"But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners."
Of course they failed to mention that you stole the wood you used to build your house. Companies know what the rules are before they begin developing their products. Those rules don't change just because that product started producing cash for you.
The FSF might think of taking a stronger stance on these issues. If they don't then I can see a potential business model emerging where software companies violate the GPL and make large sums of cash for one or two years until the FSF takes them to court. They then pay the FSF 100k, release the source, and move on to their next violation. Paying 100k, after the fact, for a proven product code base is not a bad deal.
I've been doing this for about a year now and it works very well for me.
Windows terminal server. (I use 2k advanced server in remote admin mode. This limits the number of connections to two)
Rdesktop for connectivity from my Linux desktop.
http://www.rdesktop.org
I'v tryed most of the other options out there including VNC. The big advantage to this one is the responce time. It's fast, very fast.
I'm asking. I really don't know. However I imagine that they are faced with very similar issues. If Cal or Davis or UCSF or any other public school finds an invaluable new drug formula through a government funded project do they release the research and/or the formula to the public? Can we find any precedence in them?
I also suspect that many of those med projects have multiple funding sources. If this is true and some of those sources are private interests, what then?
I understand that medical science has some unique rules but what about the article posted not so long ago about software driven pacemakers. I think that is a perfect industry bridge example. What do they do in those cases?
Perhaps some of the readers in the med community wouldn't mind answering.
Slashdot Mirror
This line is my favorite.
"But the Free Software Foundation doesn't want royalties--it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners."
Of course they failed to mention that you stole the wood you used to build your house. Companies know what the rules are before they begin developing their products. Those rules don't change just because that product started producing cash for you.
The FSF might think of taking a stronger stance on these issues. If they don't then I can see a potential business model emerging where software companies violate the GPL and make large sums of cash for one or two years until the FSF takes them to court. They then pay the FSF 100k, release the source, and move on to their next violation. Paying 100k, after the fact, for a proven product code base is not a bad deal.
I've been doing this for about a year now and it works very well for me. Windows terminal server. (I use 2k advanced server in remote admin mode. This limits the number of connections to two) Rdesktop for connectivity from my Linux desktop. http://www.rdesktop.org I'v tryed most of the other options out there including VNC. The big advantage to this one is the responce time. It's fast, very fast.
I'm asking. I really don't know. However I imagine that they are faced with very similar issues. If Cal or Davis or UCSF or any other public school finds an invaluable new drug formula through a government funded project do they release the research and/or the formula to the public? Can we find any precedence in them?
I also suspect that many of those med projects have multiple funding sources. If this is true and some of those sources are private interests, what then?
I understand that medical science has some unique rules but what about the article posted not so long ago about software driven pacemakers. I think that is a perfect industry bridge example. What do they do in those cases?
Perhaps some of the readers in the med community wouldn't mind answering.