BTW, my high school in India always taught me radians as the default argument. Guess US school standards are falling. I swear, the level of the SAT is going down at least.
If you read my posting history, you will notice that I'm an Indian too... and what you have just said above is pure bullshit. Even in India, every math book specifies angles in degrees, not radians. And if MS Office expects me to type sin(30 degrees) instead of the convenient sin(30), I would rather not use it for arithmetic.
And Excel is meant for convenience to the layman, it is not intended for scientists.
Name me one programming language that does not take trigonometric angles in radians.
That's the second time you're spouting this argument. We are not talking about a programming language, we are talking about a Document standard - see the difference?
Name one math textbook which does not represent angles in degrees, specially wrt sin, cos and tan. It's always been in degrees, so your argument is pointless.
I'm sorry, Excel doesn't pander to high school students. In the real world, when the sine of an angle is mentioned, it is SUPPOSED to be radians. Every programming language I know accepts arguments for trig functions as radians.
Why is there a 'Student Edition' of MS Office at 80% discounts if MS doesn't pander to high school students?
Every high school I know teaches angles in degrees, not radians. When someone changes their stance completely, we say "It's a U turn or a 180-degree shift" Should we say 1.55 radians shift instead?
The default value for angles ought to be degrees, radians could be an option to cater to specific situations. Getting Microsoft to do normal things would mean a 180 degree shift in their philosophy, though.
So a guy working on a different document format, for a company who competes with Microsoft, has unkind words? Color me shocked. A competitor has a vested interest in exposing short-comings of his competition. So an IBM employee is the best critic of a competing Microsoft product. Why is this hard to understand? Why not criticise the views expressed, rather than the person he is OR his employers?
As for spreadsheet formats not being defined in ODF - it isn't a big deal, and the alliance seem to be working on the issue, in any case. A wrong formula is infinitely worse than No Formula.
I wonder what your vested interest is... your lack of a meaningful response and indulging in mud-slinging appears very deceptive, and your motives - suspect.
Someone failed the math class where they explained that an angle is a "dimensionless derived unit" . Explaining, short version for the clicky-impaired: angles are the ratio between two measurements of length -- the length of an arc and the radius of said arc. It got off to a bad start. Technically that may be correct, but in reality, it is very common and practical to express angles in degrees. So, sin(30) = 0.5 and tan(90) = 1. Memorising the values of sin, cos and tan for 0, 30, 45, 60 and 90 degrees is a de-facto requirement to solve trig. problems in high school. Does Microsoft expect students to relearn all these convenient derievd units in radians, and go mad?
A document standard is a practical necessity to express everyday ideas in a readable format. Not to be technically accurate and practically useless. Try typing HCl + NaOH --> NaCl + H2O in Office, and watch yourself breaking the monitor.
If it had been a trade secret, it could have been bundled into a product, and assumed to be reliable by its users. Instead, it's been exposed for what it is. Exactly! Imagine a Hospital implementing OOXML for it's entire IT needs, and a prescription reads: 1 tbsp Terramycin, twice daily. If a patient sues the hospital for wrong dosage, lots of red faces will be guaranteed.
FTA:
The CONVERT function (Part 4, Section 3.17.7.48) converts from one unit to another. Some conversions explicitly allowed include liquid measure conversions such as from liters to cups or tablespoons. But whose cup and whose tablespoon? Traditional liquid measures vary from country to country. In the US, a cup is 8oz, except for FDA labeling purposes when a cup is 240ml. But in Australia a cup is 250ml and in the UK it is 285ml. Similarly a tablespoon has various definitions. OOXML is silent on what assumptions an application should make. I guess I won't be using OOXML to store my recipes, and certainly not to calculate medical doses!
And don't applaud IBM to loudly, either. They have a strong set of their own proprietary software tools (Rational comes to mind, and I think they just bought Telelogic). Matter of fact, I didn't. I actually ponited out that they still have both strings - AIX AND Linux, and still speak as if AIX is an important part of their future. Which to me suggests they are playing fast and loose with Linux and Free Software.
Lotus Notes on Linux is not Free Software - it is proprietary. And IBM has bought over many commercially successful s/w outfits - testing tools, version control, databases etc. - and ensured none of them went the Open Source route.
