I could also set up a potential weakness in the enforcement of the GPL - a developer that includes the code in a proprietary product could claim that he didn't read it. After all, unlike most EULA's, there isn't even a click-through "agreement" procedure.
Why not? I use it daily, I get tangible value from it, so I don't particularly mind paying some money for it.
I've given money to Red Hat and Mandrake in exchange for using their "free" (gratis) distributions, since as a software developer myself, I know it costs them time and money to produce them. My paying them money makes the software no less "free" (libre) and hopefully helps it become better - and that's in addition to my own contributions to open source software.
Yes, you could get these other distributions from some other source, but don't kid yourself that it's "free" (gratis), since it's costing *someone* bandwidth and storage. Just not you.
Perhaps I'm just a sucker, or a traitor to the politics of "software liberation", whatever that is, but I choose not to be a leech.
This needs to be thought out, because the cost and regulatory structures for, say, drug development, aren't nearly the same:
1) Developing new drug products requires substantial, very expensive facilities, while the hard costs of software development are very low.
2) Drugs must go through a long and expensive testing and regulatory process before being released to the market. Open Source software simply wouldn't exist if it cost millions of dollars and took several years before you could release it.
3) There are massive costs associated with product liability in drugs - no one would give away software if the same liability exposure existed.
4) For every drug that makes it to market, there are dozens to hundreds that don't make it through the process but incur the costs of development anyway. The unsuccessful attempts are subsidized by the successful ones.
While I think that the sharing of information in biotech is generally a good thing, I don't think the economics mesh with a software-like "open source" model.
So what's the actual goal of Brown's attack on Linux?
I thnk what he's trying to do here is cast enough doubt on the provenance of Linux, and by extension to other GPLed software, to elicit a change in public policy to prohibit the government from utilizing and developing software covered by the GPL.
This would, of course, seem to work in favor of proprietary software vendors.
However, if the justification is that the government should not be using software with any questionable lineage, then the policy be that *all* software used by the government should require a complete public intellectual property audit, including proprietary applications and operating systems.
This is the critical issue - if I have no relationship with Gmail except that I'm sending email to one of their customers (perhaps unknowingly if the mail has been forwarded), what gives them the right to index it?
Is there an email version of robots.txt to prevent them from doing so?
Generic terms are not trademarkable under any circumstances. Descriptive terms can be trademarked, but are considered weak, and usually must acquire a strong secondary meaning before being trademarked. The strongest trademarks are fanciful - the terms themselves have absolutely no meaning outside their usage as a trademark.
Microsoft initially trademarked the combination "Microsoft Windows" - it wasn't until the 1990s that they succeeded in trademarking the individual term "Windows". By that time, they'd already dominated the market and either bought out or threatened anyone significant using the term "windows" in their product name based on alleged confusion with the combination trademark.
The "genericness" test is *within* a particular trademark category. You can't trademark "Apple" within the food category, but you can within the "computer" category.
The issue in this case is whether the term "windows" is generic within the "computer" category.
The issue was over jury instructions - there were two basic issues in the trial judge's ruling that Microsoft didn't like:
1) Once a term is determined to be generic within the category, it cannot be made ungeneric 2) The jury should consider the genericness of the term "windows" in the field of computers *prior* to Microsoft's usage.
Microsoft asked the judge for permission to appeal this ruling now instead of after the trial is over (an "interlocutory appeal"), and it went to the 9th Circuit. According to the press release, last week the 9th Circuit rejected Microsoft's appeal, apparently without even hearing oral arguments from either side. This response was actually quite fast - if they had allowed the appeal, the case could have dragged on for another two or three years.
At this point, the trial judge's ruling stands, and Microsoft's burden is now very high - they must show that "windows" was *not* a generic term prior to 1985 *and* that consumers are likely to be confused by the "Lindows" brand.
The company name is still "Lindows". The *product* name and the website changed to "Lispire" in order to meet the terms of a agreement with Microsoft in the Netherlands.
I still mash down the Mute button on the remote everytime that ridiculous theme song comes on. I have no idea what they thought they were doing - alluding to the use of "Magic Carpet Ride" in one of the STTNG movies perhaps?
