It looks to me that it'll just increase the noise ratio - we'll have access to tons and tons of mediocre crap (which is great for Google as people will flock in to.... search and click on their ads).
As we all remember some 5 years ago when the Net was becoming popular people used to send via email all kind of shitty attachments - ads, home videos, etc. - it's all gonna be on Google in the future. In that sense it's a good thing.
However, considering the 80/20 rule, I expect to see top 2% of videos get a huge percentage of downloads and the rest will be crappy low quality timewasters. Once I read a paper on caching for distributed video streaming and IIRC distribution of downloads was heavily skewed toward the popular few files/videos.
What a nonsense. What is NOT unethical to accept money for? A kidney? Fucking moron (Not the parent poster; I mean the article author)...
Call me back when you want to promote the idea that it is unethical to accept money in return for sex. I'd like to promote it in a local red light district.
>If your knowledge isn't shared, what's the point of research?
Fun? The thrill of discovery?
It's like you said non-published researchers are shit 'cause they don't get published. What's the point of being a researcher if you don't get published?
>Anything that facilitates this process will only make us collectively smarter.
Yeah, that's the purpose of publishing - free or commercial, it's the same thing. If something's worth money, people will pay, if it's not, they won't. So there's no problem with people asking for money in return for access to their research docs.
Tell me how much you'd pay for monthly access to Wikipedia? Would you pay $2 a month? I wouldn't.
As far as those free journals go, yeah, right, most of those people are fat-ass researchers living off government budget - big deal! Were they employed by a commercial entity they'd be busy doing their real jobs instead of wasting taxpayers' money.
I'm curious about the relationship between this open source research and open source software. What are the researchers supposed to do once their papers and results are available online for free? Sell support? Hah, hah...
For desktops they charge by number of employees, I think. Then they have this per MHz/hour thing, I think.
If they charged by how much customers used the hw-sw combo, that would motivate the customer to order too much shit ("just in case...") and use it as little as possible (because the more efficient one is, the more he pays).
> Is it possible to get a mini without the apple OS?
And, of course, is it possible to get a refund for the Apple OS?
>If you can't, then whats the point? You've already paid for an OS....
The same goes for PCs with Windows XP...
Regarding the article which I can't force myself to read, I'd say it's pretty obvious it's a marketing piece for IBM's microprocessor unit. Why buy a Mini at all, but especially considering the fact that you can get a "native" Linux (x86) system and use any Linux OS with it.
Here's an idea for you: 1. Get 10-20 older Athlon boxes. 2. Put them in the same room with the blade servers you want to test. (3. And do I need to add this step - profit!)
This is redundant (I already said this in another comment on this same article) but since this is a kind of question I can't resist... I'd like to point out that for big enterprises it'd be big hassle to police complicance with GPLv3. It'd probably be safer/easier to just ban any internal modifications to GPLv3 code or simply use non-GPLv3 software.
> I saw no were in the story where it said you have to pay money..
I think you misread the article.
> its said COUSTOMERS will pay money (pay for software from the company in which with the distribution comes the offer for source code)
Uhm, and how exactly would that money collected by the last modifier benefit the original author of the code?
Companies that use modified code internally (Google, etc.) do not distribute it, so there's no offer for source code.
I think the guy said they've pay in the sense that they will have to relase modifications to GPLv3 software they've made internally even without redistributing that code. Because they "sink millions" in doing that, they'll "pay".
> Not one line of code you currently possess that is under the GPL will be subject to v3 of the GPL unless you deliberately choose to do so.
Noone is afraid of that. Companies/ASPs, etc. are afraid that they won't be able to port their current modifications made to GPLv2 code to future versions of the software they modify when those are released under GPLv3 and do that without having to release their modifications to the world.
> If the new terms are unacceptable, then people will just fork. No big deal. Try that with proprietary software!
Well, with proprietary software the new terms are almost standard and can hardly get more restictive, so there isn't much to worry about.
>If the new terms are unacceptable, then people will just fork
Or switch to Windows or Solaris or BSD. I mean, forking a major project isn't exactly cheap or simple.
>Turn your statement around, how are they harmed? They aren't.
There's a loophole in the license - application service providers don't respect GPLv2 license because they don't distribute their modifications to GPLv2 code, that's how.
Why would the authors care? Well I guess they chose GPLv2 precisely for the reason that they wanted (most of them, anyway) all modifications to be released under GPLv2, which is not what is happening when their code is used by ISPs, ASPs, Google and the ilk.
