to work together, and be upgradible separately (and ensures bugs in one don't cause bugs in the other). The latter creates "dependency hell" and "embrace and extend."
Then it fails the DFSG (the chinese dissident test). They can ask you to release them back. They can require you to provide them to those you provide the source-code to, but if it's to meet the DFSG (basis of the Open Source definition), they can't REQUIRE you to release the changes back if you don't distribute.
Oh, and your competitors probably know you practices (at least the major outlines), same way you know their's. Data, well, that's something else.
1. Most custom software is expensive to make & maintain. 2. Most COTS software is "not-quite" (at best) what you need - you have some unique requirements.
Of course, with FLOSS you get the best of both - a world of developers doing the majority of the work (like COTS) along with your own unique pieces (like custom).
Oh, and the licensing cost is free (and, unlike COTS, you can compete the support).
Some slight corrections (OK, major corrections). 1. The solar max may be about 1 KW / m2, but that's straight down at noon on a good day. Correct for the sun (lose 50% due to night, of the remainder, divide by 1.414, giving 353.5 watts/ m2. Subtract more for clouds. Now remember that those deserts are NOT devoid of life. Subtract for that, subtract for space for maintenance (solid covering doesn't work), you quickly find it's not near what most people think. Oh, and those solar panels are currently expensive to produce (and take energy). Oh, and most are closer to 10-15% efficiency (25% is the top stuff that's grossly expensive for those space missions that need that level of efficiency).
This is not to say we shouldn't use solar, and but better would be in space.
Re:If You Want a Serious Answer... Don't Get Cute
on
Rob Pike Responds
·
· Score: 1
Maybe it is/was being used, but everyone else considered it so obvious they didn't apply? Like the way patents are SUPPOSED to be?
Note: The 1-click is basically the web version of the store owner keeping a database of his regular customers, so they don't have to give the same info again & again. Anyone who's signed up for VCR/DVD renting has probably filled out the equiv form.
Good point about OCR. Similar to how my precinct currently operates - you close the bars on a ballot and, after verifying, feed to a scanner. The scanner varifies the ballot is accurate, or sounds a buzzer to have you get a new ballot (that ballot being pulled aside). Once verified, the machine counts the votes, drops the ballots into a sealed box for recounts. When we first went from manual, the supervisors actually did some manual recounts to confirm.
And why could they not do this if they open-sourced Java and kept the trademarks on the Java language? hint - they could, since the "Open Source" refers to Copyright, not trademark. Anyone could implement the language, but you could only call it Java if you passed the tests. If not, call it what you will.
In terms of IBM open sourcing DB2, I doubt it, since they make money SELLING LICENSES for DB2 (although they could surprise us, given all the other stuff they've open sourced).
Easy to get - IBM Mainframe LPARs are exactly this. Divide processor/memory/etc into separate sections (note that IBM has two levels of dividing resources - LPARs at the hardware level, VM does it at the software level).
Reminds me of an office I used to support. Got a call from the admin person "I'm having problems with windows - can you fix it" - so I head down there, check it out, windows is fine. Ask what the problem is, she says "windows comes up in funny colors when I boot up and I can't type my documents in it."
Hm. You don't type in Windows. Ask her to reboot - previous folks had set up her computer to automatically start Word when she booted (it's the only application she used). Someone had changed all the default colors to bright red on bright green (I suspect a joke, but it was horrible).
Moral - she didn't know the difference between word, windows, and any other application - she just knew how to do her job. Didn't care the application, just don't change it.
I shouldn't respond to an anonymous coward, but what the heck - you said:
<<If you think the average construction worker, or welfare recipient, or farmer, has deep reserves of intelligence that they are just not willing to show to people on their high horses, you should try hanging out with some of these people. >>
Well, my brother is a union electrician. Quite smart, has two years of college. Also hates college, loves working with his hands, enjoys working outdoors in the summer (note: he doesn't do houses - he does major stuff like power plants, coal plants, chip manufacturing plants, etc). None of this prevents him using his brain (you try doing some of the calculations he does on equipment choices - it's harder than it looks, trust me).
You should learn not to judge people by their jobs. It's more than intelligence, it's also aptitude and what you love. Oh, and if it weren't for people like him, there would be not computer chips to run your programs.
Must not have heard of Linux then (linux source code copyright is kept by the original authors - NOT Linus. Linus' take is this make it harder to take it proprietary, because you have to buy out not just him, but everyone who ever contributed).