What's more strange is that they knew how much people hated it and not only didn't replace it, but somehow made it even *worse* in season 3 by adding a drum track.
Unfortunately, that assumes that one is familiar enough with Windows to know that's the order in which things load, that unplugging the network cable won't make the machine somehow think it's not *going* to be on a network.
It's a rational expectation that a brand new machine, or one restored to factory configuration, should have no fatal problems - we certainly expect that the wheels don't fall off our cars just after we drive off the new car lot. We shouldn't have to *know* that we have to tighten the lugnuts or get new tires because the ones I juts bought are about to explode, and I shouldn't have to immediately change the locks because everyone and their grandmother can pick the one I just bought with a toothpick.
Perhaps I'm taking the analogy too far, but can you name another product that is widely sold brand new with massive known defects?
OS Popularity?
on
A Worm's Worm
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The tired argument is that Mac OS X and Linux are too unpopular to build worms and viruses for - but apparently it's worth writing worms just for Windows machines infected by a single strain of worm.
Does this situation imply that the sum total of Sasser-infected machines outnumber Macs and Linux boxes?
So, what you're saying is that maybe I should get rid on my Mac so I can join the other 98% of the world that's getting viruses, worms, spyware, and even perhaps hauled off to prison on dodgy child porn charges?
Hmmm...
You make an excellent case, and it's very, very , very tempting, but I think I'll pass for now. Thanks!
To date, all they appear to have done is post some screenshots. I don't seen any distribution of code, so I can't verify one way of the other if they're in fact using Wine.
Screenshots mean little to me - they're very commonly mocked up by some grunt in the marketing department, and may not represent the actual product at all. For new products, fake Photoshop screenshots are the rule rather than the exception. Microsoft even fabricated entire videos for courtroom use.
I don't think I set up any strawmen - after all, I didn't accuse *myself* of working for Project David, did I?
Why is there such a big problem with simply asking for evidence? Clearly I have different standards of proof than you do, but why do my questions bother you so much?
You're not One of Them, but you're obviously wearing blinders.
Ahh, first the obligatory "fellow traveler" accusation, now the "blinders" accusation.
It's amazing how pathetically little it takes for McCarthyism to raise its head. Well, Mr Crangle, don't worry - at four o'clock in the afternoon... every evil man and woman will be exactly two feet tall.
Just saying what? That you work for Project David? Seems that way.
No, I don't work for Project David in any capacity. But apparently if I ask for some sort of evidence that they're doing anything wrong before hanging them - so far you've shown it might be Wine, but you haven't shown why that's a violation of anything - I'm now One of Them.
Slashdot Mirror
It's quite impressive how it has evolved, and is still one of the most entertaining software environments around.
I could also set up a potential weakness in the enforcement of the GPL - a developer that includes the code in a proprietary product could claim that he didn't read it. After all, unlike most EULA's, there isn't even a click-through "agreement" procedure.
I've given money to Red Hat and Mandrake in exchange for using their "free" (gratis) distributions, since as a software developer myself, I know it costs them time and money to produce them. My paying them money makes the software no less "free" (libre) and hopefully helps it become better - and that's in addition to my own contributions to open source software.
Yes, you could get these other distributions from some other source, but don't kid yourself that it's "free" (gratis), since it's costing *someone* bandwidth and storage. Just not you.
Perhaps I'm just a sucker, or a traitor to the politics of "software liberation", whatever that is, but I choose not to be a leech.
1) Developing new drug products requires substantial, very expensive facilities, while the hard costs of software development are very low.
2) Drugs must go through a long and expensive testing and regulatory process before being released to the market. Open Source software simply wouldn't exist if it cost millions of dollars and took several years before you could release it.
3) There are massive costs associated with product liability in drugs - no one would give away software if the same liability exposure existed.
4) For every drug that makes it to market, there are dozens to hundreds that don't make it through the process but incur the costs of development anyway. The unsuccessful attempts are subsidized by the successful ones.
While I think that the sharing of information in biotech is generally a good thing, I don't think the economics mesh with a software-like "open source" model.
I thnk what he's trying to do here is cast enough doubt on the provenance of Linux, and by extension to other GPLed software, to elicit a change in public policy to prohibit the government from utilizing and developing software covered by the GPL.
