In the past, when attempting to explain open-source software to non-computer people, I've struggled to find a good analogy to software development and source code.
Recipes for food works qutie well as such an analogy. Anyone with the recipe and some minimal resources can reproduce the product. Those with some skill in cooking can improve/modify it. And once it's out there, no one can stop those activities.
In that vein, I think that it's cute that they're working on the open-source cola in tandem with openCOLA.
But I bet that the perl scripts on the can will be more useful than the recipe.
The problem is not that MS did a single evil action, or that it sells more than one product.
The legal with monopolies is that they are able to take advantage of their position to unfairly compete against others. (IE in such a way that the other companies have no chance of getting into that market.)
Therefore, there's nothing wrong with Apple selling a single computer system, and not licensing the OS or the hardware. But if they were to have nearly the entire market, and play with compatibility to prevent others from competing, then that would be a different story.
The government is simply saying that MS is in a position to keep others out of the market, and is doing unfair things to keep it that way.
Note- This process could be done with the login script but NAL gives you more control. For instance I have used NAL to remove registry entries (or add), reset Netscape preferences, and similar to above, have NAL delete "normal.dot" every login to help prevent the spread of Macros.
Deleting normal.dot does more than just prevent the spread of macros; it takes a good chunk of functionality out of Word. I, for instance, have a global style set to format code that I type (in class notes, usually) in Courier, non-proofed (so that my variables don't come up as mis-spelled), and have that style bound to a keystroke so that I can switch back and forth quickly.
I never claimed that normal.dot was good design, nor that things like styles a key bindings should be stored in it (config files, anyone?). However, you are restricting some very useful functionality.
The benefits of preventing word macros from spreading are great, and may indeed outweigh the use of some features of Word. But don't do something like that by default, especially when there are other options (Virus scanners) that do a decent job. (How about automatically updating your user's virus definition files automatically via Novell? I've seen places do that.)
Bottom line, whenever acting as a sysadmin, always think through the consequences of your actions and decisions, and be ready to consider other solutions.
Of course it is, just like writing any other code. The same way that designing a nuclear bomb is physics.
Releasing a virus into the wild or dropping a nuclear bomb is an entirely different story. It's not the technology itself that's evil, but rather the application thereof.
I don't know the answer to this question, so I pose it to the/. community:
What would happen (legally) if a Geocities/Yahoo user were to agree to this contract, and then post something which has a more restrictive license?
Consider the following (hypothetical) situation: I agree to the license and then post a GPL'd program (source and binaries). What if Yahoo then decides to compile a "best of GeoCities programs CD" without the source. Do they violate the GPL (if they don't make the code available)? Maybe I'm at fault for providing Geocities with the program when I know that they might do this?
Any lawyers out there who know the answer?
I, for one, plan on not updating my old Geocities page.
Slashdot Mirror
In the past, when attempting to explain open-source software to non-computer people, I've struggled to find a good analogy to software development and source code.
Recipes for food works qutie well as such an analogy. Anyone with the recipe and some minimal resources can reproduce the product. Those with some skill in cooking can improve/modify it. And once it's out there, no one can stop those activities.
In that vein, I think that it's cute that they're working on the open-source cola in tandem with openCOLA.
But I bet that the perl scripts on the can will be more useful than the recipe.
The problem is not that MS did a single evil action, or that it sells more than one product.
The legal with monopolies is that they are able to take advantage of their position to unfairly compete against others. (IE in such a way that the other companies have no chance of getting into that market.)
Therefore, there's nothing wrong with Apple selling a single computer system, and not licensing the OS or the hardware. But if they were to have nearly the entire market, and play with compatibility to prevent others from competing, then that would be a different story.
The government is simply saying that MS is in a position to keep others out of the market, and is doing unfair things to keep it that way.
Note- This process could be done with the login script but NAL gives you more control. For instance I have used NAL to remove registry entries (or add), reset Netscape preferences, and similar to above, have NAL delete "normal.dot" every login to help prevent the spread of Macros.
Deleting normal.dot does more than just prevent the spread of macros; it takes a good chunk of functionality out of Word. I, for instance, have a global style set to format code that I type (in class notes, usually) in Courier, non-proofed (so that my variables don't come up as mis-spelled), and have that style bound to a keystroke so that I can switch back and forth quickly.
I never claimed that normal.dot was good design, nor that things like styles a key bindings should be stored in it (config files, anyone?). However, you are restricting some very useful functionality.
The benefits of preventing word macros from spreading are great, and may indeed outweigh the use of some features of Word. But don't do something like that by default, especially when there are other options (Virus scanners) that do a decent job. (How about automatically updating your user's virus definition files automatically via Novell? I've seen places do that.)
Bottom line, whenever acting as a sysadmin, always think through the consequences of your actions and decisions, and be ready to consider other solutions.
Of course it is, just like writing any other code. The same way that designing a nuclear bomb is physics.
Releasing a virus into the wild or dropping a nuclear bomb is an entirely different story. It's not the technology itself that's evil, but rather the application thereof.
Doesn't it stand for Gnu Regular ExPression matcher os something like that?
I don't know the answer to this question, so I pose it to the /. community:
What would happen (legally) if a Geocities/Yahoo user were to agree to this contract, and then post something which has a more restrictive license?
Consider the following (hypothetical) situation: I agree to the license and then post a GPL'd program (source and binaries). What if Yahoo then decides to compile a "best of GeoCities programs CD" without the source. Do they violate the GPL (if they don't make the code available)? Maybe I'm at fault for providing Geocities with the program when I know that they might do this?
Any lawyers out there who know the answer?
I, for one, plan on not updating my old Geocities page.