Interesting. That is a much larger list than I was aware of, though I hadn't heard of most of them.
I knew that the X11 and Zlib licenses were GPL compatible, but wasn't aware that modified versions of the BSD license or Python had been created.
The incompatible licenses that I was aware of include the XFree86 license, the original BSD license, the various Apache licenses, older python licenses, CPL, latex, mozilla, and php licenses. For me, that makes up the majority of OSS projects with widespread interest, though that judgement is in the eye of the beholder.;)
Point of note: There are two BSD style licenses. The original license contains an advertise clause, which is incompatible with the GPL. However, there is now apparently a modified version of the license which removed the advertise requirement. The new license would appear to be convertable to the old-style license, but it doesn't work the other way around. I don't know how common usage of the new-style BSD license is.
It is actually interesting to see how many open source licenses have been modified to become GPL compatible, and the number of GPL-derrived licenses which have appeared.
I'm not being an ass, I'm getting to the point. Which you seem to grasp, but don't quite understand (after which you decided to get all angry and mouth off half cocked).
You're exactly correct -- you can't write software using a patent without an appropriate license to that patent. You are also entirely missing my point -- the GPL forbids additional requirements placed on the distribution of GPL'd software. If you need to have a license in addition to the GPL to distribute the GPL'd software, the software can't be released under the GPL.
BSD, public domain, and closed source licenses don't have those restrictions. What you're seeing here is nothing more than the bsd-like advertise clause (which, coincidentally, is why the BSD license is not compatible with the GPL).
Nowhere in my previous post did I infer any evilness, or lack of evilness of the GPL. I am trying to demonstrate that there is no inherant evil in non-GPL compatible licenses, as the "bar" set by the GPL is higher than most open source licenses (for better or worse).
To say the Microsoft intentionally tried to make their license incompatible with the GPL is untrue, as the GPL by its nature forbids the inclusion of proprietary technology. There isn't anything wrong with that, and such language very much is in keeping with the goals the GPL authors had intended.
In order to 'legally' use a patent, you need a license to the patent. The GPL prohibits any requirement which forces said license to be included in any GPL software.
The GPL is incredibly restrictive about what you can suck in. Everything must be free, both in and out. Patents are not "free". Therefore they can't freely be sucked 'in'. And you can't distribute GPL'd software without the license to the patent, meaning it can't be freely pushed 'out'.
I don't see how anyone can view this is being a deliberate attempt to subvert the GPL. The philosophy behind the GPL by its very nature prohibits this sort of thing. I suppose there is a bit of irony about how one of the more restrictive OSS licenses produces something ultimately free-er than the less restrictive licenses.
It doesn't take much to "craft" a license agreement such that it is incompatible with the GPL. The GPL is pretty much incompatible with every license available.
Dvorak articles are used here so much because the man tends to be very critical of Microsoft. An article of that nature meets 90% of the criteria for being posted on slashdot.
I leave it as an exercise to the reader what the other criteria may be.:)
He is overly critical and generally has unrealistic expectations. If a device has a small flaw (or even looks at him funny) he'll devote pages focusing on it, while ignoring everything the device gets right.
The man would probably predict the demise of Ferrari because the starter button has a cheap feel to it.
This marks the first time in history I've ever seen the man write anything positive about anything. Not to say he hasn't, but he generally doesn't have a tendency to say anything nice.
Pointing out the flaws in other available components is not a "slam". The author is trying to put some context around his opinions of the controller, as everyone has different preferences. If you're a fan of the Duke and don't like the location of buttons on the PS2 controller, odds are you'll agree with his assessment.
If a complaint about the position of the L/R1 buttons on the PS2 controller is enough to twist your panties in a knot, you should make a habit of not reading anything other than content officially sanctioned by Sony.
Is that true? I don't recall that, but it makes sense.
The market in the finding of fact is not defined that explicitely (several pages of text and justification), though the 'summary' I list above is an accurate depiction.
I wonder if the fact that Apple is trying very hard to ensure that OS X will not run on standard Intel hardware is enough to avoid changing that finding
I suspect that is a reason, though not the primary reason; Apple's is primarily interested in protecting the profit margins they make on their hardware.
One of the justifications the judge used to exclude Apple from the relevent market was that you had to switch to an Apple branded computer to change operating systems (which was an expensive 'burden' on the consumer). However, one has to wonder if that reasoning would be valid if a vendor artificially restricted which computers their OS would run on.
Finally, I wonder if Apple had been included if the ruling would have been any different... even excluding Apple, Windows was not the only x86 computer desktop operating system, just the one with 99% of the market.
Today, Microsoft holds roughly a 90% share of the desktop operating systems market (if wikipedia can be believed). In 1998, I believe the figure was closer to 84%, though I can't seem to find the numbers anymore. I don't remember if that number included DOS or not.
If Apple had been included, I believe Microsoft wouldn't have been ruled a monopoly; they wouldn't have spent the time and effort restricting the relevant market otherwise.
All very interesting, anyway. Thanks for pointing that out.
