Be careful not to make a fetish of the market. Ascribing all knowledge to market forces such as competition is foolish. I don't want to put words into your mouth, so if you aren't saying this, please explain further what you mean.
I will admit that the structure of the marketplace has enabled a huge amount of knowledge. I just don't think it's the only factor, or the only way (or even the best way in all cases) that this knowledge gets created/discovered.
First of all, SCO probably was hoping IBM would buy them out.
Secondly, Kodak has been at the forefront of digital imaging technology research from the outset. Kodak has been making the transition from film to digital over the past 15 years. Since film is still used in many industries and in many parts of the world, they are correct not to completely abandon the film business. That doesn't mean they haven't been developing and using cutting edge technology.
Thirdly, SCO didn't invent IP lawsuits. SCO's innovation is in substituting a media circus for solid evidence and good lawyering. There are many IP lawsuits you never hear about because the parties DON'T call press conferences.
Which is why CA made such strong statements after this news broke, though you can hardly tell from the reuters/forbes article. CA basically called the SCO management dishonest and said that they were driving their own company into the ground.
You should broaden this to say that it dangerous to have any business dealings with Canopy. I'm sure CA was already aware of this; after all, they were trying to settle a breach of contract claim!
Secondly, CA was given a number of UNIXware licenses. SCO merely tacked on the SCOsource licenses. This would be akin to a grocery store clerk slipping an unpurchased product into a celebrity's shopping bag, so that the product manufacturer can claim that the celebrity endorses its product.
No, SCO had already revealed to IBM through discovery that CA was a licensee. IBM need only ask the right questions of CA after a subpoena has been issued.
It's not only the headline that is misleading, it's the entire article. This is a great example of slective quoting, and burying quotes at the bottom of the story. The writer or the editor has basically destroyed the inverted pyramid model. Net result: a very slanted article.
The key word is "distributing". Under the GPL, you can modify it and use it in your own application. No problems. The only problem is if you distribute it.
So there is no contradiction with using proprietary software in any way that I see fit, including installing on multiple machines, as long as I am not distributing it.
GPL governs distribution. It is explicitly not a contract. Copyright governs distribution. A EULA, insofar as it doesn't govern distribution, but governs use, is invalid. A shrinkwrap EULA is not a contract.
Sure they were personal computers. Do you really think IBM invented the personal computer? They got on the bandwagon. However, once IBM started selling PCs, more businesses took notice and took the PC seriously.
Good clear examples! You have the right to use your refrigerator any way you see fit, even making back up copies (which would be prudent). The only legal problem comes if you should try and distribute copies of that refrigerator. What we need is a GPL refrigerator. GNU/Frigidaire anyone?
50 million* third world programmers say you're wrong.
The economics of art are exactly the opposite of what we are dealing with. Fine art is based on unique objects (at best, limited editions). Outside of the fine art world, you're again dealing with mass produced products.
The exception is performance art. Are you suggesting that one can make a living as a programming performance artist?
You're on the right track here. A commodity is usually defined as physical substance, such as food, grains, and metals, frozen orange juice, etc. which is interchangeable with another product of the same type. Equating Folgers with ground coffee is pushing it, but technically you are correct. The restaurant or diner is selling a hot brown liquid.
Commodity also implies both mass supply and mass demand, although these are rarely in equilibrium.
Calling software a commodity implies that it is interchangable. As Linux and F/OSS has grown and developed, it has become increasingly possible to substitute Linux and F/OSS for proprietary software.
Another quality of commodities is that they are priced pretty strictly by the market. Except in unusual cases where someone corners the market (and thus has monopoly control), the normal pressures of supply and demand determine price over time. If prices are high, others will want to profit, and begin producing the commodity. If prices are low, some producers will leave the market, decreasing supply. (Of course there are many other factors, such as the weather, that lead to shortages and surpluses. Trade groups can also collude to keep prices artificially high, basically operating as a monopoly.)
Because F/OSS can be distributed freely (as in free beer), and electronic distribution is so cheap as to be nearly free, it's somewhat of a misnomer to call it a commodity. When it is "sold" it is usually bundled with something else that gives it value. Hardware gives it value, IT sevices (development, administration, and consulting) give it value. The reverse is also true. It gives hardware value, even though it itself is free.
"Normal" commodities can be bought and sold on various commodity exchanges. Futures can be bought and sold. Physical objects can be exchanged. Also, because commodities are physical, there is a finite amount, even when there are huge surpluses. There is potentially an infinite number of copies of Linux, so demand will not outpace supply. Again, the limiting factor seems to be the supply of hardware and of support services.
Hmmmmm. Anyway, in case you couldn't tell, I'm thinking about all this as I type, so I don't have any conclusions or insights. Just more questions, really. Really a great topic. Too bad I couldn't RTFA.
Crystal Meth also has no calories and is great for weight loss. Sadly, I had to stop because of some of its side effects, which included not getting anything done while under the delusion that I was being more productive, seeing things that weren't there (really not that much of a problem as you get used to it), and worst of all, not being able to quit when I wanted. It was the first time I felt that I was not in control of myself.
Slashdot Mirror
Be careful not to make a fetish of the market. Ascribing all knowledge to market forces such as competition is foolish. I don't want to put words into your mouth, so if you aren't saying this, please explain further what you mean.
I will admit that the structure of the marketplace has enabled a huge amount of knowledge. I just don't think it's the only factor, or the only way (or even the best way in all cases) that this knowledge gets created/discovered.
First of all, SCO probably was hoping IBM would buy them out.
Secondly, Kodak has been at the forefront of digital imaging technology research from the outset. Kodak has been making the transition from film to digital over the past 15 years. Since film is still used in many industries and in many parts of the world, they are correct not to completely abandon the film business. That doesn't mean they haven't been developing and using cutting edge technology.
