This might be fair for larger companies but what about the small mom and pop store that is just getting on the internet. There are tons of stores with the same or similar names out there so they might have to call their website something else - like eCornerDeli.
Did you ever think that maybe a lot of these may actually be registered by the parties themselves.
I should also note that my not-so-common family name is registered by nameplanet.com. Since I don't have any existing trademark in my name there is not a whole lot I can do.
Try this Search using "Bicycle Shops" UK. By putting the phrase Bicycle Shops in quotes I look for that exact phrase. I keep the UK out of the quotes though. Sometimes it is just a matter of knowing HOW to search.
As long as you can get to the search engine, you just pull up raw IP links.
I would like to introduce you to the idea of virtual domains. It's this nifty idea where one IP address can host thousands of different websites - all with their own domain name.
Now unless you are suggesting that they come up with a different way of putting distinguishing information in the header then I think your idea is fairly moot.
No offense but were you replying to my post or just in general? I made no comment about being forced to use Microsoft. I am not even a Microsoft-basher (which can be evidenced by the lack of $). Just the same, I have to admit that Microsoft does have holes. Now I can either migrate everything to another OS or I could just be diligent with applying the patches.
How do you quantify what is doing enough? If they release a patch in two weeks is that enough? How about 4? Is releasing a patch not enough? Should they actually call people and tell them to install a patch that has been out for months? I mean there is no doubting that Microsoft software has holes but they do patch them. The question is do the do it fast enough and do they make it required for users.
I agree with you. I wouldn't have put in quotes either. I actually very rarely use quotes unless I am actually quoting something. I prefer italics or bold if I need to emphasize something. Either way, I was really trying to read the original authors mind.
There seems to be a whole lotta rumors and assumptions in this article. They don't even agree on when it would happen. It might make sense but they might as well be guessing that Microsoft will launch porn site - I mean they have the resources to do it.
I won't argue on interpreting the guidelines. I will just say that until I see one clone company I will have to believe that I am right. When you find the company that has a computer, with PowerPC technology, that says 100% Apple Compatible (like in the old 100% IBM-PC compatible) then let me know.
You, my friend, have been dooped by the media. You hear all about the accounting firms doing this and being sued, etc. The thing is, they are the deep pockets. They are the only scapegoat that is left.
Most firms, including AA in the Enron case, follow Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS) to the letter. They are not required in anyway to do anything more and they have every right, no matter what lieberman says, to discard anything that isn't a final workpaper.
I've been on both sides of the ball. I've done the audits and I've done private. Thankfully, I worked my way out of there and now do financial systems. You wouldn't believe though the shit that gets done to make a bottom line. Without checking out every journal entry, an auditor would never know what is truly going on.
Let me give you an example. One of the ways an auditor gets comfortable is by doing an analytical comparison between years. If this year's number looks like last year's and I don't know any reason why it should be different then I would just say that it is reasonable. But I would never know if they had to book fake journal entries to get the number there. Under GAAS I might be safe because I obviously can't check every number.
That is a scary way of looking at things. If you don't trust the validty of any audit based on the Enron case then you might as well take all of your money and put it under your matress. Having worked in public for almost 3 years (which is a lot for a sane person) I can tell you that most auditors are fairly honest. The probem lies in the audit process.
If an auditor were to truly dig deep into the accounting of a large company the audit would take two years. Instead they do reasonability tests and rely a good deal on their client's representations (which are in an actual document signed before the audit). The problem is that many high ranking officials in large companies have no problem lying straight faced and most of their underlings go along with the flow out of fear for their job.
The audit process I am proposing would be much different. It shouldn't take more than a few weeks for a trained professional (not paid for by either party) to go through the code of the original closed source product and the final code of the universities final product.
Well then, add to the exemption that they must provide binary distributions for every platform possible. As I said in another thread, you can make it hard on them but don't make it impossible.
Actually, what I had suggested in another thread was a third-party audit process in order to keep it closed. In other words, if the university wants to keep the source code closed then they would have to go through an involved process to gain an exemption. Make it tough on them but not impossible.
That's a nice thought but that isn't the topic at hand. The topic is if some company says - "here is the source to my software that I sell and maintain as closed source. You can use this source within your project so that you don't have to recreate the wheel. The only stipulation is that you can not release the source to your project because it would expose the source to my project."
We are not saying that the university should make money off of the final product or that it should restrict usage in any way. We are saying though that they wouldn't get a deal like that if they were forced, without exception, to release the source code.