Fortunately for the Free Software bandwagon, IBM is not the only player in town or even the biggest of it's champions. They are just one more of the "free-ride" parties to join the Open Source game - like Dell. Sun has yet to actually transition their offerings under GPL3 - but I guess they might be the first major firm to do so. Not IBM. Nor HP - the other two-faced company with enough dollars in it's kitty to make a difference.
People are going back and forth about whether or not the GPLv3 will apply to Microsoft, but the real crux of the deal is that it won't matter if there is no one that both has the resources and the motivation to force Microsoft to comply. To my knowledge, very few cases have enforced Microsoft's EULAs in a court of law, even though most of their clauses may not be legally tenable. Likewise the GPL has rarely been tested in a court of law, but that does not mean it is any less effective. Nobody is holding any gun to developer's heads, and yet, GPL is one of the most widely used licenses for software development, if not the most common one.
It is all about mindshare, not compliance or enforcement - and GPL is clearly winning the mindshare battle.
How could it possibly stop Microsoft from doing anything they do as long as no one has the money or the reason to take them to court over it and see it through completion. IBM is the only company I can think of that would really have both, and Microsoft isn't stupid enough to violate any of IBM's licenses, nor is it strategically positive for IBM to place themselve directly against Microsoft right now either. IBM is not Microsoft's only enemy by any stretch. Had it been so, SCO vs IBM should've ensured the death of Linux. IBM still maintains both strings to it's bow - Linux AND AIX. But the marketplace and MORE IMPORTANTLY the Developer community have adopted Linux and GPL in a big way. Visual Studio Express and free editions of many other s/w offerings indicates the growing mindshare of Free Software as a viable commercial model for developing and distributing software; and proprietary firms' changing tactics to counter this onslaught.
Otherwise, who are we really expecting to take Microsoft to court? Novell? The Free Software Foundation? Please... Microsoft has been stalling the sum total of *Europe* for almost half a decade, if you think Novell or the FSF is going to force Microsoft to comply witht eh GPL you're delusional. Going to a court of law to ensure antitrust compliance or even standards compliance is so '90s. The customer has already voted with his dollars for Free Software solutions, and even companies like Dell have woken up to this fact. Companies offering standards compliant, open source s/w under less restrictive licenses are growing in number as well as stature. GPL3 removes the threat of the patent sword hanging over customer's heads as well.
All in all, recent moves have clearly indicated that the GPL is really working, and achieving the stated objectives of the FSF. Kudos to Stallman, Moglen and co.
As somebody who is pretty out of the loop but at least knows the basics (well, on a consumer level - I know more about designing than buying), I cringe when I'm in a store and I hear some tech explaining something all wrong or clearly are talking out of their A$$.
What I mean is, I might not take advice from Dell, but I am more likely to trust them to make good decisions regarding hardware etc if they seem to know what they're talking about. It is credibility for product, not credibility for advice. We are not talking about newbies who just know the basics, we are talking about people managing 10,000+ PCs across multiple locations, delivering critical IT services across the enterprise. Such CIOs ought not trust a company like Dell, given their lack of competence on technology issues. Dell was, is and will continue to be a marketing company - much like Microsoft. It can never ever (in the foreseeable future) transition into a technology company. Sane CIOs wouldn't be asking Dell for tech advice... least of all, about Microsoft software. Why not talk to Microsoft themselves? With 10,000 PCs locked down with MSware, it's a lot easier dealing with them directly. NOT DELL!!
Praytell why a CIO would be looking at a home and home office computer page?
Because if he were a real CIO managing 10,000 computers, he ought to know that Home, Home Basic, Home Advanced, Home Ultimate and Home Wet Dream are just a way of confusing buyers, and preventing them from becoming tech-savvy. It tells a lot about the psychology of Dell, and it's unthinking gullible customers. In short, it tells the CIO he shouldn't be trusting Dell for any tech advice.
Imagine you've got 1000000 computers and 2000000 sticks of 512MB RAM. Then comes Vista.
