Is anyone paying attention to the question?
on
Tech Vs. Business?
·
· Score: 1
He wasn't saying that the business folks were anti-tech, he was saying that the tech folks were anti-business. And the whole discussion degenerates into "the users are stupid" and "IT is just like plumbing".
Here's my 2 cents (well 5):
1) There will always be some tension between the two groups simply because the business folks are the service users and the IT folks are the service providers. You have a group of people (who often don't understand the consequences of what they ask for) making demands on the limited time of the people who have to address those demands. If their time isn't limited, then IT is seen as overstaffed (and probably is). 2) This tension can degenerate into hostility if the corporate culture gives short shrift to either side of the equation, or if there is arrogance on either side about which group is more important. Hostility also builds up if either side is under outside stress (for example, the company or project is in danger of collapse or teams are working ridiculous amounts of overtime). 3) In a place like an investment firm, the equation is complicated by the fact that not only do you have the systems techies, the apps programmers and the regular MBAs and management types, you also have the financial algorithms techies and the lawyers actively involved in day to day business. There are a lot of people who are conditioned by their past achievements to think that they are the smartest person on the block. 4) When the tension between the service provider (tech) and the service requester (business) becomes hostile, it will definitely have a negative effect on the company. Hostility can cause people to abuse or ignore processes, resulting in project delays (or badly thought out projects) and lost revenues and opportunities. 5) A company's processes, especially in IT service management, tend to lag behind their growth. So IT tends to be in more of a fire-fighting mode than most other portions of the business. This leads to the classic situation of IT never getting credit when things go right and always getting blamed when things go wrong. Project-management and Service management metrics can be IT's friend in getting proper credit for achievements, even though most technical IT folks see them as a huge pain in the posterior.
The short version: the tech folks being "anti-business" is unacceptable if you're describing it correctly. If you hate your customers, you don't belong in that line of work, at least not at that company. On the other hand, what a business person sees as an "anti-business" attitude from IT may just be rational resource planning by the IT managers. It sounds like the interface between the main business lines and the IT services teams is badly broken there. Either get involved in a big process-improvement activity, propose outsourcing some of the IT functions, or run away as fast as you can.
Wasn't there a recent court decision that stated that an entity that submits a DMCA takedown notice must make a reasonable effort to determine whether the allegedly infringing work is non-infringing under the fair-use doctrine? This hasn't been through an appeals process yet, so the ruling may not stand, but it could have interesting effects on the CoS situation.
Well, let's see. If a 25 minute TV program is $1.99, then a 150 minute movie should be about $11.99, and a 100 minute movie should be about 9.99. So the movie price is definitely unreasonable. $1.99 for a TV show seems to be about the going rate. When you compare it to 0.99 to 1.99 for a 4 minute song, it seems pretty reasonable. As a consumer, though, I think reasonable would be about 25 to 50 cents for a song, a buck for a TV show and 7 bucks for a movie. You can't make it cheaper than an actual movie ticket. That would just kill the movie industry completely. In fact that's probably why the movies are so expensive in the first place. They're being priced in comparison with theater tickets, not in comparison with TV shows.
On the other hand, a jack of all trades is the only person who can interface between the overspecialized network admins and the overspecialized application developers (for example).
The folks in MN weren't on the street. They were in a residence. This is a whole new order of pre-emptive arrests that we haven't seen since the civil rights movement in the 1960's.
Actually, the same reporter from Salon involved in the Minnesota story also reported on the police removing a "new media" video crew that was attempting to interview "blue dog" democrats being feted by AT&T for their support of telecom immunity.
The difference in Denver is that apparently there weren't any pre-emptive raids there.
Well except these "anarchists" were peaceably assembled in a residence. Sounds like we're carrying the pre-emptive Bush doctrine down from invading Iraq to invading people's homes now.
"The Chicago police are not here to create disorder, they are here to preserve disorder." - Mayor Daley (Sr.), 1968.
That was just one of the groups affected. You're ignoring the raid done at the I-Witness Video group's gathering. There was no evidence anyone in that group was planning any violence. Heck they weren't even planning on protesting. Just video-recording everything.
And you're calling the "anarchists" "hooligans" before either side has their day in court, based purely on the police statements. In this day and age, please don't tell me you still take the police at their word for every action they perform. Haven't you seen enough video evidence to the contrary to plant a few seeds of doubt in your mind?
