The restrictive patent grant license mentioned was probably the submission from Intel, which was a version of the BSD license with patent language added:
From this e-mail:
Intel modified the BSD license in the following ways:
Intel made OPTIONAL the inclusion of a copyright notice (i.e., "Redistributions of source code of the Software may retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer").
Intel added certain definitions derived from the patent license in the
Common Public License, and added a license grant under certain Intel patents to distribute Intel software contributions, alone or as incorporated in any operating system licensed under the GPL (version 2.0 or later).
As far as I know you cannot revoke a person's right to reverse engineer a product. Reverse Engineering has long been proven legal and cannot be revoked just because it is printed in scary legalese.
In fact, there is controvresy in the legal world as to whether or not EULAs are even binding in court.
The same can be said about the rest of the license. Writing it down means nothing until it has been proven or upheld in a court of law. They can add any caveat they want to this license.
They can send out as many cease and desist letters as they have stamps for. It matters not.
The community needs to have the guts to stand-up and ignore these threats.
You can actually only learn so much about the important people who helped create the Open Source movement from the ideological conflicts that are all to often protrayed in the media. I think it is good to hear a first hand account (biographical) about one of the people who created free software. All too much is said with no real conception of who these people are.
It is a pretty-sure bet that markets will change and that the classic PC interface we are all used to won't be around in its current form forever. Even if it is, it will take an act of god to truly get IE unbundled from the windows OS and therefore put it back into competition with other projects.
Mozilla, with its open source base, is already being used in several other projects, and will be available to be moved onto new intenet appliances, embedded devices and other technologies where windows does not control the operating system ("ie" LINUX).
This will allow Netscape access to every new area that their open-source code penerates.
The developers of mozilla need to produce a quality product that can compete in these new spaces, even if it takes 6 more months, or another year.
Bands such as the Grateful Dead adn Phish have been proving for decades that the distribution of free music only promotes a band and its' *Official* music and merchandise. While you may not like their music, it is hard to deny the success of these bands (Phish is one of the top grossing bands in the country as were the dead in their day). They have both allowed the free trade of their concert bootlegs for years, in both analog tapes and digital formats (shn).
If they are no different, why do they keep user email on record for extended periods of time. Two days for email that has already been downloaded, and a month for email that has not. This is not a necessary action, and serves only to place them in a position to turn the email and other data over to third parties.
There is certainly nothing wrong with complying with court orders, but AOL should make the effort to take itself out of the path of justice (whether its right or wrong), by not archiving data, and instead simply provide its users with internet access.
Instead they have deliberatley placed themselves in the position to help law enforcement for dubious reasons (moral high ground, "family" ISP, big brother) whatever, it doesen't matter. They should simply provide access, no more.
Todd Burgess is advocating a philosophy that has been dominant in the mainstrem OS market (ie MS) for a long time. But he outlines a system that has been used by MS products. Large, bloated and inefficient products that have a very pretty consistent outer-shell, but do not work on the inside.
The Windows interface was designed to be used by everyday people doing every day things. Yes, the internals are not very good but that is of no concern to the user nor should users be asked to care.
If the internals were not as equally important to the OS, the need for linux would have never arisen. But the computing environment did nuture and raise linux as a reaction to ideals like these.
Well, this philosophy (pure user-centered design) may be effective for HTML, it has already been proven false in the design of operating Systems.
The distribution (or pirating) of Mp3's is a reaction to an inflated market. Distributing mp3's does not hurt the artists who produce the music. It is the recording industry that benefits from this -- the artists have a deal for so much $/cd sold. Then the industry doubles or triples this price (does anyone remember the promise that after a few years the prices of cds would drop due to the inexpensive nature of the technology?).
The industry has raised prices contiuously and is now feeling the backlash of consumers. This will continue until the recording industry recenters itself (a bit) to the consumers' needs.
Sure, everyone can copy VHS tapes if they want to. A while ago this was a large concern of the same industry. It has worked out that people still prefer to buy the actual movie. What has resulted though is that the prices charged for videos (buy/rent) has dropped drastically.
The same will happen in the recording business.
The artists won't be hurt, simply the big wigs will have their budgets recentered a bit...
Microsoft will be seen in a positive light?...
on
Salon on Mindcraft II
·
· Score: 1
I think its a great match up to see a bunch of young hackers in the same room (and on the same level) as these tired old ms execs, and their hired help...I am not so sure why salon keeps hinting that Microsoft will be seen in a "positive light" though...