Hm. Just because they developed the license (and have been working on updates) and have been preaching / promoting and have been the main people defending it doesn't make them relevent? I think not.
Yes, there's more to GNU than the GPL. That _some_ of it may not be relevant doesn't mean that _all_ of it is irrelevant. This is not a difficult concept.
Article Six, Para 2 of the U.S. Constitution (from ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/ete xt90/const11.txt)
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
> The linux kernel may be controlled and coordinated by one person, but imagine a person with the supposed talent of Linus, times 50, working on making the Solaris Kernel better.
No multiply that by 1000. Remember that Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, etc, BY DEFINITION (as closed source) have limited # of people working on them (i.e. however many their company has employed working on that). Linux, OTOH, is not so limited.
Remember also that NO ONE Buys an OS with these things (i.e. "I think I'll by AIX, wonder if I should by the HW with it"). They buy the system, that includes the OS, because otherwise they can't run their app (actually, they probably buy the solution that includes app, hw, & OS). The OS is a cost center.
Now, by going to Linux, IBM can expand the # of people supporting the OS, without paying the cost. Result - better support, reduced costs -> higher profit margins.
In terms of control - IBM can certainly decide to "roll their own" patches, and can afford to provide support (although they probably will try to get the patches in the main kernel). GPL allows this.
"This is the root of my concern, books take up so little space that someone could download hundreds of books and store them on their home system. You may point out that someone who does this probably won't actually read the books (and you'd probably be right), but a massive copyright violation did just take place."
Hm. That's funny. I downloaded hundreds of books from Project Gutenburg, and NO copyright violation took place. I also made copies of some stuff on my home computer for backup. No copyright violation. In fact, in Russia, it is ILLEGAL to sell stuff that can't be backed up by the user (a sane policy).
Again, the issue isn't the copying, it's what a person does with the copy. The correct answer is to punish the folks who break the law (the pirates). Of course, that requires spending the money for lawyers, vs some "technological" solution that can't tell the difference between legal and illegal copying, but that only requires intelligence.
To quote Bruce Schneier - "Trying to prevent copying of bits is like trying to make water not wet."
You don't NEED to know the format to copy, all you need is access to the bits. For reference - the # of DVD's copied in the Far East WITHOUT DeCSS. The only people hurt by proprietary formats are the home folks (i.e. their customers).
Well, technically they can't. Unless you have a license attached (including one that says "this is hereby in the public domain"), your code falls under copyright (the default in the US and all Berne Convention countries). Under Copyright, while they can modify the code themselves, they CANNOT redistribute the code, or the modified code (right of first distribution).
At minimum, you need to public domain your software. Of course, this also means anyone can claim your software, and use it in a proprietary product. If that's what you want, go ahead.
Is it an app? If so, ignore the lawyer, just do it. Apps are NOT required to be GPL'd. Oracle sells them, Sybase sells them, IBM sells them, . . .
If it's a kernel mod, then you need the lawyer. But first of all, ask yourself - what are you selling? And what, exactly would be the damage from Open Source? Example: You're doing a HW board, and need a driver. Fine. That HW is yours. To copy it, someone would need to literally reverse-engineer the HW, AND have the manufacturing capability to build it economically. Oh, and while they're reverse engineering, you're building a better board.
OK, you say, but wouldn't the driver give them info? Well, if they've got the talent & money to reverse engineer the board, they've got the talent & money to RE the driver (as opposed to all those Linux geeks with no money who RE the drivers). So, no, it doesn't prevent them from Reverse Engineering it.
However, let's look at what you lose by not Open Sourcing (GPLing - and yes, I mean this license) the driver. Remember, you DON'T make money on the driver - it's a cost of building the HW, because without it, the board is useless. So, as a cost, you want to minimize it. By not Open Sourcing it, only YOU can build & fix the driver. I.e. you have all the cost. By GPL'ing it, you enlist the rest of the community - i.e. more developers, less cost.
Now, I specifically said GPL. Why? Because, if you Open Source via, say BSD license, you run the risk of your competitors using the code, improving it, and NOT giving back the changes. However, by GPL'ing it, you can be certain that, if anyone improves the code, and releases the improved code, you have as much right to it as anyone else on the distro list.