Thirdly, SCO didn't invent IP lawsuits. SCO's innovation is in substituting a media circus for solid evidence and good lawyering. There are many IP lawsuits you never hear about because the parties DON'T call press conferences.
"Yes, you must. . . .real soon now."
You mean slashdot is NOT sponsored by The National Frozen & Refrigerated Foods Association? Are you sure?
March is Frozen Food Month.
I was suprised too. The reason is that it's a Reuters story. Forbes is just repeating it. (I guess this means that Forbes is more of a blog.)
Hopefully, if you're in business, you know that there is no free lunch. Everything has a cost.
Which is why CA made such strong statements after this news broke, though you can hardly tell from the reuters/forbes article. CA basically called the SCO management dishonest and said that they were driving their own company into the ground.
You should broaden this to say that it dangerous to have any business dealings with Canopy. I'm sure CA was already aware of this; after all, they were trying to settle a breach of contract claim!
Secondly, CA was given a number of UNIXware licenses. SCO merely tacked on the SCOsource licenses. This would be akin to a grocery store clerk slipping an unpurchased product into a celebrity's shopping bag, so that the product manufacturer can claim that the celebrity endorses its product.
No, SCO had already revealed to IBM through discovery that CA was a licensee. IBM need only ask the right questions of CA after a subpoena has been issued.
It's not only the headline that is misleading, it's the entire article. This is a great example of slective quoting, and burying quotes at the bottom of the story. The writer or the editor has basically destroyed the inverted pyramid model. Net result: a very slanted article.
It seems that Dan Lyons is not the only FUDster at Forbes.
Actually, it's a Reuters story. Reed Stevenson works for Reuters. I thought they hired journalists at Reuters, but I guess I was wrong.
It's either a joke or a misunderstanding.
In this case, CA = Computer Associates, not California.
The key word is "distributing". Under the GPL, you can modify it and use it in your own application. No problems. The only problem is if you distribute it.
So there is no contradiction with using proprietary software in any way that I see fit, including installing on multiple machines, as long as I am not distributing it.
GPL governs distribution. It is explicitly not a contract. Copyright governs distribution. A EULA, insofar as it doesn't govern distribution, but governs use, is invalid. A shrinkwrap EULA is not a contract.
Sure they were personal computers. Do you really think IBM invented the personal computer? They got on the bandwagon. However, once IBM started selling PCs, more businesses took notice and took the PC seriously.
Good clear examples! You have the right to use your refrigerator any way you see fit, even making back up copies (which would be prudent). The only legal problem comes if you should try and distribute copies of that refrigerator. What we need is a GPL refrigerator. GNU/Frigidaire anyone?
I'll buy your puke for whatever puke is going for on ebay.
50 million* third world programmers say you're wrong.
The economics of art are exactly the opposite of what we are dealing with. Fine art is based on unique objects (at best, limited editions). Outside of the fine art world, you're again dealing with mass produced products.
The exception is performance art. Are you suggesting that one can make a living as a programming performance artist?
*I just pulled this figure out of my ass.
Thanks! Really interesting article, especially for a wonk like me. Much to think about.
You're on the right track here. A commodity is usually defined as physical substance, such as food, grains, and metals, frozen orange juice, etc. which is interchangeable with another product of the same type. Equating Folgers with ground coffee is pushing it, but technically you are correct. The restaurant or diner is selling a hot brown liquid.
Commodity also implies both mass supply and mass demand, although these are rarely in equilibrium.
Calling software a commodity implies that it is interchangable. As Linux and F/OSS has grown and developed, it has become increasingly possible to substitute Linux and F/OSS for proprietary software.
Another quality of commodities is that they are priced pretty strictly by the market. Except in unusual cases where someone corners the market (and thus has monopoly control), the normal pressures of supply and demand determine price over time. If prices are high, others will want to profit, and begin producing the commodity. If prices are low, some producers will leave the market, decreasing supply. (Of course there are many other factors, such as the weather, that lead to shortages and surpluses. Trade groups can also collude to keep prices artificially high, basically operating as a monopoly.)
Because F/OSS can be distributed freely (as in free beer), and electronic distribution is so cheap as to be nearly free, it's somewhat of a misnomer to call it a commodity. When it is "sold" it is usually bundled with something else that gives it value. Hardware gives it value, IT sevices (development, administration, and consulting) give it value. The reverse is also true. It gives hardware value, even though it itself is free.
"Normal" commodities can be bought and sold on various commodity exchanges. Futures can be bought and sold. Physical objects can be exchanged. Also, because commodities are physical, there is a finite amount, even when there are huge surpluses. There is potentially an infinite number of copies of Linux, so demand will not outpace supply. Again, the limiting factor seems to be the supply of hardware and of support services.
Hmmmmm. Anyway, in case you couldn't tell, I'm thinking about all this as I type, so I don't have any conclusions or insights. Just more questions, really. Really a great topic. Too bad I couldn't RTFA.
Will someone please change that brat's diapers?
I think Darl actually says he fondles his "gun".
Thank god he doesn't carry a weapon.
This is a weapon, and this is a novel theory of derivative works.
One is for shooting and the other's for fun.
It's a reference to The Godfather.
Yeah, last time I checked it was
One Million Dollars
I think at that point, Darl fondled his Persian cat. You know, the one with the diamond collar.
Tyrant? More like a clown, now that sites like Groklaw have revealed the truth about the SCO cases.
Crystal Meth also has no calories and is great for weight loss. Sadly, I had to stop because of some of its side effects, which included not getting anything done while under the delusion that I was being more productive, seeing things that weren't there (really not that much of a problem as you get used to it), and worst of all, not being able to quit when I wanted. It was the first time I felt that I was not in control of myself.