Perhaps because the people's view of an OS is the UI. The real substance, as most of us know, is in the lower workings of the system software. Design a great system that is highly stable, has a very low vulnerability to malware, and a great UI, and you have half-a-chance to take a bite out of Windows' marketshare.
Software patents may not kill the industry, but they can kill Linux, especially if Linux-unfriendly companies hold key patents that will block Linux from implementing or supporting key, killer-app technologies.
...good point!
You're abosolutely right in your points, and I think that greedy companies would love to extinguish Linux / FSF / GNU / etc. Obviously big companies profit on people purchasing their software, and any person, any business, and any organization that gets in the way is a fair-game target in order for these companies to stay in business.
GNU/Linux & the several BSD flavors have forced large corporations to take a hard look at the quality of their software, and realize that competition is not only not fun, but it's extremely expensive!
Most objective minded consumers would agree that this competition will only lead to higher-quality products. However, companies aren't going to just lay down and watch their piece of the pie get eaten by outsiders. As a result what we see today is outright warfare on open-source developers.
But in the end, I think these whiz-bang cool app technologies you discuss are faddish and won't define the industry for extended periods of time. No matter what whiz-bang development there is, it won't stop you from making something better. Hense, 1984's release of the Macintosh! At that time the PC was a newly established standard. It was deeply entrenched in the business market. But that didn't stop Apple from developing a revolutionary computer to replace the PC. And it didn't stop developers from developing high-quality apps for this new computer, and make a lot of money doing so.
I like your points, but I don't smell the scent of doom just yet...
Why not just patent the CPU instruction set? Then every piece of software is really owned by the company that owns the CPU manufacturer? AHHHH!:-)
NB: obviously instruction sets are patented; even MS patents it dot net vm.
I think we must recall the creation of the PC compatible: a new BIOS was created from scratch to run the hardware. IBM fought tooth-and-nail to protect their BIOS-IP, but lost in court because the BIOS was created in a "clean-room" environment by programmers who had never been exposed to the original IBM copyrighted BIOS code, neither source nor decompiled. If you remember, this was a big win for the computer industry. I'll even go so far to argue that it was this court decision that enabled the PC to become as proliferous as it is today. This court decision established the notion that a basic computer algorithm cannot be patented, but the source code and executable that executes the algorithm can... Otherwise, some greedy company could patent "MOV AX, 9", or the powerful two hex bytes, "CD21", and then where would we all be?
But wait! What about the recently patent-liberated GIF compression scheme that Unisis held onto for so many years (GIF Patent Prepares to Expire refers)?
The point I'm making is that IP law will never kill the software industry. As long as there are CPUs which need programming, there will be programmers around to do the job. If anything, I honestly believe (I admit, a bit of RMSRDF in effect here) that because of the specifics of this SCO vs. IBM case, a clear line in the sand will be drawn much like the original IBM PC BIOS case, that allows cleanly-developed software to be developed to mimic IP software. Thus there will never be a threat to Linux, until the next big thing in OS technology comes along and the Linux community refuses to adopt it.
If anything, this will be a painful and expensive battle, but it's outcome will greatly benefit our community.
First of all, I think you and I basically agree on these several points. You merely asked for a quote of the text, and I provided it for the viewing pleasure of the eternally geeky...
Second, I believe we both agree that the GPL is clearly a "per-Program" based license. In other words, by violating the GPL on one software item, a given company is forbidden from continuing to distribute that particular program. The company still may, however continue to distribute other GPL-governed software, contingent upon their ability to fully satisfy the conditions of the licenses in respect to those software items.
Third, your most recent comments must be in response to someone else's prior text and not mine. Tracing back the chain, it is apparent that my contribution to this thread consists entirely of my quote of Section 4 of the GPL, and the phrase emphasis mine.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License.
Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
In redistribution of "SCO Linux" & "OpenLinux," SCO is required to yield IP claims of the whole of their respective distributions, including all improvements upon & contributions to, under terms of the GPL (GPL, Section 2c germain). Specifically, every bit of code used to create their distributions ("SCO Linux" & "OpenLinux") was required to be released under the GPL in order for SCO to legally distribute those distributions. Additionally, if in fact the above software distributions do contain the same IP that they now contest in court as stolen, then SCO's case for contention was invalidated by their very release of said code to the public under terms of the GPL.
SCO's provision to their Linux business partnershas no bearing on this case. The mere fact that they already yielded IP rights of the code to the GPL when they redistibuted the Linux kernel makes their case a moot point. You can not sue someone for taking something which you already gave them for free.