That's a million PCs. With the amount of money required to license and maintain the beast called Vista on a million PCs, I'd rather pay RedHat or Canonical to give me a customised OS for the lot - and switch over to Web-based apps. Yes, it's a big ask....but it would be a one-time investment, and one single learning curve.
By the time it takes to get a million users get trained on UAC, IE7, Office 2007 and the support guys figure out how to get these running... the CIO could confdently move to Phase 2 with Linux-based web services, CRM, Business Intelligence etc. The army of MCSEs can be sent to Dell to support unfortunate CIOs stuck with Vista.
By giving an advice which is not intended to generate more sales in the short term, Dell just boosted their credibility with the CEO's, CIO's, CTO's and other non-technical people who'll decide which brand to buy the next time they need to upgrade their 10,000+ PC's.
If someone managing 10,000 PCs (not PC's - no need for the apostrophe, OK?) consults Dell on technology matters, said manager ought to be sacked. Dell is primarily a mail order company, a front for Microsoft, and one which goes out of the way to shill for them.
This page is also very illuminating - it tells a CIO all he needs to know about Dell's competence on technology matters:
The main thing to note is that when you choose open source you dont get a Windows® operating system. If youre here by mistake and you are looking for a Dell PC with Windows, please use the following link. No self-respecting CIO would turn to Dell for any advice.
The FSF has not made any accusations... merely speculated on the impact of GPL3 on future locked-down devices. I don't think Apple is in violation of any licenses, GPL or LGPL. The issue is about intent and posturing - the FSF has gained publicity by seemingly aligning itself with a commercially successful product - the iPhone. By stating that it is a crippled device, they have said it is anti-GPL in spirit.
Smart way for the FSF to get mindshare in the marketplace, is the way I see it.
Looks like the product has ended up with a few GPL and LSPL components after all. Besides, the LGPL is also an FSF creation, and the FSF has always been anti-proprietary, anti-lockdown, or anti-anti-freedom.
Nothing at all. RMS created the license, not the software, and it's not about "spreading freedom" in the slightest. It's about spreading software socialism and quid pro quo.. Uh.. wwwwhaatttt? GPL isn't about spreading freedom? What does it say in the 1st para of the GPL? The preamble???...The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom ....
The GPL is first and last about spreading freedom. If Apple is not about promoting software freedom, they ought to have chosen some other licensed code to include in their offerings, not the GPL of all things.
It certainly is free in different ways, but a lot of that depends on what you need from it. What exactly was Apple looking for, when it chose to start with GPL code to develop a locked-down, proprietary device? The GPL is anti-proprietary, it's anti-lockdown, it's anti-anti-freedom. Why did Apple need to use GPL code in it's products, if it didn't believe in what the GPL stood for, and stands for?
And thanks for that. RMS is a blowhard jackass. "Free" software isn't actually free, and now with v3 it's even less free. I know, I know, they needed to restrict your freedoms in order to guarantee them, because $EVIL_ENTITY would abuse the software otherwise.
If indeed RMS is a blowhard jackass, what does that say about a company which chooses to use code originally licensed under the GPL which said jackass created, in order to spread software freedom? Why don't companies that wish to sell 'locked-down' or 'dumbed-down' inferior products write code from scratch? Why go to hippies and jackasses?
This is a base attempt to get attention, to get some of the bigger press outlets to look at them. I suspect that they are in reality simply resenting that the iPhone buried almost all awareness of the GPL3 release, and are now desperate for attention.
If Apple chose to use GPL-derived code in it's products, why should it be exempt from criticisms about the intent and purposes of the end devices it sells? Why didn't Apple choose a clean-room non-GPL base to develop it's operating systems and other products?
If Apple chose GPL'd code because it was superior, and have now forked it because it is convenient for their purposes, the market needs to be made aware of the fact. Sooner the better, in my view.
What if opening the IPhone code leads to a $50 device with same specs and performance? I think the FSF has done a good job here.
If there isn't any evidence of GPL violation, why make the accusation?
This is despicable sensationalism, and not what I'd expect from the FSF.
I don't think there's any accusation, just sabre-rattling... a publicity stunt. The FSF has always been about publicity and community action; more than a software development or distribution outfit. By suggesting that the IPhone uses code derived from GPLed work, while the device itself is crippled, the FSF has well utilised a nice popular platform to explain it's agenda and purpose. Very smart, in my opinion.