Well, state's rights was the secessionists' last line of defense, politically before the actual war. But they wouldn't have had to go to war over those rights if a) the north had ignored the abolitionists and let slavery continue or b) they had voluntarily come up with a plan to terminate slavery. So saying the battle was purely states' rights is completely disingenuous. Stating that the civil war was purely over states rights is like stating that the war on terror is only going after the perpetrators of 9/11.
On the other hand, based on the 2nd amendment clause of "...a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE...", I think the south was actually constitutionally correct at the time that secession was legal, ASSUMING that states rights were actually being violated. The constitution states clearly that the rights not given to the federal government belong to the states or the people, and the 2nd amendment is clearly designed so that the states and the people could defend the rights of the individual state against encroachment by the federal government.
So the question then becomes whether the federal government was actually trampling on states rights. And the answer is: probably not. Based on the interstate commerce clause, the federal government could have killed off slavery with various prohibitions at the federal level: transporting slaves across state lines, interstate trade in slaves, use of funds from one state to finance slave purchase in another state would have stood constitutional muster even before the commerce clause was broadened so much in the 20th century.
And the south was screwing itself over economically, anyway. The main reason large slaveholders couldn't free the slaves even if they wanted to was because they were up to their eyebrows in debt collateralized by their slave holdings.
If you really want the bill of rights back, better vote Libertarian. The democrats will make some vague motions in that direction, but they'll be too afraid of being labeled "soft on terror" to do anything serious about it.
In fact Salon was the same site that broke the story of the AT&T reward dinner for all the democrats that voted for telecomm immunity, and the story of how they were removed from the vicinity of the event by Denver police.
Second, since the president and vice-president were originally scheduled to appear at the convention, it's likely that the Secret Service was behind it all, with the FBI as middle-men. This wouldn't be a republican or democrat thing. The sweep and how it was done would have been dependent on the information provided by the "informants".
On the other hand, if there truly was a perceived danger to the president, it would've been the Feds doing the arrests, not the local police.
This is true. If you want to ensure license compatibility across your entire codebase, where do you draw the line at supporting (semi-)popular open source licenses? GPLv2, GPLv3, LGPL, BSD, Apache, Creative Commons, MIT/X Consortium, Mozilla, Sun Community, and Eclipse are probably the top 10 (not necessarily in ranked order) in terms of number of licensed product copies in use, as opposed to the number of projects using the license. Even within this set, there are incompatibilities.
This will be like chum for all the Microsoft-basher sharks out there, but this seems to be an interesting opportunity for a well-endowed foundation like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It's a bit outside their more humanitarian approach to grant-giving, but spending a billion to pick up a first-class fundamental research group sounds like it fits in with the foundation's goals of furthering education and knowledge.
Oh, and some mention was made earlier in the discussion of Unix coming out of Bell Labs. While this is true, it didn't come out of the Physics lab. So computer science developments should still be coming out of Bell Labs, though probably at a trickle compared with the glory days.
Those are n-dimensional integer spaces with limited bounds. How do you imagine n continuous, infinite dimensions, eh? I found that for me the best way to visualize the 4th dimension was with color and/or time. So I could imagine a 3-d object that was yellow and orange (simultaneously), but not red or any of the other colors, or else I could imagine a 3-d object that appears, grows, shrinks or disappears according to the behavior of the set of interest along the 4th dimension. The only reason I ever really did this was to check that the analysis/proof based on 3 dimensions would hold up in 4.
Why does every discussion of IP have to include someone pretending to not see the difference between a product with unlimited supply (data), and a product with a supply of one (the GP's house)? You know it's not the same thing, so why the silly act?
Maybe because we disagree with your presumption that data is in unlimited supply. The only data that is unlimited in supply is white noise. The particular arrangements of data that constitute copyrighted works never existed until a creative mind organized them into a pattern that makes them valuable (on some scale) to themselves and other people. The fact that these bit sequences are valuable is exemplified both by the fact that some people are trying to control the distribution of this data and other people are continually trying to circumvent the controls of the others. The ability to replicate the data is "infinite" (or at least exceeds all conceivable demand levels at this time), but the ability to create useful, entertaining or interesting data patterns is a finite resource.
