Article: "An early version of this manual was allegedly made available to Linux developers once a Confidential Disclosure Agreement was signed (Sun's version of a Non-Disclosure Agreement), however no such offer has been made to the OpenBSD team, an offer that if made is likely counter to the project's goals."
So what they're essentially saying is that they want Sun to give them the documentation without the OpenBSD developers having to sign an NDA, because doing so wouldn't be in line with the OpenBSD goals?
Sun is free to refuse. And the OpenBSD folks are free to reread their own goals and start taking them seriously. For example these two:
- Be as politics-free as possible; solutions should be decided on the basis of technical merit. - Do not let serious problems sit unsolved.
This might be a good thing if you want OSS to spread. However, the day OSS rules the world (ahem...:-) I'd like to be able to say that non-government organizations (i.e. for-profit companies) adopted OSS early and contributed to it's success, rather than having to explain that governments decided to use it, and then it became successful.
Now, I understand that some people have reason to complain about Microsoft's business practices, but come on - why does every loser have to pick up the "MS posing unfair competition and threatening consumer choice"-template every time they see some MS competition.
Spend half the time you whine on improving your own stuff and you will be fine:-)
No - if Linux/OSS is your choice because of ideology.
Yes - if it's because it's usable, puts fun back into computing and you want it to make it to more desktops.
I'd say yes any day.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you're of course free to give money directly to the project.
As a Swedish tax payer I'm not sure I'm all that thrilled about this.
vi /etc/hosts
on = of
Just OCR and ZIP all of Library on Congress and send it down the wire.
Maybe life sentences should be the only punishment used. After all - a criminal is a criminal.
Five thousand years old, to be precise.
Article: "An early version of this manual was allegedly made available to Linux developers once a Confidential Disclosure Agreement was signed (Sun's version of a Non-Disclosure Agreement), however no such offer has been made to the OpenBSD team, an offer that if made is likely counter to the project's goals."
:-)
So what they're essentially saying is that they want Sun to give them the documentation without the OpenBSD developers having to sign an NDA, because doing so wouldn't be in line with the OpenBSD goals?
Sun is free to refuse. And the OpenBSD folks are free to reread their own goals and start taking them seriously. For example these two:
- Be as politics-free as possible; solutions should be decided on the basis of technical merit.
- Do not let serious problems sit unsolved.
Now go sign that NDA!
This might be a good thing if you want OSS to spread. However, the day OSS rules the world (ahem... :-) I'd like to be able to say that non-government organizations (i.e. for-profit companies) adopted OSS early and contributed to it's success, rather than having to explain that governments decided to use it, and then it became successful.
It would just feel better.
Now, I understand that some people have reason to complain about Microsoft's business practices, but come on - why does every loser have to pick up the "MS posing unfair competition and threatening consumer choice"-template every time they see some MS competition.
:-)
Spend half the time you whine on improving your own stuff and you will be fine
No - if Linux/OSS is your choice because of ideology. Yes - if it's because it's usable, puts fun back into computing and you want it to make it to more desktops. I'd say yes any day.
No, why would they? "At the request of a nation" being a better request than "at the request of customers", why is that?