Apple's work on the Mach kernel for ARM isn't under the GPL, it's under the BSD license. The graphics libraries are their own, and KHTML is available under it's own license. The FSF is trying to pull a Greenpeace-style publicity-grab here.
Are you saying there's absoloutely no GPL code... not even GPL2 only code... or even code derived from GPL2 work in the iPhone? That's a very strange view to hold... many seem to agree the 'webkit' was derived from GPL2 or later code.
I think the FSF grabbing publicity is well in order... if Apple goes agains the spirit of the GPL like TiVO, then let the whole world know the facts.
future contributions by Apple will go to the GPLv2 fork... and if Apple deletes any "...or later..." clause from "their" fork, the GPLv3 version won't even be able to cross-port their changes.
The biggest asset for any company is mindshare from it's customers, not marketshare. Apple is just entering the market for cellphones. If enough negative mindshare is built up around the crippling nature of the product, marketshare would be very sluggish in it's growth.
Secondly, if Apple does fork GPLed components and sticks with Tivoisation, customers would tend to view Apple very negatively. Which is bound to hurt them over the long run.
I like the FSF a lot, but I'm sure this kind of posturing is very harmful to the adoption of Linux.
Firstly, are you sure the iPhone uses Linux or GPLed components? If so, I would hate the FSF if it didn't stand up for the spirit of the GPL - ie: Freedom to users. Why should the FSF stand idly by, when some (allegedly) unscrupulous corporate makes $500 by denying freedom to it's customers? The market might be able to come up with a $50 device, if the spirit of the GPL were to be enforced... would you consider it harmful then?
OSS advocates scream "FUD" when companies like Microsoft try to scare clients by saying using GPL software opens them up to legal action, but this kind of statement by the FSS shows that they have a point.
Using or distributing GPL software for a profit never gets anyone into trouble, provided said user or distributor respects the GPL. If Microsoft does try to scare clients this way, then they are engaging in FUD - pure and simple.
The FSS needs to choose its battles more wisely if it is not going to harm the people it is supposed to help.
I'd say companies need to choose their software licenses very carefully while developing, selling or distributing them. If indeed Apple uses GPLed code and is in violation, the FSF has chosen it's battles very carefully.
And keep generating more publicity for dubious deals struck by Microsoft with a few "Linux providers". The focal point of the news article was to report on the dubious naure of the deals, and the lukewarm reaction from a few 'respectable' distros and vendors. It was not intended to interpret the GPL at all.
But Microsoft's format is known as the "Office Open XML" format... and they're trying to get is ISO certified.... and cronies like Corel and Novell to support it... so they can claim it has 'broad-based' support from other software vendors as well.Besides I believe the OOXML spec is about 7,000 pages long, and has nuggets like "Windows 95 support" inside it, which no one else can figure out.
The ODF spec isn't very compact either... 4,000 pages; but it has broader support from lots of small players as well.
Which Open format will win? Unless corporates implement inernal portal systems based on 'Office' documents in a big way, the OOXML looks poised to win. For ODF to win, Sun and IBM have to work on competing open source alternatives to SharePoint and SharPoint Portal servers.... not just MS Office.
Slashdot Mirror
BTW, my high school in India always taught me radians as the default argument. Guess US school standards are falling. I swear, the level of the SAT is going down at least.
If you read my posting history, you will notice that I'm an Indian too... and what you have just said above is pure bullshit. Even in India, every math book specifies angles in degrees, not radians. And if MS Office expects me to type sin(30 degrees) instead of the convenient sin(30), I would rather not use it for arithmetic.
And Excel is meant for convenience to the layman, it is not intended for scientists.
Name me one programming language that does not take trigonometric angles in radians.
That's the second time you're spouting this argument. We are not talking about a programming language, we are talking about a Document standard - see the difference?
Name one math textbook which does not represent angles in degrees, specially wrt sin, cos and tan. It's always been in degrees, so your argument is pointless.