There would obviously have to be some sort of audit process for universities that want an exemption. An independent third-party would have to look at all of the code and determine what should be open and what should be closed.
If a University involves their proprietary works in there, that's their loss.
It becomes everybody's loss if they can't involve propietary works given to them for free from close source companies. As Mr. Dalke stated, you might have to rewrite something that otherwise would have been provided to you if you weren't going open-source.
If public funds are used to create, say, a word processor, then people should be pissed off if they can't get the source code for it, because it's their tax money paying for the software.
But why would I be upset? I am getting the word processor. And maybe the reason it is so great is because Microsoft decided to release to that university all the details of the.doc file format(ok so this isn't realistic but it is an extreme example). This free word processor is 100% compatible with Word but if they had to release the source, Microsoft would never do it.
The point is that all of the code may NOT be paid for by the public. Within that code may be closed, third-party code that the university was allowed access to. If you force the university to open the code then the third party might just pull out altogether. This isn't about whether it's right or wrong. It is just what will happen.
No one says you can't use the product for free. They are just saying that you can't see the source if it includes closed, third-party source within it.
We are not talking about not being able to benefit from the product of publicly funded projects. We are talking about whether you need to see the source code in order to enjoy the benefits. I can see cases where companies pull their products out of a university out of fear of it being open-sourced.
I agree with Mr. Dalke in that you can't just apply blanket policies like this. There are always going to be exceptions and fuzzy areas. To absolutely force all public-funded works to provide the source to their projects without considering special cases seems negligent at best.
a) A large percentage of consistent voters are the elderly who would be totally lost when you started talking about this. "Open Source? I'll show you some open sores."
b) Most people who would be knowledgable (primarily young men) would be too busy playing {Enter Latest Game Here} to remember to vote.
c) If you already have systems up and running and existing licenses then the savings would be more long term than short term. This is always bad since people have a short - what the hell was I saying?
Slashdot Mirror
This might be fair for larger companies but what about the small mom and pop store that is just getting on the internet. There are tons of stores with the same or similar names out there so they might have to call their website something else - like eCornerDeli.
Did you ever think that maybe a lot of these may actually be registered by the parties themselves.
I should also note that my not-so-common family name is registered by nameplanet.com. Since I don't have any existing trademark in my name there is not a whole lot I can do.
Try this Search using "Bicycle Shops" UK. By putting the phrase Bicycle Shops in quotes I look for that exact phrase. I keep the UK out of the quotes though. Sometimes it is just a matter of knowing HOW to search.
As long as you can get to the search engine, you just pull up raw IP links.
I would like to introduce you to the idea of virtual domains. It's this nifty idea where one IP address can host thousands of different websites - all with their own domain name.
Now unless you are suggesting that they come up with a different way of putting distinguishing information in the header then I think your idea is fairly moot.
No offense but were you replying to my post or just in general? I made no comment about being forced to use Microsoft. I am not even a Microsoft-basher (which can be evidenced by the lack of $). Just the same, I have to admit that Microsoft does have holes. Now I can either migrate everything to another OS or I could just be diligent with applying the patches.
How do you quantify what is doing enough? If they release a patch in two weeks is that enough? How about 4? Is releasing a patch not enough? Should they actually call people and tell them to install a patch that has been out for months? I mean there is no doubting that Microsoft software has holes but they do patch them. The question is do the do it fast enough and do they make it required for users.
I agree with you. I wouldn't have put in quotes either. I actually very rarely use quotes unless I am actually quoting something. I prefer italics or bold if I need to emphasize something. Either way, I was really trying to read the original authors mind.
I think he put it in quotes because, as I stated above, the whole story is suspect. There is no solid evidence of anything that is prognosticated.
There seems to be a whole lotta rumors and assumptions in this article. They don't even agree on when it would happen. It might make sense but they might as well be guessing that Microsoft will launch porn site - I mean they have the resources to do it.
Or - Mailroom clerk went to Office Depot and got the packaged legal form for software licensing and filled in the blanks.
I won't argue on interpreting the guidelines. I will just say that until I see one clone company I will have to believe that I am right. When you find the company that has a computer, with PowerPC technology, that says 100% Apple Compatible (like in the old 100% IBM-PC compatible) then let me know.
You misread the guidelines. It says:
You may use "Mac" in a product name, company name, trade name, or service name provided it satisfies the following criteria:
a. Your product is not a computer, computer system, or operating system software.
