'IBM Turns to Open Source Development.'
'...we need to move to a development system that allows us much greater transparency, and a much greater awareness and cross pollination of expertise, ideas and requirements between all of the various different laboratories.' Their speaking of using an 'open source model' for internal development is what prompted the article in the first place. If they had said, 'We will be using a distributive development model, that gives wide access to the source code among our developers, but by the by, we won't be releasing the code to the public,' would there be the attention this article has got to get it on slashdot?
Perhaps to complain that they aren't releasing the code; my complaint is they aren't releasing the code while still using 'open source' as a buzz word. It's either free (as in free speech), or it isn't.
'Community source' sounds like another excuse to act like you are releasing free software, then hold back on how you can modify or redistribute it. Didn't Microsoft pull the same FUD with their 'shared source' thing?
Though the GPL won't fulfill the initial request, it may be an appropriate compromise. It will allow the other company to resell their product, but it will also allow the original company to incorporate the modifications for themselves. Though contrary to maintaining the right to resell, it may provide an unconsidered benefit.
My mistake. They are related to VHS/DVD, not theatre.
As regards stealing profit, I agree. However, if I had made a video, and found others editing it so that they aren't offended by it, I would not want my name attached to the modified version, and would consider that a breach of copyright.
As for the comparison to the use of mp3, etc., I am applying my own standard with this argument, as a form of objection to the actions of "big companies," (i.e. I support the ripping of mp3s, and distribution, via Napster et al). As regards the status quo, I do not find the editing of movies to be a legitimate means of protest, or a freedom that should be allowed. I draw a distinction between copying and modifying.
Finally, I associate the attitude prevelant on BYU campus as the culprit, even if it is not wholly Mormon, (i.e. Feature Films for Families, etc.).
Having lived in Utah most of my life, I've noted that the majority of the theatres that show these movies are cinemas in Utah Valley, usually quite close to the BYU campus.
The irony is that many of the people doing the editing appear to be Mormons, (who have a tendancy to try and avoid R rated films). In their strive to be moral, the Mormons appear to have once again done something unethical.
It's one thing to rip an MP3 for a CD you already own, or to support organizations like Napster who challenge the status quo. It's quite another to rework an artist's work (whether music, video, or other expression) without their permission for profit.
Though I prefer Tcl over Perl, and even Python, (It's simpler and more efficient, is quite small, is better programming--my opinion--and is released under an X11/BSD like license), I don't believe that scripting languages should be part of a base distribution (especially when they have got as big as Perl).
MacOSX is based on Next/OpenStep. NextStep is based on Mach, and Mach was taken from BSD 4.3.
The current Darwin/MacOSX uses a FreeBSD user land (maintaining compatiblity), some NetBSD innovations, and the Mach kernel. (If we use the logic of RMS, would Darwin be more accurately called FreeBSD/Mach--or for MacOSX, OpenStep-FreeBSD/Mach?)
Blogging, it would seem to me is an irrelevant term. Journalism and blogging are synonymous. Slashdot has as much right to calling itself journalism as any other periodical. The difference is that one is professional (they make money), and one is amateur.
Pardon my naivete, but it would appear that Microsoft is attacking the GNU GPL, and the GNU Project, not necessarily "Open Source." For instance, Microsoft, in word at least, has no problem with the BSD license, because of their being able to hi-jack the code for their own proprietary uses. (I guess it depends on your definition of open source.)
Perhaps, in the interest of free software, a positive reaction to Microsoft's use of free software might have some effect; and a response to its anti-GNU position maintained, and clarified.
However, I believe Microsoft to be crooks, and question their motives these days, even with their word of mouth support for FreeBSD and the BSD license.