The pirates claim falsely that information wants to be free (as in beer), while the copyright holders artificially constrain the distribution and valuation of media like the deBeers cartel controls the distribution and valuation of diamonds. Information may want to be free (as in liberated), but that freedom has to acknowledge the value of the act of creation. In other words, a mechanism so that the artist is rewarded even when someone else redistributes their work. Isn't anyone going to step up and make a deal here? I'm looking at you too, BitTorrent trackers.
So the real problem is that there is no equitable mechanism in place in the market to determine what is the fair value of the data sequences that constitute copyrightable works.
How do we reward the innovators who create these works? Do we revert to the old patronage model, where only the wealthy few can hire a creator? Do we just take the fruits of the creators' labor and let them starve to death knowing new creators will always be born?
Copyright _could_ work if it returned to the original concept of limited term and it's made non-transferable. To me a limited term means that the maximum duration of copyright must be shorter than the average life expectancy of a person living in the copyright jurisdiction, so that the average person has some chance of seeing works created during their lifetime reach the public domain. Say a minimum term of 20 years (even past the creators death), or until the creator dies (if greater than 20 years) or 50 years (if the creator doesn't die within that time). The rights to sell and re-distribute the work could be licensed by the creator, but the actual copyright could never be transfered to another entity except to their estate in the event of their death prior to the 20 year term. Since most copyrightable works are actually collaborative efforts, in practice most copyrights would last for 50 years, based on the life of the longest surviving creator, but the income from the copyright would be distributed among the estates of the original creators as well as the survivors. (collaborative works would become a sort of "life insurance" for creators.)
The issue with patents right now isn't their duration, but how they are examined and granted. That seems to be changing for the better, so no cunning plan from me is needed.:)
Actually, it was really Novell's lawyers that won IBM's case by essentially taking away SCO's standing to sue IBM or anyone. But they ran circles around SCO's bunch, too.
There were two rulings: The summary judgment last year, and the ruling in the trial of the remaining claims Novell had against SCO, which was last month.
It pays to read Groklaw more regularly...Since SCO, they've been covering the MIT students, the model railroad case and the OOXML fiasco.
Better but still not good. And they'll just ask someone else to file the patent anyway.
They can't do that if the "innovation" was developed by the OP. The patent has to be filed by the actual innovator, who then (under most employment contracts) assigns the rights to the patent to the employer as part of a work for hire.
Poisoning the well is not necessarily weaselly, although the company's legal department may view it as such. One reason so many bad patent applications get filed is because the corporate approach is to document a bare-minimum of prior art, and make the competition do the research to invalidate the patent. The infamous "one-click" patent is a lot more weaselly than what is being proposed here.
"satellite is no longer a serious competitor to cable"
What? When did that happen? Or did you just get it backwards?
Satellite has been undercutting cable on price for years, and (at least down south here) is more reliable than the cable. I don't have HD service yet, so I can't compare the HD quality, but they seem to offer more channels on satellite.
Actually it would be even better (and closer to your analogy of punishing the whole class) to order them to cease and desist all business operations (including locking down all facilitites and disallowing payment of wages) as well as freezing assets for the term of the sentence. If people are left jobless by a company for 60 days due to corporate malfeasance it would certainly make everyone feel more accountable for the behavior of their employers and they will demand higher compensation or vote with their feet. Oh, and one more thing: If a corporation is given jail time, the executive level management and board of directors should actually have to spend that time in jail, apart from any sentences incurred for their own individual involvement. Sort of an extension of Sarbanes-Oxley.
The problem is that the corporate workaround for this idea is already in place. You find an individual (or a group) scapegoat that "did this outside of our corporate policies and procedures" and avoid the liability that way.
The GPL is a EULA. It's also a DLA (distributor's license agreement). It grants you the right to make unlimited copies of the software either for your own use (EULA) or for distribution under the terms of the license. That's what the L stands for. Without the GPL, you would not be allowed to copy/install/compile the work on a single computer, let alone many, without violating the copyright.
The distinguishing feature of the GPL that makes it seem like it isn't a EULA is that it grants much, much broader permissions for redistribution and modification to the licensees than any commercial EULA. But these are still licensed permissions with binding conditions on the licensee, and not public domain relinquishment of the rights attached to copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
He wasn't saying that the business folks were anti-tech, he was saying that the tech folks were anti-business. And the whole discussion degenerates into "the users are stupid" and "IT is just like plumbing".