Actually, GPL IS based on contract law. However, it's also based on the fact that, under copyright law, you are denied certain rights on the code you get (redistribution). Then, the GPL proposes a contract: in return for you following certain rules, you get the right to redistribute the code. GPL meets the tests of contract law: offer & acceptance, consideration, legal purpose, competent parties (OK, that assumes you're competent).
Most licenses, however, have no offer / acceptance, or consideration. This is because they REMOVE rights, instead of granting additional ones. So, what is the company giving up (consideration)? You already HAD the right to run the software (by buying it). And, how do you show acceptance (with GPL, as it states, you don't have to accept, but nothing else grants you the rights)?
BTW: IANAL, but did study one term of contract law in college.
Current U.S. Current Copyright is for life + 70 years, or for 95 years from publication (or 120 from creation, whichever is shorter) for corporate works (17 USC 302). Copyright of items created before 1978 depends on a number of factors (17 USC 303-305), but can quickly become the above on proper reregistration, etc.
Service and Support is (or can be) a huge incentive to DO IT RIGHT. Example: suppose you write yearly support contracts. If you ship a shoddy product, you spend all your support contract money fixing the stuff. If you do it right, you collect all that money, and sit back with it, because you don't have to fix anything.
Well, you own the copy of the code you have (similar to owning a book you buy), but not the actual code (i.e. the stuff covered by copyright). There are two ownerships here: the information (covered by copyright) and the actual representation (what you're holding to view the information).
So you do own the copy, but not the information. (and GPL does expand your rights).
Well, for a lawyer, you should know that the opinions that matter are the courts. Eight judges disagree with you. Without appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, these rulings stand. (well, there is two other alternatives - Congress could change the law, or the President could, I presume, issue Microsoft a pardon).
So, the question is no longer whether or not they are a monopoly or whether or not they have abused that power. The question (barring the stuff in parenthesis above) is what punishment for their violation of law.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. IF they use the RFC's for calendar over e-mail (RFC 2445, written by MS, no less; and RFC 3283), you just have something like procmail properly distribute messages to the calendars, and have calendar program use mail to send notices. I've played around with doing this with mh and message-harmonized calendaring (http://packages.debian.org/unstable/misc/mhc)
Interoperability depends on standard interfaces. Integration depends on dependencies. Both allow two systems to work together. The former allows ANY two programs to work together, and be upgradible separately (and ensures bugs in one don't cause bugs in the other). The latter creates "dependency hell" and "embrace and extend."
Then it fails the DFSG (the chinese dissident test). They can ask you to release them back. They can require you to provide them to those you provide the source-code to, but if it's to meet the DFSG (basis of the Open Source definition), they can't REQUIRE you to release the changes back if you don't distribute.
Oh, and your competitors probably know you practices (at least the major outlines), same way you know their's. Data, well, that's something else.
jeff
1. Most custom software is expensive to make & maintain.
2. Most COTS software is "not-quite" (at best) what you need - you have some unique requirements.
Of course, with FLOSS you get the best of both - a world of developers doing the majority of the work (like COTS) along with your own unique pieces (like custom).
Oh, and the licensing cost is free (and, unlike COTS, you can compete the support).
win-win-win
jeff
Some slight corrections (OK, major corrections).
1. The solar max may be about 1 KW / m2, but that's straight down at noon on a good day. Correct for the sun (lose 50% due to night, of the remainder, divide by 1.414, giving 353.5 watts/ m2. Subtract more for clouds. Now remember that those deserts are NOT devoid of life. Subtract for that, subtract for space for maintenance (solid covering doesn't work), you quickly find it's not near what most people think. Oh, and those solar panels are currently expensive to produce (and take energy). Oh, and most are closer to 10-15% efficiency (25% is the top stuff that's grossly expensive for those space missions that need that level of efficiency).
This is not to say we shouldn't use solar, and but better would be in space.
Maybe it is/was being used, but everyone else considered it so obvious they didn't apply? Like the way patents are SUPPOSED to be?
Note: The 1-click is basically the web version of the store owner keeping a database of his regular customers, so they don't have to give the same info again & again. Anyone who's signed up for VCR/DVD renting has probably filled out the equiv form.
Good point about OCR. Similar to how my precinct currently operates - you close the bars on a ballot and, after verifying, feed to a scanner. The scanner varifies the ballot is accurate, or sounds a buzzer to have you get a new ballot (that ballot being pulled aside). Once verified, the machine counts the votes, drops the ballots into a sealed box for recounts. When we first went from manual, the supervisors actually did some manual recounts to confirm.