No problem. Its always fun to have a conversation with someone who doesn't reply foaming at the mouth.;)
If nobody wants to pay for a media player, then Microsoft couldn't have been hurting all of those companies trying to sell media players. And if that were the case, the EU couldn't have levied a fat 500m euro fine.
The courts disagree. You'd better straighten them out
The court held that Microsoft held a monopoly on x86 computer desktop operating systems. Apple was explicitely excluded from the market chosen for the DOJ lawsuit.
If your market is simply "desktop computer operating systems", then the court did not rule that Microsoft held a monopoly in that area.
The best thing that ever happened to Microsoft in the anti-trust department was Apple's decision to switch to Intel hardware.
In fact, the parts are so old that nobody would manufacture them anymore unless it was made worth their while.
"It is also worth noting Microsoft paid NVIDIA for the chips themselves, and the contract did not allow for falling manufacturing costs, as process technology improved. Microsoft eventually realised its mistake, but NVIDIA refused to renegotiate the terms of the contract." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NVidia
If nobody is buying them and they're continuing to manufacture them, yes. But people will continue to buy them (because of articles like this) and they'll probably stop manufacturing them before demand drops to zero.
Brilliant! I suppose that's why there were a ton of 3rd party removal tools fixing this problem. Oh, wait, there weren't.
You're dealing with a system with software installed that is designed to actively prevent itself from being uninstalled. "Fixing" the problem isn't as simple as reverting a few registry keys and deleting a few files.
Actually, the harddrive isn't the issue. It's the CPU and the GPU. Microsoft is still paying the same price for these components as they were for the first Xbox that rolled off of the line. Since they don't own the rights to these components, they can't take their business elsewhere.
The brick is in the final retail unit as well. Though if you think about it for a second, it makes sense. The 360 probably has the same power requirements of a mid to high end PC. When was the last time you saw a tiny PSU for a PC?
This was one of the reasons why MS opted for a 12x DVD drive (instead of an HD-DVD or BluRay drive), and why devs pushed for 512mb of ram over an ever-present harddrive.
Its the difference between rendering at the target resolution and "blowing up" the image to the target resolution. One yields a higher quality image than the other.
You've forgotten about PGR3, Kameo, Condemned, COD2, and DOA4. All of these titles are "system sellers" for their genre. PD0 is going to be a lame game; I wouldn't discrace the other good titles available on launch by mentioning it.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. That is a much larger list than I was aware of, though I hadn't heard of most of them.
;)
I knew that the X11 and Zlib licenses were GPL compatible, but wasn't aware that modified versions of the BSD license or Python had been created.
The incompatible licenses that I was aware of include the XFree86 license, the original BSD license, the various Apache licenses, older python licenses, CPL, latex, mozilla, and php licenses. For me, that makes up the majority of OSS projects with widespread interest, though that judgement is in the eye of the beholder.
Point of note: There are two BSD style licenses. The original license contains an advertise clause, which is incompatible with the GPL. However, there is now apparently a modified version of the license which removed the advertise requirement. The new license would appear to be convertable to the old-style license, but it doesn't work the other way around. I don't know how common usage of the new-style BSD license is.
It is actually interesting to see how many open source licenses have been modified to become GPL compatible, and the number of GPL-derrived licenses which have appeared.
I'm not being an ass, I'm getting to the point. Which you seem to grasp, but don't quite understand (after which you decided to get all angry and mouth off half cocked).
You're exactly correct -- you can't write software using a patent without an appropriate license to that patent. You are also entirely missing my point -- the GPL forbids additional requirements placed on the distribution of GPL'd software. If you need to have a license in addition to the GPL to distribute the GPL'd software, the software can't be released under the GPL.
BSD, public domain, and closed source licenses don't have those restrictions. What you're seeing here is nothing more than the bsd-like advertise clause (which, coincidentally, is why the BSD license is not compatible with the GPL).
Nowhere in my previous post did I infer any evilness, or lack of evilness of the GPL. I am trying to demonstrate that there is no inherant evil in non-GPL compatible licenses, as the "bar" set by the GPL is higher than most open source licenses (for better or worse).
To say the Microsoft intentionally tried to make their license incompatible with the GPL is untrue, as the GPL by its nature forbids the inclusion of proprietary technology. There isn't anything wrong with that, and such language very much is in keeping with the goals the GPL authors had intended.
In order to 'legally' use a patent, you need a license to the patent. The GPL prohibits any requirement which forces said license to be included in any GPL software.
The GPL is incredibly restrictive about what you can suck in. Everything must be free, both in and out. Patents are not "free". Therefore they can't freely be sucked 'in'. And you can't distribute GPL'd software without the license to the patent, meaning it can't be freely pushed 'out'.
I don't see how anyone can view this is being a deliberate attempt to subvert the GPL. The philosophy behind the GPL by its very nature prohibits this sort of thing. I suppose there is a bit of irony about how one of the more restrictive OSS licenses produces something ultimately free-er than the less restrictive licenses.
It doesn't take much to "craft" a license agreement such that it is incompatible with the GPL. The GPL is pretty much incompatible with every license available.
Dvorak articles are used here so much because the man tends to be very critical of Microsoft. An article of that nature meets 90% of the criteria for being posted on slashdot.