Here's my 2 cents (well 5):
1) There will always be some tension between the two groups simply because the business folks are the service users and the IT folks are the service providers. You have a group of people (who often don't understand the consequences of what they ask for) making demands on the limited time of the people who have to address those demands. If their time isn't limited, then IT is seen as overstaffed (and probably is).
2) This tension can degenerate into hostility if the corporate culture gives short shrift to either side of the equation, or if there is arrogance on either side about which group is more important. Hostility also builds up if either side is under outside stress (for example, the company or project is in danger of collapse or teams are working ridiculous amounts of overtime).
3) In a place like an investment firm, the equation is complicated by the fact that not only do you have the systems techies, the apps programmers and the regular MBAs and management types, you also have the financial algorithms techies and the lawyers actively involved in day to day business. There are a lot of people who are conditioned by their past achievements to think that they are the smartest person on the block.
4) When the tension between the service provider (tech) and the service requester (business) becomes hostile, it will definitely have a negative effect on the company. Hostility can cause people to abuse or ignore processes, resulting in project delays (or badly thought out projects) and lost revenues and opportunities.
5) A company's processes, especially in IT service management, tend to lag behind their growth. So IT tends to be in more of a fire-fighting mode than most other portions of the business. This leads to the classic situation of IT never getting credit when things go right and always getting blamed when things go wrong. Project-management and Service management metrics can be IT's friend in getting proper credit for achievements, even though most technical IT folks see them as a huge pain in the posterior.
The short version: the tech folks being "anti-business" is unacceptable if you're describing it correctly. If you hate your customers, you don't belong in that line of work, at least not at that company. On the other hand, what a business person sees as an "anti-business" attitude from IT may just be rational resource planning by the IT managers. It sounds like the interface between the main business lines and the IT services teams is badly broken there. Either get involved in a big process-improvement activity, propose outsourcing some of the IT functions, or run away as fast as you can.
Wasn't there a recent court decision that stated that an entity that submits a DMCA takedown notice must make a reasonable effort to determine whether the allegedly infringing work is non-infringing under the fair-use doctrine? This hasn't been through an appeals process yet, so the ruling may not stand, but it could have interesting effects on the CoS situation.
Well, let's see. If a 25 minute TV program is $1.99, then a 150 minute movie should be about $11.99, and a 100 minute movie should be about 9.99. So the movie price is definitely unreasonable. $1.99 for a TV show seems to be about the going rate. When you compare it to 0.99 to 1.99 for a 4 minute song, it seems pretty reasonable. As a consumer, though, I think reasonable would be about 25 to 50 cents for a song, a buck for a TV show and 7 bucks for a movie. You can't make it cheaper than an actual movie ticket. That would just kill the movie industry completely. In fact that's probably why the movies are so expensive in the first place. They're being priced in comparison with theater tickets, not in comparison with TV shows.
On the other hand, a jack of all trades is the only person who can interface between the overspecialized network admins and the overspecialized application developers (for example).
And you two marked yourself as real counter-intelligence "pros" by doing that 180. They're probably still tapping your phone lines to this day.
That's one group. The I Witness group that was also intimidated is a completely different kettle of fish.
The folks in MN weren't on the street. They were in a residence. This is a whole new order of pre-emptive arrests that we haven't seen since the civil rights movement in the 1960's.
Actually, the same reporter from Salon involved in the Minnesota story also reported on the police removing a "new media" video crew that was attempting to interview "blue dog" democrats being feted by AT&T for their support of telecom immunity.
The difference in Denver is that apparently there weren't any pre-emptive raids there.
Well except these "anarchists" were peaceably assembled in a residence. Sounds like we're carrying the pre-emptive Bush doctrine down from invading Iraq to invading people's homes now.
"The Chicago police are not here to create disorder, they are here to preserve disorder." - Mayor Daley (Sr.), 1968.
Of course the networks pay it no heed
Of course not. The police are just doing their job by eliminating unauthorized competition from the video market. No story here, just move along...
That was just one of the groups affected. You're ignoring the raid done at the I-Witness Video group's gathering. There was no evidence anyone in that group was planning any violence. Heck they weren't even planning on protesting. Just video-recording everything.