I'm sorry, Excel doesn't pander to high school students. In the real world, when the sine of an angle is mentioned, it is SUPPOSED to be radians. Every programming language I know accepts arguments for trig functions as radians.
Why is there a 'Student Edition' of MS Office at 80% discounts if MS doesn't pander to high school students?
Every high school I know teaches angles in degrees, not radians. When someone changes their stance completely, we say "It's a U turn or a 180-degree shift" Should we say 1.55 radians shift instead?
The default value for angles ought to be degrees, radians could be an option to cater to specific situations. Getting Microsoft to do normal things would mean a 180 degree shift in their philosophy, though.
As for spreadsheet formats not being defined in ODF - it isn't a big deal, and the alliance seem to be working on the issue, in any case. A wrong formula is infinitely worse than No Formula.
I wonder what your vested interest is... your lack of a meaningful response and indulging in mud-slinging appears very deceptive, and your motives - suspect.
It got off to a bad start. Technically that may be correct, but in reality, it is very common and practical to express angles in degrees. So, sin(30) = 0.5 and tan(90) = 1. Memorising the values of sin, cos and tan for 0, 30, 45, 60 and 90 degrees is a de-facto requirement to solve trig. problems in high school. Does Microsoft expect students to relearn all these convenient derievd units in radians, and go mad?
A document standard is a practical necessity to express everyday ideas in a readable format. Not to be technically accurate and practically useless. Try typing HCl + NaOH --> NaCl + H2O in Office, and watch yourself breaking the monitor.
FTA: The CONVERT function (Part 4, Section 3.17.7.48) converts from one unit to another. Some conversions explicitly allowed include liquid measure conversions such as from liters to cups or tablespoons. But whose cup and whose tablespoon? Traditional liquid measures vary from country to country. In the US, a cup is 8oz, except for FDA labeling purposes when a cup is 240ml. But in Australia a cup is 250ml and in the UK it is 285ml. Similarly a tablespoon has various definitions. OOXML is silent on what assumptions an application should make. I guess I won't be using OOXML to store my recipes, and certainly not to calculate medical doses!
Lotus Notes on Linux is not Free Software - it is proprietary. And IBM has bought over many commercially successful s/w outfits - testing tools, version control, databases etc. - and ensured none of them went the Open Source route.
Fortunately for the Free Software bandwagon, IBM is not the only player in town or even the biggest of it's champions. They are just one more of the "free-ride" parties to join the Open Source game - like Dell. Sun has yet to actually transition their offerings under GPL3 - but I guess they might be the first major firm to do so. Not IBM. Nor HP - the other two-faced company with enough dollars in it's kitty to make a difference.
It is all about mindshare, not compliance or enforcement - and GPL is clearly winning the mindshare battle. How could it possibly stop Microsoft from doing anything they do as long as no one has the money or the reason to take them to court over it and see it through completion. IBM is the only company I can think of that would really have both, and Microsoft isn't stupid enough to violate any of IBM's licenses, nor is it strategically positive for IBM to place themselve directly against Microsoft right now either. IBM is not Microsoft's only enemy by any stretch. Had it been so, SCO vs IBM should've ensured the death of Linux. IBM still maintains both strings to it's bow - Linux AND AIX. But the marketplace and MORE IMPORTANTLY the Developer community have adopted Linux and GPL in a big way. Visual Studio Express and free editions of many other s/w offerings indicates the growing mindshare of Free Software as a viable commercial model for developing and distributing software; and proprietary firms' changing tactics to counter this onslaught. Otherwise, who are we really expecting to take Microsoft to court? Novell? The Free Software Foundation? Please... Microsoft has been stalling the sum total of *Europe* for almost half a decade, if you think Novell or the FSF is going to force Microsoft to comply witht eh GPL you're delusional. Going to a court of law to ensure antitrust compliance or even standards compliance is so '90s. The customer has already voted with his dollars for Free Software solutions, and even companies like Dell have woken up to this fact. Companies offering standards compliant, open source s/w under less restrictive licenses are growing in number as well as stature. GPL3 removes the threat of the patent sword hanging over customer's heads as well.
All in all, recent moves have clearly indicated that the GPL is really working, and achieving the stated objectives of the FSF. Kudos to Stallman, Moglen and co.