And why could they not do this if they open-sourced Java and kept the trademarks on the Java language? hint - they could, since the "Open Source" refers to Copyright, not trademark. Anyone could implement the language, but you could only call it Java if you passed the tests. If not, call it what you will.
In terms of IBM open sourcing DB2, I doubt it, since they make money SELLING LICENSES for DB2 (although they could surprise us, given all the other stuff they've open sourced).
Easy to get - IBM Mainframe LPARs are exactly this. Divide processor/memory/etc into separate sections (note that IBM has two levels of dividing resources - LPARs at the hardware level, VM does it at the software level).
Reminds me of an office I used to support. Got a call from the admin person "I'm having problems with windows - can you fix it" - so I head down there, check it out, windows is fine. Ask what the problem is, she says "windows comes up in funny colors when I boot up and I can't type my documents in it."
Hm. You don't type in Windows. Ask her to reboot - previous folks had set up her computer to automatically start Word when she booted (it's the only application she used). Someone had changed all the default colors to bright red on bright green (I suspect a joke, but it was horrible).
Moral - she didn't know the difference between word, windows, and any other application - she just knew how to do her job. Didn't care the application, just don't change it.
I shouldn't respond to an anonymous coward, but what the heck - you said:
<<If you think the average construction worker, or welfare recipient, or farmer, has deep reserves of intelligence that they are just not willing to show to people on their high horses, you should try hanging out with some of these people. >>
Well, my brother is a union electrician. Quite smart, has two years of college. Also hates college, loves working with his hands, enjoys working outdoors in the summer (note: he doesn't do houses - he does major stuff like power plants, coal plants, chip manufacturing plants, etc). None of this prevents him using his brain (you try doing some of the calculations he does on equipment choices - it's harder than it looks, trust me).
You should learn not to judge people by their jobs. It's more than intelligence, it's also aptitude and what you love. Oh, and if it weren't for people like him, there would be not computer chips to run your programs.
Must not have heard of Linux then (linux source code copyright is kept by the original authors - NOT Linus. Linus' take is this make it harder to take it proprietary, because you have to buy out not just him, but everyone who ever contributed).
Hm. Just because they developed the license (and have been working on updates) and have been preaching / promoting and have been the main people defending it doesn't make them relevent? I think not.
Yes, there's more to GNU than the GPL. That _some_ of it may not be relevant doesn't mean that _all_ of it is irrelevant. This is not a difficult concept.
GNU is irrelevant when many projects are GPL'ing their code? Let's see, GPL stands for . . .
GNU General Public License.
Hm. What are those 1st three letters? Oh, GNU. Yea, everyone's adapting THEIR license. Why? Maybe because they ARE relevant?
Article Six, Para 2 of the U.S. Constitution (from ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/ete xt90/const11.txt)
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
> The linux kernel may be controlled and coordinated by one person, but imagine a person with the supposed talent of Linus, times 50, working on making the Solaris Kernel better.
No multiply that by 1000. Remember that Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, etc, BY DEFINITION (as closed source) have limited # of people working on them (i.e. however many their company has employed working on that). Linux, OTOH, is not so limited.
Remember also that NO ONE Buys an OS with these things (i.e. "I think I'll by AIX, wonder if I should by the HW with it"). They buy the system, that includes the OS, because otherwise they can't run their app (actually, they probably buy the solution that includes app, hw, & OS). The OS is a cost center.
Now, by going to Linux, IBM can expand the # of people supporting the OS, without paying the cost. Result - better support, reduced costs -> higher profit margins.
In terms of control - IBM can certainly decide to "roll their own" patches, and can afford to provide support (although they probably will try to get the patches in the main kernel). GPL allows this.
> DiVX
> Legal: No
Based on? How is a format illegal?
"This is the root of my concern, books take up so little space that someone could download hundreds of books and store them on their home system. You may point out that someone who does this probably won't actually read the books (and you'd probably be right), but a massive copyright violation did just take place."
Hm. That's funny. I downloaded hundreds of books from Project Gutenburg, and NO copyright violation took place. I also made copies of some stuff on my home computer for backup. No copyright violation. In fact, in Russia, it is ILLEGAL to sell stuff that can't be backed up by the user (a sane policy).