And you're calling the "anarchists" "hooligans" before either side has their day in court, based purely on the police statements. In this day and age, please don't tell me you still take the police at their word for every action they perform. Haven't you seen enough video evidence to the contrary to plant a few seeds of doubt in your mind?
Well, state's rights was the secessionists' last line of defense, politically before the actual war. But they wouldn't have had to go to war over those rights if a) the north had ignored the abolitionists and let slavery continue or b) they had voluntarily come up with a plan to terminate slavery. So saying the battle was purely states' rights is completely disingenuous. Stating that the civil war was purely over states rights is like stating that the war on terror is only going after the perpetrators of 9/11.
On the other hand, based on the 2nd amendment clause of "...a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE...", I think the south was actually constitutionally correct at the time that secession was legal, ASSUMING that states rights were actually being violated. The constitution states clearly that the rights not given to the federal government belong to the states or the people, and the 2nd amendment is clearly designed so that the states and the people could defend the rights of the individual state against encroachment by the federal government.
So the question then becomes whether the federal government was actually trampling on states rights. And the answer is: probably not. Based on the interstate commerce clause, the federal government could have killed off slavery with various prohibitions at the federal level: transporting slaves across state lines, interstate trade in slaves, use of funds from one state to finance slave purchase in another state would have stood constitutional muster even before the commerce clause was broadened so much in the 20th century.
And the south was screwing itself over economically, anyway. The main reason large slaveholders couldn't free the slaves even if they wanted to was because they were up to their eyebrows in debt collateralized by their slave holdings.
If you really want the bill of rights back, better vote Libertarian. The democrats will make some vague motions in that direction, but they'll be too afraid of being labeled "soft on terror" to do anything serious about it.
In fact Salon was the same site that broke the story of the AT&T reward dinner for all the democrats that voted for telecomm immunity, and the story of how they were removed from the vicinity of the event by Denver police.
Second, since the president and vice-president were originally scheduled to appear at the convention, it's likely that the Secret Service was behind it all, with the FBI as middle-men. This wouldn't be a republican or democrat thing. The sweep and how it was done would have been dependent on the information provided by the "informants".
On the other hand, if there truly was a perceived danger to the president, it would've been the Feds doing the arrests, not the local police.
This is true. If you want to ensure license compatibility across your entire codebase, where do you draw the line at supporting (semi-)popular open source licenses?
GPLv2, GPLv3, LGPL, BSD, Apache, Creative Commons, MIT/X Consortium, Mozilla, Sun Community, and Eclipse are probably the top 10 (not necessarily in ranked order) in terms of number of licensed product copies in use, as opposed to the number of projects using the license. Even within this set, there are incompatibilities.
This will be like chum for all the Microsoft-basher sharks out there, but this seems to be an interesting opportunity for a well-endowed foundation like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It's a bit outside their more humanitarian approach to grant-giving, but spending a billion to pick up a first-class fundamental research group sounds like it fits in with the foundation's goals of furthering education and knowledge.
Oh, and some mention was made earlier in the discussion of Unix coming out of Bell Labs. While this is true, it didn't come out of the Physics lab. So computer science developments should still be coming out of Bell Labs, though probably at a trickle compared with the glory days.
Those are n-dimensional integer spaces with limited bounds. How do you imagine n continuous, infinite dimensions, eh? I found that for me the best way to visualize the 4th dimension was with color and/or time. So I could imagine a 3-d object that was yellow and orange (simultaneously), but not red or any of the other colors, or else I could imagine a 3-d object that appears, grows, shrinks or disappears according to the behavior of the set of interest along the 4th dimension. The only reason I ever really did this was to check that the analysis/proof based on 3 dimensions would hold up in 4.
Why does every discussion of IP have to include someone pretending to not see the difference between a product with unlimited supply (data), and a product with a supply of one (the GP's house)? You know it's not the same thing, so why the silly act?
Maybe because we disagree with your presumption that data is in unlimited supply. The only data that is unlimited in supply is white noise. The particular arrangements of data that constitute copyrighted works never existed until a creative mind organized them into a pattern that makes them valuable (on some scale) to themselves and other people. The fact that these bit sequences are valuable is exemplified both by the fact that some people are trying to control the distribution of this data and other people are continually trying to circumvent the controls of the others. The ability to replicate the data is "infinite" (or at least exceeds all conceivable demand levels at this time), but the ability to create useful, entertaining or interesting data patterns is a finite resource.