The mac compatible refers to anything that is hardware or software but no a computer (like an mp3 device or printer).
You, my friend, have been dooped by the media. You hear all about the accounting firms doing this and being sued, etc. The thing is, they are the deep pockets. They are the only scapegoat that is left.
Most firms, including AA in the Enron case, follow Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS) to the letter. They are not required in anyway to do anything more and they have every right, no matter what lieberman says, to discard anything that isn't a final workpaper.
I've been on both sides of the ball. I've done the audits and I've done private. Thankfully, I worked my way out of there and now do financial systems. You wouldn't believe though the shit that gets done to make a bottom line. Without checking out every journal entry, an auditor would never know what is truly going on.
Let me give you an example. One of the ways an auditor gets comfortable is by doing an analytical comparison between years. If this year's number looks like last year's and I don't know any reason why it should be different then I would just say that it is reasonable. But I would never know if they had to book fake journal entries to get the number there. Under GAAS I might be safe because I obviously can't check every number.
That is a scary way of looking at things. If you don't trust the validty of any audit based on the Enron case then you might as well take all of your money and put it under your matress. Having worked in public for almost 3 years (which is a lot for a sane person) I can tell you that most auditors are fairly honest. The probem lies in the audit process.
If an auditor were to truly dig deep into the accounting of a large company the audit would take two years. Instead they do reasonability tests and rely a good deal on their client's representations (which are in an actual document signed before the audit). The problem is that many high ranking officials in large companies have no problem lying straight faced and most of their underlings go along with the flow out of fear for their job.
The audit process I am proposing would be much different. It shouldn't take more than a few weeks for a trained professional (not paid for by either party) to go through the code of the original closed source product and the final code of the universities final product.
Well then, add to the exemption that they must provide binary distributions for every platform possible. As I said in another thread, you can make it hard on them but don't make it impossible.
Actually, what I had suggested in another thread was a third-party audit process in order to keep it closed. In other words, if the university wants to keep the source code closed then they would have to go through an involved process to gain an exemption. Make it tough on them but not impossible.
That's a nice thought but that isn't the topic at hand. The topic is if some company says - "here is the source to my software that I sell and maintain as closed source. You can use this source within your project so that you don't have to recreate the wheel. The only stipulation is that you can not release the source to your project because it would expose the source to my project."
We are not saying that the university should make money off of the final product or that it should restrict usage in any way. We are saying though that they wouldn't get a deal like that if they were forced, without exception, to release the source code.
There would obviously have to be some sort of audit process for universities that want an exemption. An independent third-party would have to look at all of the code and determine what should be open and what should be closed.
If a University involves their proprietary works in there, that's their loss.
It becomes everybody's loss if they can't involve propietary works given to them for free from close source companies. As Mr. Dalke stated, you might have to rewrite something that otherwise would have been provided to you if you weren't going open-source.
If public funds are used to create, say, a word processor, then people should be pissed off if they can't get the source code for it, because it's their tax money paying for the software.
.doc file format(ok so this isn't realistic but it is an extreme example). This free word processor is 100% compatible with Word but if they had to release the source, Microsoft would never do it.
But why would I be upset? I am getting the word processor. And maybe the reason it is so great is because Microsoft decided to release to that university all the details of the
The point is that all of the code may NOT be paid for by the public. Within that code may be closed, third-party code that the university was allowed access to. If you force the university to open the code then the third party might just pull out altogether. This isn't about whether it's right or wrong. It is just what will happen.
No one says you can't use the product for free. They are just saying that you can't see the source if it includes closed, third-party source within it.
We are not talking about not being able to benefit from the product of publicly funded projects. We are talking about whether you need to see the source code in order to enjoy the benefits. I can see cases where companies pull their products out of a university out of fear of it being open-sourced.
I agree with Mr. Dalke in that you can't just apply blanket policies like this. There are always going to be exceptions and fuzzy areas. To absolutely force all public-funded works to provide the source to their projects without considering special cases seems negligent at best.
a) A large percentage of consistent voters are the elderly who would be totally lost when you started talking about this. "Open Source? I'll show you some open sores."
b) Most people who would be knowledgable (primarily young men) would be too busy playing {Enter Latest Game Here} to remember to vote.
c) If you already have systems up and running and existing licenses then the savings would be more long term than short term. This is always bad since people have a short - what the hell was I saying?