The court's fact finding phase would reveal whether SCO's release of Linux distributions also contain the contested IP, and if so, mitigate their claims against the Linux community.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow! 6 Fold turnover of original costs in the first month? Where do I sign up? My email address is...dummy@slashdot.gro ;-)
Perhaps because the people's view of an OS is the UI. The real substance, as most of us know, is in the lower workings of the system software. Design a great system that is highly stable, has a very low vulnerability to malware, and a great UI, and you have half-a-chance to take a bite out of Windows' marketshare.
Well, that's the hope, at least...
Karrick
You're abosolutely right in your points, and I think that greedy companies would love to extinguish Linux / FSF / GNU / etc. Obviously big companies profit on people purchasing their software, and any person, any business, and any organization that gets in the way is a fair-game target in order for these companies to stay in business.
GNU/Linux & the several BSD flavors have forced large corporations to take a hard look at the quality of their software, and realize that competition is not only not fun, but it's extremely expensive!
Most objective minded consumers would agree that this competition will only lead to higher-quality products. However, companies aren't going to just lay down and watch their piece of the pie get eaten by outsiders. As a result what we see today is outright warfare on open-source developers. But in the end, I think these whiz-bang cool app technologies you discuss are faddish and won't define the industry for extended periods of time. No matter what whiz-bang development there is, it won't stop you from making something better. Hense, 1984's release of the Macintosh! At that time the PC was a newly established standard. It was deeply entrenched in the business market. But that didn't stop Apple from developing a revolutionary computer to replace the PC. And it didn't stop developers from developing high-quality apps for this new computer, and make a lot of money doing so.
I like your points, but I don't smell the scent of doom just yet...
Cheers,
Karrick
Why not just patent the CPU instruction set? Then every piece of software is really owned by the company that owns the CPU manufacturer? AHHHH! :-)
NB: obviously instruction sets are patented; even MS patents it dot net vm.
I think we must recall the creation of the PC compatible: a new BIOS was created from scratch to run the hardware. IBM fought tooth-and-nail to protect their BIOS-IP, but lost in court because the BIOS was created in a "clean-room" environment by programmers who had never been exposed to the original IBM copyrighted BIOS code, neither source nor decompiled. If you remember, this was a big win for the computer industry. I'll even go so far to argue that it was this court decision that enabled the PC to become as proliferous as it is today. This court decision established the notion that a basic computer algorithm cannot be patented, but the source code and executable that executes the algorithm can... Otherwise, some greedy company could patent "MOV AX, 9", or the powerful two hex bytes, "CD21", and then where would we all be?
But wait! What about the recently patent-liberated GIF compression scheme that Unisis held onto for so many years (GIF Patent Prepares to Expire refers)?
The point I'm making is that IP law will never kill the software industry. As long as there are CPUs which need programming, there will be programmers around to do the job. If anything, I honestly believe (I admit, a bit of RMS RDF in effect here) that because of the specifics of this SCO vs. IBM case, a clear line in the sand will be drawn much like the original IBM PC BIOS case, that allows cleanly-developed software to be developed to mimic IP software. Thus there will never be a threat to Linux, until the next big thing in OS technology comes along and the Linux community refuses to adopt it.
If anything, this will be a painful and expensive battle, but it's outcome will greatly benefit our community.
Karrick
Second, I believe we both agree that the GPL is clearly a "per-Program" based license. In other words, by violating the GPL on one software item, a given company is forbidden from continuing to distribute that particular program. The company still may, however continue to distribute other GPL-governed software, contingent upon their ability to fully satisfy the conditions of the licenses in respect to those software items.
Third, your most recent comments must be in response to someone else's prior text and not mine. Tracing back the chain, it is apparent that my contribution to this thread consists entirely of my quote of Section 4 of the GPL, and the phrase emphasis mine.
Karrick S. McDermott
emphasis mine...
Karrick S. McDermott
In redistribution of "SCO Linux" & "OpenLinux," SCO is required to yield IP claims of the whole of their respective distributions, including all improvements upon & contributions to, under terms of the GPL (GPL, Section 2c germain). Specifically, every bit of code used to create their distributions ("SCO Linux" & "OpenLinux") was required to be released under the GPL in order for SCO to legally distribute those distributions. Additionally, if in fact the above software distributions do contain the same IP that they now contest in court as stolen, then SCO's case for contention was invalidated by their very release of said code to the public under terms of the GPL. SCO's provision to their Linux business partners has no bearing on this case. The mere fact that they already yielded IP rights of the code to the GPL when they redistibuted the Linux kernel makes their case a moot point. You can not sue someone for taking something which you already gave them for free.
The court's fact finding phase would reveal whether SCO's release of Linux distributions also contain the contested IP, and if so, mitigate their claims against the Linux community.
Karrick S. McDermott