As long as you are the only guy in your company who does things "your way" as opposed to "their way", as long as you use OSS yourself but adapt it to MS software when used for any collaborative purpose, you are helping nobody and doing nothing but wasting time and being an extra pain in the ass for the sysadmin.
Furthermore, there's no point in walking anywhere unless you can walk right around the world. So until someone gets around to draining those nasty, inconvenient
oceans, you might as well just sit on your ass, because if you can't walk everywhere there is to walk, then there's no point in walking anywhere at all.
If you want to be truly MS free, get your company to drop MS. Get EVERYONE to kick the habit.
I can see it now:
Linux Guy:I think we should migrate to GNU/Linux Chief Technical Officer:I'd be interested in the results of a pilot project. Will it do everything we need in the company? LG:I... um... I think so... CTO:You only think so? You mean you haven't tried this out for yourself? LG:I was going to, but this guy on Slashdot said not to install it unless the entire company did, and, um... CTO:You're an idiot! Get out of my sight!
The evidence of Linux's failure to penetrate the mass market speaks for itself.
Failure is only possible with a time limit. This isn't like a commercial competitor where they have the capital for one big push and then they fold for lack of funds.
Linux isn't going to go away, and it's not going to cease development. And it's going to keep on getting better and better. I think you're arguing based on
faulty assumptions.
For that matter, even if we accept that Linux had a limited window of opportunity to gain popular acceptance, I still think you'd be premature in
declaring failure. A lot of people are just starting to hear about Linux for the first time. In particular, I think a lot of corporate decision makers
are just becoming aware that an alternative to the proprietary OSes exists. The evaluation process is far from over.
One wonders what it will take to convince voting machine manufacturers not to do things like hard coding passwords as '12345678.'"
I can almost imagine that being a deliberate ploy. "
I'm sorry your honour, but one of our programmers (no longer under our employ) hard coded a weak password in complete disregard of coding standards. Regretably, the weakness of the password has enabled certain parties to guess what it is, and thereby subvert the electoral process. But it's not our fault."
Hanlon's Razor be dammned. In cases like this we should start assuming malice unless they can prove stupidity beyond any reasonable doubt.
Exactly. Now instead of just bundling office software that no one wants and no one uses with new PCs, they're going to bundle sotware that no one wants, no one uses, and that advertises at you.
Of course, this being MS, they're going to try and sell this as an added value proposition: "seventy five percent of all the sock puppets that responded to our market research all said that they felt the lack of advertising was a serious lack in Microsoft Works"
I'm suggesting that such a demand would get them into a lot of trouble
and not stop Acer from doing so if they thought there was a market for it
A bit like the way MS got into trouble for threatening to withdraw Dell's
reseller licence if they started offering PCs with no preinstalled OS?
The only problem that caused Microsoft was that Steve Ballmer laughed so
hard he fell off his chair. (It is all right to use the words "Ballmer"
and "chair" in the same sentence, is it? I'd hate to be unoriginal).
Acer said its customers weren't demanding Linux, so instead of simply
taking them at face value, you need some grand conspiracy as to why
Linux isn't being offered everywhere
I think of it more as offering an alternative explanation to the Acer press
release. I live in the UK, and what they say doesn't entirely jibe with
my experience, you see. And as you're well aware, this wouldn't be the first
time MS flexed its economic muscles like this.
I'd bet if they were Acer would report that fact if they were truly
being stopped from selling Linux when they wanted to.
I bet they could. And if they did, and if MS didn't like that,
they might lose their licence to resell Windows. They probably
wouldn't like that much.
I said its unoriginal to keep harping on this when trying to be funny
It's a good job for me then that you're not the unoriginality police,
or I'd be in deep trouble.
I'm open to the idea that you're attempting yet more mindless MS bashing.
So are you suggesting that Microsoft are above placing pressure on an OEM not to bundle any OS other than Windows with their hardware?
Even if your post was meant as a joke, its not funny, its been doing a billion times here already.
Oh, I see. It's not that MS aren't engaged in anti competitive practices, just you think it's terribly, terribly unoriginal of me to keep bringing up like this. I'll bear it in mind for next time:)
To address the question in the subject line - bad reporting. There was a much better radio interview on
BBC Radio 4 with one of the researchers, and a representative from one of the mast pressure groups.