What I mean is, I might not take advice from Dell, but I am more likely to trust them to make good decisions regarding hardware etc if they seem to know what they're talking about. It is credibility for product, not credibility for advice. We are not talking about newbies who just know the basics, we are talking about people managing 10,000+ PCs across multiple locations, delivering critical IT services across the enterprise. Such CIOs ought not trust a company like Dell, given their lack of competence on technology issues. Dell was, is and will continue to be a marketing company - much like Microsoft. It can never ever (in the foreseeable future) transition into a technology company. Sane CIOs wouldn't be asking Dell for tech advice... least of all, about Microsoft software. Why not talk to Microsoft themselves? With 10,000 PCs locked down with MSware, it's a lot easier dealing with them directly. NOT DELL!!
Praytell why a CIO would be looking at a home and home office computer page?
Because if he were a real CIO managing 10,000 computers, he ought to know that Home, Home Basic, Home Advanced, Home Ultimate and Home Wet Dream are just a way of confusing buyers, and preventing them from becoming tech-savvy. It tells a lot about the psychology of Dell, and it's unthinking gullible customers. In short, it tells the CIO he shouldn't be trusting Dell for any tech advice.
Imagine you've got 1000000 computers and 2000000 sticks of 512MB RAM. Then comes Vista.
.but it would be a one-time investment, and one single learning curve.
That's a million PCs. With the amount of money required to license and maintain the beast called Vista on a million PCs, I'd rather pay RedHat or Canonical to give me a customised OS for the lot - and switch over to Web-based apps. Yes, it's a big ask...
By the time it takes to get a million users get trained on UAC, IE7, Office 2007 and the support guys figure out how to get these running... the CIO could confdently move to Phase 2 with Linux-based web services, CRM, Business Intelligence etc. The army of MCSEs can be sent to Dell to support unfortunate CIOs stuck with Vista.
If someone managing 10,000 PCs (not PC's - no need for the apostrophe, OK?) consults Dell on technology matters, said manager ought to be sacked. Dell is primarily a mail order company, a front for Microsoft, and one which goes out of the way to shill for them.
Take a look at this other Dell contribution on ZDNet , and you'll understand what I'm talking about.
This page is also very illuminating - it tells a CIO all he needs to know about Dell's competence on technology matters: The main thing to note is that when you choose open source you dont get a Windows® operating system. If youre here by mistake and you are looking for a Dell PC with Windows, please use the following link. No self-respecting CIO would turn to Dell for any advice.
The FSF has not made any accusations... merely speculated on the impact of GPL3 on future locked-down devices. I don't think Apple is in violation of any licenses, GPL or LGPL. The issue is about intent and posturing - the FSF has gained publicity by seemingly aligning itself with a commercially successful product - the iPhone. By stating that it is a crippled device, they have said it is anti-GPL in spirit.
Smart way for the FSF to get mindshare in the marketplace, is the way I see it.
Looks like the product has ended up with a few GPL and LSPL components after all. Besides, the LGPL is also an FSF creation, and the FSF has always been anti-proprietary, anti-lockdown, or anti-anti-freedom.
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom
The GPL is first and last about spreading freedom. If Apple is not about promoting software freedom, they ought to have chosen some other licensed code to include in their offerings, not the GPL of all things.
And thanks for that. RMS is a blowhard jackass. "Free" software isn't actually free, and now with v3 it's even less free. I know, I know, they needed to restrict your freedoms in order to guarantee them, because $EVIL_ENTITY would abuse the software otherwise.
If indeed RMS is a blowhard jackass, what does that say about a company which chooses to use code originally licensed under the GPL which said jackass created, in order to spread software freedom? Why don't companies that wish to sell 'locked-down' or 'dumbed-down' inferior products write code from scratch? Why go to hippies and jackasses?
This is a base attempt to get attention, to get some of the bigger press outlets to look at them. I suspect that they are in reality simply resenting that the iPhone buried almost all awareness of the GPL3 release, and are now desperate for attention.
If Apple chose to use GPL-derived code in it's products, why should it be exempt from criticisms about the intent and purposes of the end devices it sells? Why didn't Apple choose a clean-room non-GPL base to develop it's operating systems and other products?