:)
I leave it as an exercise to the reader what the other criteria may be.
Dvorak is an idiot. Or a whiner. Or both.
He is overly critical and generally has unrealistic expectations. If a device has a small flaw (or even looks at him funny) he'll devote pages focusing on it, while ignoring everything the device gets right.
The man would probably predict the demise of Ferrari because the starter button has a cheap feel to it.
This marks the first time in history I've ever seen the man write anything positive about anything. Not to say he hasn't, but he generally doesn't have a tendency to say anything nice.
Pointing out the flaws in other available components is not a "slam". The author is trying to put some context around his opinions of the controller, as everyone has different preferences. If you're a fan of the Duke and don't like the location of buttons on the PS2 controller, odds are you'll agree with his assessment.
If a complaint about the position of the L/R1 buttons on the PS2 controller is enough to twist your panties in a knot, you should make a habit of not reading anything other than content officially sanctioned by Sony.
Is that true? I don't recall that, but it makes sense.
;)
The market in the finding of fact is not defined that explicitely (several pages of text and justification), though the 'summary' I list above is an accurate depiction.
I wonder if the fact that Apple is trying very hard to ensure that OS X will not run on standard Intel hardware is enough to avoid changing that finding
I suspect that is a reason, though not the primary reason; Apple's is primarily interested in protecting the profit margins they make on their hardware.
One of the justifications the judge used to exclude Apple from the relevent market was that you had to switch to an Apple branded computer to change operating systems (which was an expensive 'burden' on the consumer). However, one has to wonder if that reasoning would be valid if a vendor artificially restricted which computers their OS would run on.
Finally, I wonder if Apple had been included if the ruling would have been any different... even excluding Apple, Windows was not the only x86 computer desktop operating system, just the one with 99% of the market.
Today, Microsoft holds roughly a 90% share of the desktop operating systems market (if wikipedia can be believed). In 1998, I believe the figure was closer to 84%, though I can't seem to find the numbers anymore. I don't remember if that number included DOS or not.
If Apple had been included, I believe Microsoft wouldn't have been ruled a monopoly; they wouldn't have spent the time and effort restricting the relevant market otherwise.
All very interesting, anyway. Thanks for pointing that out.
No problem. Its always fun to have a conversation with someone who doesn't reply foaming at the mouth.
If nobody wants to pay for a media player, then Microsoft couldn't have been hurting all of those companies trying to sell media players. And if that were the case, the EU couldn't have levied a fat 500m euro fine.
The courts disagree. You'd better straighten them out
The court held that Microsoft held a monopoly on x86 computer desktop operating systems. Apple was explicitely excluded from the market chosen for the DOJ lawsuit.
If your market is simply "desktop computer operating systems", then the court did not rule that Microsoft held a monopoly in that area.
The best thing that ever happened to Microsoft in the anti-trust department was Apple's decision to switch to Intel hardware.
In this country, $4 barely pays for a combo meal at McDonalds.
Later this year Microsoft is planning to release a hard drive based MP3 player.
They already have. It also plays video. And it was released over a year ago.
In fact, the parts are so old that nobody would manufacture them anymore unless it was made worth their while.
"It is also worth noting Microsoft paid NVIDIA for the chips themselves, and the contract did not allow for falling manufacturing costs, as process technology improved. Microsoft eventually realised its mistake, but NVIDIA refused to renegotiate the terms of the contract."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NVidia
Xbox live is a closed system. Some random smuck can't "introduce" malicious content.
You don't need to have access to the source of a dll to modify it. Many software viruses attach themselves to arbitrary executables.
If nobody is buying them and they're continuing to manufacture them, yes. But people will continue to buy them (because of articles like this) and they'll probably stop manufacturing them before demand drops to zero.
Brilliant! I suppose that's why there were a ton of 3rd party removal tools fixing this problem. Oh, wait, there weren't.
You're dealing with a system with software installed that is designed to actively prevent itself from being uninstalled. "Fixing" the problem isn't as simple as reverting a few registry keys and deleting a few files.
Actually, the harddrive isn't the issue. It's the CPU and the GPU. Microsoft is still paying the same price for these components as they were for the first Xbox that rolled off of the line. Since they don't own the rights to these components, they can't take their business elsewhere.
They won't. Microsoft is still losing money on every xbox they sell.
Clippy was removed in Office 2003.
No, the install package for the spyware (that you don't know is installing) does it without telling you.
The brick is in the final retail unit as well. Though if you think about it for a second, it makes sense. The 360 probably has the same power requirements of a mid to high end PC. When was the last time you saw a tiny PSU for a PC?
This was one of the reasons why MS opted for a 12x DVD drive (instead of an HD-DVD or BluRay drive), and why devs pushed for 512mb of ram over an ever-present harddrive.
Its the difference between rendering at the target resolution and "blowing up" the image to the target resolution. One yields a higher quality image than the other.
You've forgotten about PGR3, Kameo, Condemned, COD2, and DOA4. All of these titles are "system sellers" for their genre. PD0 is going to be a lame game; I wouldn't discrace the other good titles available on launch by mentioning it.