The pirates claim falsely that information wants to be free (as in beer), while the copyright holders artificially constrain the distribution and valuation of media like the deBeers cartel controls the distribution and valuation of diamonds. Information may want to be free (as in liberated), but that freedom has to acknowledge the value of the act of creation. In other words, a mechanism so that the artist is rewarded even when someone else redistributes their work. Isn't anyone going to step up and make a deal here? I'm looking at you too, BitTorrent trackers.
So the real problem is that there is no equitable mechanism in place in the market to determine what is the fair value of the data sequences that constitute copyrightable works.
How do we reward the innovators who create these works? Do we revert to the old patronage model, where only the wealthy few can hire a creator? Do we just take the fruits of the creators' labor and let them starve to death knowing new creators will always be born?
Copyright _could_ work if it returned to the original concept of limited term and it's made non-transferable. To me a limited term means that the maximum duration of copyright must be shorter than the average life expectancy of a person living in the copyright jurisdiction, so that the average person has some chance of seeing works created during their lifetime reach the public domain. Say a minimum term of 20 years (even past the creators death), or until the creator dies (if greater than 20 years) or 50 years (if the creator doesn't die within that time). The rights to sell and re-distribute the work could be licensed by the creator, but the actual copyright could never be transfered to another entity except to their estate in the event of their death prior to the 20 year term. Since most copyrightable works are actually collaborative efforts, in practice most copyrights would last for 50 years, based on the life of the longest surviving creator, but the income from the copyright would be distributed among the estates of the original creators as well as the survivors. (collaborative works would become a sort of "life insurance" for creators.)
The issue with patents right now isn't their duration, but how they are examined and granted. That seems to be changing for the better, so no cunning plan from me is needed. :)
Actually, it was really Novell's lawyers that won IBM's case by essentially taking away SCO's standing to sue IBM or anyone. But they ran circles around SCO's bunch, too.
Hi Maureen
There were two rulings: The summary judgment last year, and the ruling in the trial of the remaining claims Novell had against SCO, which was last month.
It pays to read Groklaw more regularly...Since SCO, they've been covering the MIT students, the model railroad case and the OOXML fiasco.
Better but still not good. And they'll just ask someone else to file the patent anyway.
They can't do that if the "innovation" was developed by the OP. The patent has to be filed by the actual innovator, who then (under most employment contracts) assigns the rights to the patent to the employer as part of a work for hire.
Poisoning the well is not necessarily weaselly, although the company's legal department may view it as such. One reason so many bad patent applications get filed is because the corporate approach is to document a bare-minimum of prior art, and make the competition do the research to invalidate the patent. The infamous "one-click" patent is a lot more weaselly than what is being proposed here.
"satellite is no longer a serious competitor to cable"
What? When did that happen? Or did you just get it backwards?
Satellite has been undercutting cable on price for years, and (at least down south here) is more reliable than the cable. I don't have HD service yet, so I can't compare the HD quality, but they seem to offer more channels on satellite.
Actually it would be even better (and closer to your analogy of punishing the whole class) to order them to cease and desist all business operations (including locking down all facilitites and disallowing payment of wages) as well as freezing assets for the term of the sentence. If people are left jobless by a company for 60 days due to corporate malfeasance it would certainly make everyone feel more accountable for the behavior of their employers and they will demand higher compensation or vote with their feet. Oh, and one more thing: If a corporation is given jail time, the executive level management and board of directors should actually have to spend that time in jail, apart from any sentences incurred for their own individual involvement. Sort of an extension of Sarbanes-Oxley.
The problem is that the corporate workaround for this idea is already in place. You find an individual (or a group) scapegoat that "did this outside of our corporate policies and procedures" and avoid the liability that way.
The GPL is a EULA. It's also a DLA (distributor's license agreement). It grants you the right to make unlimited copies of the software either for your own use (EULA) or for distribution under the terms of the license. That's what the L stands for. Without the GPL, you would not be allowed to copy/install/compile the work on a single computer, let alone many, without violating the copyright.
The distinguishing feature of the GPL that makes it seem like it isn't a EULA is that it grants much, much broader permissions for redistribution and modification to the licensees than any commercial EULA. But these are still licensed permissions with binding conditions on the licensee, and not public domain relinquishment of the rights attached to copyright.