>. If companies shy away from an insistance that they open their code (and I believe that is truly what this is about) then no one benefits.
Nobody forced any company to use GPL code (which is not to say I wouldn't like to see someone sue IBM for recommending them Linux, ha, ha). They chose to get a free ride but soon they'll have to buy the ticket. Or they can switch to non-GPL OS (BSD, Windows, etc.) and move on.
It's the same in the sense that with commercial software companies have to pay great attention to licensing issues. With GPLv3 they'll have to do the same.
The lock-in effect of GPLv3 (according to TFA) is a bit different but equally evil - whatever you invest in GPLv3 code modifications, you have to share it with competitors. Not too attractive to companies that seek to differentiate and best their competitors.
>No matter what changes are made in v3 of the GPL, absolutely none of Google's current code is under that license.
Yeah, right. And when kernel 3.0 comes out licensed under GPLv3, Google will wanna switch to one of BSD OS to avoid getting controlled by FSF zealots, lest Yahoo will get access to all their modifications to Linux code released under GPLv3.
I think some FSF folks got pissed of by the fact that Google guys got rich (partially) by leeching on GPL software, heh, heh....
1. I just don't see how is anyone going to police and eforce (let alone investigate) ASPs and companies for GPLv3 violations (non-released modifications to GPLv3 code)?
2. It's getting easier to see the value of Microsoft's approach with 100% indemnification. In the future GPL users will not only have to make sure that their code does not violate commercial code and/or patents, but they will also have to check if their internal modifications violate GPLv3.
>I never intended to force the user to be required to distribute -any- change so long as they never polluted the world with bastardized... err... modified versions of my code.
That's how GPL works.
No user of self-modified GPL code is obliged to release their modifications _unless_ they ship/share/sell the code with others.
I just wanted to make this comment about hex editing (I thought to say that's like editing binary files with the vi editor) but I don't agree they shouldn't do it.
First, there are millions of ill people desperate for anything remotely promising. The alternative is suffering and death. Can it get any worse for them?
Secondly, initially they could perform this "patching" only on folks who agree to be sterilized (in order to limit impact on individual people until the technique is safe).
Thirdly, yes, it's not reliable, but look at the WAR3Z community - it's thriving and they're doing exactly the same thing - patching binaries based on trial and error. If individuals want to try out new things without harming others, let them give it a shot.
"Self-protection alone can justify either the states tampering with the liberty of the individual or any personal interference with another's freedom." http://www.uark.edu/depts/comminfo/free speech/jsmi ll.html (Crappy/. code screws up URLs. Can't that be fixed?)
Erh, my girlfriend offered me free sex and she implied that was to be an ongoing offer. At first, I was concerned I was gonna become addicted to it, and so it happened. One day, she discovered that I was masturbating when she was away, and so now she demands 4 bucks every time I want to sleep with her.
Reverse engineering is pathetic and non-creative. And yeah, the new version has one (1) developer. Hah! Great, I'll move all my source code (don't have any, luckily) to this stable and reliable new OSS version so that I can save one 10th of single developer's monthly paycheck (I actually don't know how much it costs)... After the new system goes online, I will also voluteer for a white paper on how OSS saves money!
>I used to have to boot into Windows at home every weekend so that I could actually SEE my girlfriend.
I used to have to *shut down* Windows at home every weekend so that I could get offline and pay some attention to my GF.
Seriously, if that was such a big inconvenience you could have ran Windows with VMWare Workstation or VirtualPC or Linux with VMWare Workstation. Aparently rebooting once a week wasn't inconvenient enough for you to find a solution.
Slashdot Mirror
>If customers didn't care, they'd pick the faster AMD chip.
AMD's chips are faster?
It looks to me that it'll just increase the noise ratio - we'll have access to tons and tons of mediocre crap (which is great for Google as people will flock in to .... search and click on their ads).
As we all remember some 5 years ago when the Net was becoming popular people used to send via email all kind of shitty attachments - ads, home videos, etc. - it's all gonna be on Google in the future. In that sense it's a good thing.
However, considering the 80/20 rule, I expect to see top 2% of videos get a huge percentage of downloads and the rest will be crappy low quality timewasters.
Once I read a paper on caching for distributed video streaming and IIRC distribution of downloads was heavily skewed toward the popular few files/videos.
I think you don't have to ask those questions - Amazon is doing it already with books.
> If they are incorporated and brought in as a group, it is an acquisition.