Slashdot Mirror
'IBM Turns to Open Source Development.' '...we need to move to a development system that allows us much greater transparency, and a much greater awareness and cross pollination of expertise, ideas and requirements between all of the various different laboratories.' Their speaking of using an 'open source model' for internal development is what prompted the article in the first place. If they had said, 'We will be using a distributive development model, that gives wide access to the source code among our developers, but by the by, we won't be releasing the code to the public,' would there be the attention this article has got to get it on slashdot? Perhaps to complain that they aren't releasing the code; my complaint is they aren't releasing the code while still using 'open source' as a buzz word. It's either free (as in free speech), or it isn't.
'Community source' sounds like another excuse to act like you are releasing free software, then hold back on how you can modify or redistribute it. Didn't Microsoft pull the same FUD with their 'shared source' thing?
I believe the 5.0-RELEASE that is out is for IA-64 only. IA-32 is still planning a 4.8 release next month.
Though the GPL won't fulfill the initial request, it may be an appropriate compromise. It will allow the other company to resell their product, but it will also allow the original company to incorporate the modifications for themselves. Though contrary to maintaining the right to resell, it may provide an unconsidered benefit.
My mistake. They are related to VHS/DVD, not theatre.
As regards stealing profit, I agree. However, if I had made a video, and found others editing it so that they aren't offended by it, I would not want my name attached to the modified version, and would consider that a breach of copyright.
As for the comparison to the use of mp3, etc., I am applying my own standard with this argument, as a form of objection to the actions of "big companies," (i.e. I support the ripping of mp3s, and distribution, via Napster et al). As regards the status quo, I do not find the editing of movies to be a legitimate means of protest, or a freedom that should be allowed. I draw a distinction between copying and modifying.
Finally, I associate the attitude prevelant on BYU campus as the culprit, even if it is not wholly Mormon, (i.e. Feature Films for Families, etc.).
Having lived in Utah most of my life, I've noted that the majority of the theatres that show these movies are cinemas in Utah Valley, usually quite close to the BYU campus.
The irony is that many of the people doing the editing appear to be Mormons, (who have a tendancy to try and avoid R rated films). In their strive to be moral, the Mormons appear to have once again done something unethical.
It's one thing to rip an MP3 for a CD you already own, or to support organizations like Napster who challenge the status quo. It's quite another to rework an artist's work (whether music, video, or other expression) without their permission for profit.
An install ISO would be nice.
Though I prefer Tcl over Perl, and even Python, (It's simpler and more efficient, is quite small, is better programming--my opinion--and is released under an X11/BSD like license), I don't believe that scripting languages should be part of a base distribution (especially when they have got as big as Perl).
Binary incompatibility is beginning to be Perl's bane. Didn't FreeBSD remove perl from their base system because of this?
What GNU software is there with the FreeBSD userland? I think you missed the rational.
MacOSX is based on Next/OpenStep. NextStep is based on Mach, and Mach was taken from BSD 4.3.
The current Darwin/MacOSX uses a FreeBSD user land (maintaining compatiblity), some NetBSD innovations, and the Mach kernel. (If we use the logic of RMS, would Darwin be more accurately called FreeBSD/Mach--or for MacOSX, OpenStep-FreeBSD/Mach?)
Darwin is as much a BSD as is, say, Solaris...
The United Linux project reminds me of the Unix days when AT&T and Sun tried to unite Unix, and instead ignited a war of the Unix distributions.
United Linux merely seems to be repeating history.
Blogging, it would seem to me is an irrelevant term. Journalism and blogging are synonymous. Slashdot has as much right to calling itself journalism as any other periodical. The difference is that one is professional (they make money), and one is amateur.
Pardon my naivete, but it would appear that Microsoft is attacking the GNU GPL, and the GNU Project, not necessarily "Open Source." For instance, Microsoft, in word at least, has no problem with the BSD license, because of their being able to hi-jack the code for their own proprietary uses. (I guess it depends on your definition of open source.)
Perhaps, in the interest of free software, a positive reaction to Microsoft's use of free software might have some effect; and a response to its anti-GNU position maintained, and clarified.
However, I believe Microsoft to be crooks, and question their motives these days, even with their word of mouth support for FreeBSD and the BSD license.