Again, the issue isn't the copying, it's what a person does with the copy. The correct answer is to punish the folks who break the law (the pirates). Of course, that requires spending the money for lawyers, vs some "technological" solution that can't tell the difference between legal and illegal copying, but that only requires intelligence.
To quote Bruce Schneier - "Trying to prevent copying of bits is like trying to make water not wet."
You don't NEED to know the format to copy, all you need is access to the bits. For reference - the # of DVD's copied in the Far East WITHOUT DeCSS. The only people hurt by proprietary formats are the home folks (i.e. their customers).
Well, technically they can't. Unless you have a license attached (including one that says "this is hereby in the public domain"), your code falls under copyright (the default in the US and all Berne Convention countries). Under Copyright, while they can modify the code themselves, they CANNOT redistribute the code, or the modified code (right of first distribution).
At minimum, you need to public domain your software. Of course, this also means anyone can claim your software, and use it in a proprietary product. If that's what you want, go ahead.
Is it an app? If so, ignore the lawyer, just do it. Apps are NOT required to be GPL'd. Oracle sells them, Sybase sells them, IBM sells them, . . .
If it's a kernel mod, then you need the lawyer. But first of all, ask yourself - what are you selling? And what, exactly would be the damage from Open Source? Example: You're doing a HW board, and need a driver. Fine. That HW is yours. To copy it, someone would need to literally reverse-engineer the HW, AND have the manufacturing capability to build it economically. Oh, and while they're reverse engineering, you're building a better board.
OK, you say, but wouldn't the driver give them info? Well, if they've got the talent & money to reverse engineer the board, they've got the talent & money to RE the driver (as opposed to all those Linux geeks with no money who RE the drivers). So, no, it doesn't prevent them from Reverse Engineering it.
However, let's look at what you lose by not Open Sourcing (GPLing - and yes, I mean this license) the driver. Remember, you DON'T make money on the driver - it's a cost of building the HW, because without it, the board is useless. So, as a cost, you want to minimize it. By not Open Sourcing it, only YOU can build & fix the driver. I.e. you have all the cost. By GPL'ing it, you enlist the rest of the community - i.e. more developers, less cost.
Now, I specifically said GPL. Why? Because, if you Open Source via, say BSD license, you run the risk of your competitors using the code, improving it, and NOT giving back the changes. However, by GPL'ing it, you can be certain that, if anyone improves the code, and releases the improved code, you have as much right to it as anyone else on the distro list.
Actually, GPL IS based on contract law. However, it's also based on the fact that, under copyright law, you are denied certain rights on the code you get (redistribution). Then, the GPL proposes a contract: in return for you following certain rules, you get the right to redistribute the code. GPL meets the tests of contract law: offer & acceptance, consideration, legal purpose, competent parties (OK, that assumes you're competent).
Most licenses, however, have no offer / acceptance, or consideration. This is because they REMOVE rights, instead of granting additional ones. So, what is the company giving up (consideration)? You already HAD the right to run the software (by buying it). And, how do you show acceptance (with GPL, as it states, you don't have to accept, but nothing else grants you the rights)?
BTW: IANAL, but did study one term of contract law in college.
Current U.S. Current Copyright is for life + 70 years, or for 95 years from publication (or 120 from creation, whichever is shorter) for corporate works (17 USC 302). Copyright of items created before 1978 depends on a number of factors (17 USC 303-305), but can quickly become the above on proper reregistration, etc.
Service and Support is (or can be) a huge incentive to DO IT RIGHT. Example: suppose you write yearly support contracts. If you ship a shoddy product, you spend all your support contract money fixing the stuff. If you do it right, you collect all that money, and sit back with it, because you don't have to fix anything.
Well, you own the copy of the code you have (similar to owning a book you buy), but not the actual code (i.e. the stuff covered by copyright). There are two ownerships here: the information (covered by copyright) and the actual representation (what you're holding to view the information).
So you do own the copy, but not the information. (and GPL does expand your rights).
Well, for a lawyer, you should know that the opinions that matter are the courts. Eight judges disagree with you. Without appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, these rulings stand. (well, there is two other alternatives - Congress could change the law, or the President could, I presume, issue Microsoft a pardon).
So, the question is no longer whether or not they are a monopoly or whether or not they have abused that power. The question (barring the stuff in parenthesis above) is what punishment for their violation of law.