I'm MORE than convinced that the only reason that Sun made this move at all was to keep in step with IBM. Besides OpenOffice, which was a strategic move to sell more low-end workstations so sys admins could stay on SPARC's instead of SSH'ing into the real servers, I've yet to see much behind their so called open source "initiatives"... think about it. Her ideas on the business models are right on, but how many of them are really coming out of Sun?
Can't run this script on your OS? Follow these steps for similar results on your OS of choice:
Begin to install software
When you get to the point where it wants you to agree to EULA, put your mouse over the "I Agree" button and close your eyes
With eyes closed, click mouse
Since you never actually read the agreement, your not bound by it!:)
Seriously though, I like the guys effort and the statement he is making, but it takes more than a slick VBScript to exempt you from EULA's. There is a more fundamental problem that needs legislation to fix. You'd be better off writing a script that mailed a letter to your congressman everytime it asked you to agree...
That still doesn't make sense to me. I'm a private organization, lets say the cable company. I think you have a black box. Can I just say "Let me into your house to look for a black box or I'll get a court order to?"
As I understand it, no. Unless they have a compelling legal reason (i.e. someone internal told them about all sorts of pirated software) they can't do squat. A request for information on proper licensing doesn't sound like a tip-off to me...
Perhaps I'm not 100% informed in what the BSA does, but how can they just march in and start installing software and demanding licensing documentation?
They are not a government organization, right? It looks like they operate Internationally, so where do they get their jurisdiction to start making demands?
Without going into a long discussion about gcc... if I was Redhat, I would be releasing for the pure marketing need. Redhat is understood in the industry (whether you agree or not) as the defacto Linux distro... every bump in version they go, the more potential customers begin to think that perhaps there IS something with this entire Linux thing...
The entire point in this statement/response is setting expectations. The programmers expects to recieve the same support about the format that he got when he was developing MAD... the format developers, not being commercially funded, spend their time working on the tangible aspects of the application (bugs, libs, etc) and not the supplemental portions (specs). They expect that people would rather have the software to use over some dry RFC...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm MORE than convinced that the only reason that Sun made this move at all was to keep in step with IBM. Besides OpenOffice, which was a strategic move to sell more low-end workstations so sys admins could stay on SPARC's instead of SSH'ing into the real servers, I've yet to see much behind their so called open source "initiatives"... think about it. Her ideas on the business models are right on, but how many of them are really coming out of Sun?
Begin to install software
When you get to the point where it wants you to agree to EULA, put your mouse over the "I Agree" button and close your eyes
With eyes closed, click mouse Since you never actually read the agreement, your not bound by it! :)
Seriously though, I like the guys effort and the statement he is making, but it takes more than a slick VBScript to exempt you from EULA's. There is a more fundamental problem that needs legislation to fix. You'd be better off writing a script that mailed a letter to your congressman everytime it asked you to agree...
Says they chose Redhat due to the RHN software update feature... obviously they haven't used it recently
As I understand it, no. Unless they have a compelling legal reason (i.e. someone internal told them about all sorts of pirated software) they can't do squat. A request for information on proper licensing doesn't sound like a tip-off to me...
Perhaps I'm not 100% informed in what the BSA does, but how can they just march in and start installing software and demanding licensing documentation? They are not a government organization, right? It looks like they operate Internationally, so where do they get their jurisdiction to start making demands?
Without going into a long discussion about gcc... if I was Redhat, I would be releasing for the pure marketing need. Redhat is understood in the industry (whether you agree or not) as the defacto Linux distro... every bump in version they go, the more potential customers begin to think that perhaps there IS something with this entire Linux thing...
The entire point in this statement/response is setting expectations. The programmers expects to recieve the same support about the format that he got when he was developing MAD... the format developers, not being commercially funded, spend their time working on the tangible aspects of the application (bugs, libs, etc) and not the supplemental portions (specs). They expect that people would rather have the software to use over some dry RFC...
Don't ever do that to my browser again...