This would, of course, seem to work in favor of proprietary software vendors.
However, if the justification is that the government should not be using software with any questionable lineage, then the policy be that *all* software used by the government should require a complete public intellectual property audit, including proprietary applications and operating systems.
Is there an email version of robots.txt to prevent them from doing so?
I thought the *prostitute* was the one that was supposed to be screwed, not the client.
There are five basic categories of terms used to determine the distinctiveness and protectibility of words as trademarks:
1) Generic (ex. "Apple" as fruit)
2) Descriptive (ex. "Tasty Treats")
3) Suggestive (ex. "Greyhound", "Suave", "Froot Loops")
4) Arbitrary (ex. 'Apple' for computers)
5) Fanciful (ex. 'Kodak', 'Xerox')
Generic terms are not trademarkable under any circumstances. Descriptive terms can be trademarked, but are considered weak, and usually must acquire a strong secondary meaning before being trademarked. The strongest trademarks are fanciful - the terms themselves have absolutely no meaning outside their usage as a trademark.
There is no dispute that there is currently a trademark on the word "windows". The issue in this trial is whether that trademark is valid.
Microsoft initially trademarked the combination "Microsoft Windows" - it wasn't until the 1990s that they succeeded in trademarking the individual term "Windows". By that time, they'd already dominated the market and either bought out or threatened anyone significant using the term "windows" in their product name based on alleged confusion with the combination trademark.
The issue in this case is whether the term "windows" is generic within the "computer" category.
1) Once a term is determined to be generic within the category, it cannot be made ungeneric
2) The jury should consider the genericness of the term "windows" in the field of computers *prior* to Microsoft's usage.
Microsoft asked the judge for permission to appeal this ruling now instead of after the trial is over (an "interlocutory appeal"), and it went to the 9th Circuit. According to the press release, last week the 9th Circuit rejected Microsoft's appeal, apparently without even hearing oral arguments from either side. This response was actually quite fast - if they had allowed the appeal, the case could have dragged on for another two or three years.
At this point, the trial judge's ruling stands, and Microsoft's burden is now very high - they must show that "windows" was *not* a generic term prior to 1985 *and* that consumers are likely to be confused by the "Lindows" brand.
Because, in addition to being legal experts and marketing geniuses, we're all also highly qualified psychologists and medical doctors.
The company name is still "Lindows". The *product* name and the website changed to "Lispire" in order to meet the terms of a agreement with Microsoft in the Netherlands.
What's more strange is that they knew how much people hated it and not only didn't replace it, but somehow made it even *worse* in season 3 by adding a drum track.
Obviously, you start up your computer within a Faraday cage. Duh.
It's a rational expectation that a brand new machine, or one restored to factory configuration, should have no fatal problems - we certainly expect that the wheels don't fall off our cars just after we drive off the new car lot. We shouldn't have to *know* that we have to tighten the lugnuts or get new tires because the ones I juts bought are about to explode, and I shouldn't have to immediately change the locks because everyone and their grandmother can pick the one I just bought with a toothpick.
Perhaps I'm taking the analogy too far, but can you name another product that is widely sold brand new with massive known defects?
Does this situation imply that the sum total of Sasser-infected machines outnumber Macs and Linux boxes?
Hmmm...
You make an excellent case, and it's very, very , very tempting, but I think I'll pass for now. Thanks!
To date, all they appear to have done is post some screenshots. I don't seen any distribution of code, so I can't verify one way of the other if they're in fact using Wine.
Screenshots mean little to me - they're very commonly mocked up by some grunt in the marketing department, and may not represent the actual product at all. For new products, fake Photoshop screenshots are the rule rather than the exception. Microsoft even fabricated entire videos for courtroom use.
I don't think I set up any strawmen - after all, I didn't accuse *myself* of working for Project David, did I?
Why is there such a big problem with simply asking for evidence? Clearly I have different standards of proof than you do, but why do my questions bother you so much?
It's amazing how pathetically little it takes for McCarthyism to raise its head. Well, Mr Crangle, don't worry - at four o'clock in the afternoon... every evil man and woman will be exactly two feet tall.