That would be one, but why would one want to acquire an assetless company?
If the code is GPL, they just need to hire the developers - it's much simpler.
>It's unethical to accept money for publishing.
What a nonsense.
What is NOT unethical to accept money for?
A kidney?
Fucking moron (Not the parent poster; I mean the article author)...
Call me back when you want to promote the idea that it is unethical to accept money in return for sex. I'd like to promote it in a local red light district.
>If your knowledge isn't shared, what's the point of research?
Fun? The thrill of discovery?
It's like you said non-published researchers are shit 'cause they don't get published. What's the point of being a researcher if you don't get published?
>Anything that facilitates this process will only make us collectively smarter.
Yeah, that's the purpose of publishing - free or commercial, it's the same thing.
If something's worth money, people will pay, if it's not, they won't. So there's no problem with people asking for money in return for access to their research docs.
Tell me how much you'd pay for monthly access to Wikipedia? Would you pay $2 a month? I wouldn't.
As far as those free journals go, yeah, right, most of those people are fat-ass researchers living off government budget - big deal!
Were they employed by a commercial entity they'd be busy doing their real jobs instead of wasting taxpayers' money.
I'm curious about the relationship between this open source research and open source software.
What are the researchers supposed to do once their papers and results are available online for free? Sell support? Hah, hah...
You fucking plagiating cunt.
>charge people by how much they use it....
For desktops they charge by number of employees, I think.
Then they have this per MHz/hour thing, I think.
If they charged by how much customers used the hw-sw combo, that would motivate the customer to order too much shit ("just in case...") and use it as little as possible (because the more efficient one is, the more he pays).
There's no absolutely fair solution for this....
Exactly. Why? Because they can't. If they could they wouldn't have allowed Intel to screw them up like this.
AMD's paper launch is even slower than Intel's paper launch.
> The GPL is a neutral copy-left. It doesn't give special rights to the "initial developer".
Uhm, it gives the initial developer a very big right - the right to all consecutive derivative works.
>The BSD license doesn't do it because it has no requirement that further conditions be eliminated
So it's freer than GPL as it does not impose that requirement on the licensee.
> These people are in it to get acquired.
Hired. These people are in it to get hired.
What is there to be acquired when the source code is open?
>He's never agreed to the BitKeeper license, and he's not bound by it. How could his defense possibly be any stronger?
If he's never agreed, he hasn't been allowed to use it.
Dell Dimension 4700 (Pentium4 2.8GHz) with a 17" monitor: $449 (after rebates)
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/product
> Is it possible to get a mini without the apple OS?
And, of course, is it possible to get a refund for the Apple OS?
>If you can't, then whats the point? You've already paid for an OS....
The same goes for PCs with Windows XP...
Regarding the article which I can't force myself to read, I'd say it's pretty obvious it's a marketing piece for IBM's microprocessor unit.
Why buy a Mini at all, but especially considering the fact that you can get a "native" Linux (x86) system and use any Linux OS with it.
Here's an idea for you:
1. Get 10-20 older Athlon boxes.
2. Put them in the same room with the blade servers you want to test.
(3. And do I need to add this step - profit!)
>(2) do they mind redistributing them,
This is redundant (I already said this in another comment on this same article) but since this is a kind of question I can't resist...
I'd like to point out that for big enterprises it'd be big hassle to police complicance with GPLv3. It'd probably be safer/easier to just ban any internal modifications to GPLv3 code or simply use non-GPLv3 software.
Gezuz, have you heard of the Enter key?
> I saw no were in the story where it said you have to pay money..
I think you misread the article.
> its said COUSTOMERS will pay money (pay for software from the company in which with the distribution comes the offer for source code)
Uhm, and how exactly would that money collected by the last modifier benefit the original author of the code?
Companies that use modified code internally (Google, etc.) do not distribute it, so there's no offer for source code.
I think the guy said they've pay in the sense that they will have to relase modifications to GPLv3 software they've made internally even without redistributing that code.
Because they "sink millions" in doing that, they'll "pay".
> Not one line of code you currently possess that is under the GPL will be subject to v3 of the GPL unless you deliberately choose to do so.
Noone is afraid of that.
Companies/ASPs, etc. are afraid that they won't be able to port their current modifications made to GPLv2 code to future versions of the software they modify when those are released under GPLv3 and do that without having to release their modifications to the world.
> If the new terms are unacceptable, then people will just fork. No big deal. Try that with proprietary software!