Slashdot Mirror
Intel modified the BSD license in the following ways:
Here's hoping that Dmitry takes the first bus down to the nearest Russian Embassy and hitches a ride home.
Let Elcomsoft's $50K in bail money be hazard pay to Dmitry and count it as a loss.
As for the Feds...screw 'em.
A bit steep don't ya think. How is it going to compete with existing service if its 100x more expensive.
As far as I know you cannot revoke a person's right to reverse engineer a product. Reverse Engineering has long been proven legal and cannot be revoked just because it is printed in scary legalese.
In fact, there is controvresy in the legal world as to whether or not EULAs are even binding in court.
The same can be said about the rest of the license. Writing it down means nothing until it has been proven or upheld in a court of law. They can add any caveat they want to this license. They can send out as many cease and desist letters as they have stamps for. It matters not.
The community needs to have the guts to stand-up and ignore these threats.
You can actually only learn so much about the important people who helped create the Open Source movement from the ideological conflicts that are all to often protrayed in the media. I think it is good to hear a first hand account (biographical) about one of the people who created free software. All too much is said with no real conception of who these people are.
It is a pretty-sure bet that markets will change and that the classic PC interface we are all used to won't be around in its current form forever. Even if it is, it will take an act of god to truly get IE unbundled from the windows OS and therefore put it back into competition with other projects.
Mozilla, with its open source base, is already being used in several other projects, and will be available to be moved onto new intenet appliances, embedded devices and other technologies where windows does not control the operating system ("ie" LINUX).
This will allow Netscape access to every new area that their open-source code penerates.
The developers of mozilla need to produce a quality product that can compete in these new spaces, even if it takes 6 more months, or another year.
Bands such as the Grateful Dead adn Phish have been proving for decades that the distribution of free music only promotes a band and its' *Official* music and merchandise. While you may not like their music, it is hard to deny the success of these bands (Phish is one of the top grossing bands in the country as were the dead in their day). They have both allowed the free trade of their concert bootlegs for years, in both analog tapes and digital formats (shn).
If they are no different, why do they keep user email on record for extended periods of time. Two days for email that has already been downloaded, and a month for email that has not. This is not a necessary action, and serves only to place them in a position to turn the email and other data over to third parties.
There is certainly nothing wrong with complying with court orders, but AOL should make the effort to take itself out of the path of justice (whether its right or wrong), by not archiving data, and instead simply provide its users with internet access.
Instead they have deliberatley placed themselves in the position to help law enforcement for dubious reasons (moral high ground, "family" ISP, big brother) whatever, it doesen't matter. They should simply provide access, no more.
Todd Burgess is advocating a philosophy that has been dominant in the mainstrem OS market (ie MS) for a long time. But he outlines a system that has been used by MS products. Large, bloated and inefficient products that have a very pretty consistent outer-shell, but do not work on the inside.
The Windows interface was designed to be used by everyday people doing every day things. Yes, the internals are not very good but that is of no concern to the user nor should users be asked to care.
If the internals were not as equally important to the OS, the need for linux would have never arisen. But the computing environment did nuture and raise linux as a reaction to ideals like these.
Well, this philosophy (pure user-centered design) may be effective for HTML, it has already been proven false in the design of operating Systems.
The distribution (or pirating) of Mp3's is a reaction to an inflated market. Distributing mp3's does not hurt the artists who produce the music. It is the recording industry that benefits from this -- the artists have a deal for so much $/cd sold. Then the industry doubles or triples this price (does anyone remember the promise that after a few years the prices of cds would drop due to the inexpensive nature of the technology?).
The industry has raised prices contiuously and is now feeling the backlash of consumers. This will continue until the recording industry recenters itself (a bit) to the consumers' needs.
Sure, everyone can copy VHS tapes if they want to. A while ago this was a large concern of the same industry. It has worked out that people still prefer to buy the actual movie. What has resulted though is that the prices charged for videos (buy/rent) has dropped drastically.
The same will happen in the recording business.
The artists won't be hurt, simply the big wigs will have their budgets recentered a bit...
I think its a great match up to see a bunch of young hackers in the same room (and on the same level) as these tired old ms execs, and their hired help...I am not so sure why salon keeps hinting that Microsoft will be seen in a "positive light" though...