If Apple chose GPL'd code because it was superior, and have now forked it because it is convenient for their purposes, the market needs to be made aware of the fact. Sooner the better, in my view.
What if opening the IPhone code leads to a $50 device with same specs and performance? I think the FSF has done a good job here.
If there isn't any evidence of GPL violation, why make the accusation?
This is despicable sensationalism, and not what I'd expect from the FSF.
I don't think there's any accusation, just sabre-rattling... a publicity stunt. The FSF has always been about publicity and community action; more than a software development or distribution outfit. By suggesting that the IPhone uses code derived from GPLed work, while the device itself is crippled, the FSF has well utilised a nice popular platform to explain it's agenda and purpose. Very smart, in my opinion.
Apple's work on the Mach kernel for ARM isn't under the GPL, it's under the BSD license. The graphics libraries are their own, and KHTML is available under it's own license. The FSF is trying to pull a Greenpeace-style publicity-grab here.
Are you saying there's absoloutely no GPL code... not even GPL2 only code... or even code derived from GPL2 work in the iPhone? That's a very strange view to hold... many seem to agree the 'webkit' was derived from GPL2 or later code.
I think the FSF grabbing publicity is well in order... if Apple goes agains the spirit of the GPL like TiVO, then let the whole world know the facts.
future contributions by Apple will go to the GPLv2 fork... and if Apple deletes any "...or later..." clause from "their" fork, the GPLv3 version won't even be able to cross-port their changes.
The biggest asset for any company is mindshare from it's customers, not marketshare. Apple is just entering the market for cellphones. If enough negative mindshare is built up around the crippling nature of the product, marketshare would be very sluggish in it's growth.
Secondly, if Apple does fork GPLed components and sticks with Tivoisation, customers would tend to view Apple very negatively. Which is bound to hurt them over the long run.
I like the FSF a lot, but I'm sure this kind of posturing is very harmful to the adoption of Linux.
Firstly, are you sure the iPhone uses Linux or GPLed components? If so, I would hate the FSF if it didn't stand up for the spirit of the GPL - ie: Freedom to users. Why should the FSF stand idly by, when some (allegedly) unscrupulous corporate makes $500 by denying freedom to it's customers? The market might be able to come up with a $50 device, if the spirit of the GPL were to be enforced... would you consider it harmful then?
OSS advocates scream "FUD" when companies like Microsoft try to scare clients by saying using GPL software opens them up to legal action, but this kind of statement by the FSS shows that they have a point.
Using or distributing GPL software for a profit never gets anyone into trouble, provided said user or distributor respects the GPL. If Microsoft does try to scare clients this way, then they are engaging in FUD - pure and simple.
The FSS needs to choose its battles more wisely if it is not going to harm the people it is supposed to help.
I'd say companies need to choose their software licenses very carefully while developing, selling or distributing them. If indeed Apple uses GPLed code and is in violation, the FSF has chosen it's battles very carefully.
And keep generating more publicity for dubious deals struck by Microsoft with a few "Linux providers". The focal point of the news article was to report on the dubious naure of the deals, and the lukewarm reaction from a few 'respectable' distros and vendors. It was not intended to interpret the GPL at all.
Nothing else for us to see here; move along.
open formats win, MS loses..
But Microsoft's format is known as the "Office Open XML" format... and they're trying to get is ISO certified.... and cronies like Corel and Novell to support it... so they can claim it has 'broad-based' support from other software vendors as well.Besides I believe the OOXML spec is about 7,000 pages long, and has nuggets like "Windows 95 support" inside it, which no one else can figure out.
The ODF spec isn't very compact either... 4,000 pages; but it has broader support from lots of small players as well.
Which Open format will win? Unless corporates implement inernal portal systems based on 'Office' documents in a big way, the OOXML looks poised to win. For ODF to win, Sun and IBM have to work on competing open source alternatives to SharePoint and SharPoint Portal servers.... not just MS Office.
But facts will be facts. Corruption and rigging is everywhere.... from Wolfowitz to where-you-know. Hardly any point picking on a particular leader.