Well, with proprietary software the new terms are almost standard and can hardly get more restictive, so there isn't much to worry about.
>If the new terms are unacceptable, then people will just fork
Or switch to Windows or Solaris or BSD.
I mean, forking a major project isn't exactly cheap or simple.
>Turn your statement around, how are they harmed? They aren't.
There's a loophole in the license - application service providers don't respect GPLv2 license because they don't distribute their modifications to GPLv2 code, that's how.
Why would the authors care? Well I guess they chose GPLv2 precisely for the reason that they wanted (most of them, anyway) all modifications to be released under GPLv2, which is not what is happening when their code is used by ISPs, ASPs, Google and the ilk.
>. If companies shy away from an insistance that they open their code (and I believe that is truly what this is about) then no one benefits.
Nobody forced any company to use GPL code (which is not to say I wouldn't like to see someone sue IBM for recommending them Linux, ha, ha).
They chose to get a free ride but soon they'll have to buy the ticket.
Or they can switch to non-GPL OS (BSD, Windows, etc.) and move on.
>In any practical sense, how is this the same?
It's the same in the sense that with commercial software companies have to pay great attention to licensing issues.
With GPLv3 they'll have to do the same.
The lock-in effect of GPLv3 (according to TFA) is a bit different but equally evil - whatever you invest in GPLv3 code modifications, you have to share it with competitors. Not too attractive to companies that seek to differentiate and best their competitors.
>No matter what changes are made in v3 of the GPL, absolutely none of Google's current code is under that license.
Yeah, right. And when kernel 3.0 comes out licensed under GPLv3, Google will wanna switch to one of BSD OS to avoid getting controlled by FSF zealots, lest Yahoo will get access to all their modifications to Linux code released under GPLv3.
I think some FSF folks got pissed of by the fact that Google guys got rich (partially) by leeching on GPL software, heh, heh....
1. I just don't see how is anyone going to police and eforce (let alone investigate) ASPs and companies for GPLv3 violations (non-released modifications to GPLv3 code)?
2. It's getting easier to see the value of Microsoft's approach with 100% indemnification. In the future GPL users will not only have to make sure that their code does not violate commercial code and/or patents, but they will also have to check if their internal modifications violate GPLv3.
>I never intended to force the user to be required to distribute -any- change so long as they never polluted the world with bastardized ... err ... modified versions of my code.
That's how GPL works.
No user of self-modified GPL code is obliged to release their modifications _unless_ they ship/share/sell the code with others.
I just wanted to make this comment about hex editing (I thought to say that's like editing binary files with the vi editor) but I don't agree they shouldn't do it.
e speech/jsmi ll.html /. code screws up URLs. Can't that be fixed?)
First, there are millions of ill people desperate for anything remotely promising. The alternative is suffering and death. Can it get any worse for them?
Secondly, initially they could perform this "patching" only on folks who agree to be sterilized (in order to limit impact on individual people until the technique is safe).
Thirdly, yes, it's not reliable, but look at the WAR3Z community - it's thriving and they're doing exactly the same thing - patching binaries based on trial and error. If individuals want to try out new things without harming others, let them give it a shot.
"Self-protection alone can justify either the states tampering with the liberty of the individual or any personal interference with another's freedom."
http://www.uark.edu/depts/comminfo/fre
(Crappy
>Just don't use GPL'd code and write it all yourself.
No. It's "just use GPL'd code and don't write any (GPL) code yourself."
Erh, my girlfriend offered me free sex and she implied that was to be an ongoing offer.
At first, I was concerned I was gonna become addicted to it, and so it happened. One day, she discovered that I was masturbating when she was away, and so now she demands 4 bucks every time I want to sleep with her.
Reverse engineering is pathetic and non-creative.
And yeah, the new version has one (1) developer. Hah! Great, I'll move all my source code (don't have any, luckily) to this stable and reliable new OSS version so that I can save one 10th of single developer's monthly paycheck (I actually don't know how much it costs)...
After the new system goes online, I will also voluteer for a white paper on how OSS saves money!
>I used to have to boot into Windows at home every weekend so that I could actually SEE my girlfriend.
I used to have to *shut down* Windows at home every weekend so that I could get offline and pay some attention to my GF.
Seriously, if that was such a big inconvenience you could have ran Windows with VMWare Workstation or VirtualPC or Linux with VMWare Workstation. Aparently rebooting once a week wasn't inconvenient enough for you to find a solution.