IIRC, it was acknowledged all round that the test was well conducted and that the methodology was sound. The primary criticism raised was that the test didn't account for long term exposure effects. The researcher conceded that proper controls were problematic in a case like this; that more research was needed into long term effects, and that a double blind test would also be useful. The possibility of confirmation bias among those complaining of ill-health due to EM radiation was also discussed.
The problem here seems to be the Beeb web page punching up the headlines, and then Slashdot exacerbating the effect by further sensationalising things. At the end of the day, the result didn't prove anything other than the fact that people don't seem to be able to consciously detect when a phone mast is on or off, and the researchers seem quite happy with that result.
That said, I was listening with half an ear whilst driving home down the A19, so I may have some of the details wrong. Take it for what it's worth....
I'm pretty sure the previous poster didn't think the government went out
and manually created monopolies, but simply provided the mechanisms.
You could well be right about that - it's difficult to say much with certainty
based upon a one line put-down. On the other hand, there's a worrying
tendency among some free market libertarians to take the infallibility of the
market and the evil of government intervention as articles of faith.
That leads to some interesting lines of reasoning. For instance: monopolies
are bad; markets can do no ill; therefore monopolies cannot arise from inside the
market. Then, having rejected that notion, we look to government intervention as the
root cause of all evil and - oh look, patents and copyright! It's all the government's fault.
If you got rid of all government regulation of businesses,
you'd help competition in some ways, but monopolies may more easily exist
in other ways. At the very least, you'd probably have to have watchdog
groups of some sort fill in the gap.
Exactly! Both extremes are poisonous.
The real question is, does anyone really know what would happen in a completely free market?
I think the "completely free market" is a bit like the "spherical cow of uniform
density" beloved of physicists. It may be a useful approximation in some
circumstances, but it's never going to happen. The difference is that farmers
don't set long term policy based on the assumption that their cows will one day
attain spherical form and uniform density and that they will do so without
outside intervention.
Perhaps competition is an old theory back in the days when business owners had too much testosterone that, now days, no longer applies.
I think perhaps it's a characteristic of young companies, and of young economies. When
you have nothing to lose, you can only benefit from shaking things up a bit.
When you have an established and successful company, you have a strong
interest in preserving the status quo.
Interesting points by the way - thanks for the reply.
So you need government to prevent what government created
I think that's a little simplistic.
Many of the mechanisms by which a monopoly may be perpetuated were enacted by past governments, certainly. However, that doesn't mean that he government creates this monopoly. It's not like we have some sixteenth century monarch, giving trade monopolies to reward his political supporters. The monopolies arise from inside the market, and sustain themselves by whatever means are available.
In other words: The government created the mechanism, they don't create the monopolies.
So, (to pick an example beloved of this forum), we see Microsoft seeking to perpetuate its monopoly using government and non-government
measures. On the one hand they are building a patent thicket to raise further the barrier to entry to its markets. On the other, we also see them putting pressure on the OEMs not to bundle any software but their own with new computers.
Now if you want to tell me that patents and copyright are broken and need to be abolished, then go ahead. I'd be interested to hear your take on that issue.
Re:meanwhile, the evidence is missing
on
GCC 4.2.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
I'm "wait-and-see"
A rational position
I'm "if-you-don't-like-it-use-windows(or something else)-instead"
but I have absolutely no intention of making an outing out of that
position.
Well, if that boils down to "the guys who do the work get to choose
the licence" then I completely agree. The trouble is that a
lot of FSF agitators use it as an all purpose mantra to silence any
and all criticism.
And it gets a bit silly after a while: Have doubts about the Tvioisation
clause? Tough - use windows instead. Don't think it should be called
GNU/Linux - use windows instead. Think Richard's beard could use a trim?
Well you just better uninstall Linux and use Windows instead.
The annoying thing is that it makes no sense! The licence doesn't say anything about
thought police - it doesn't mandate acceptance of the FSF's political
goals - all it requires really, is that you share your improvements
with the other users. But once the faithful get going, they're like the sheep in
Orwell's Animal Farm: "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Better!"
And I know you're not doing that - I just needed to rant
about it.
The FSF is an interesting group all together, their agendas are
quite different than those of the rest of the industry and that will
always cause tension in some areas, but I think most everyone involved
will ultimately just want to get back to work and the FSF has a vested
interest in making that possible.
I agree entirely. I can't think who else would or could push this angle,
and I think the FSF on the whole does excellent work. I just think that some
of their more zealous converts are quite frequently counter productive.
Not that that's a new problem for the movement, I suppose...
Of course, this ignores the most fundamental aspect of the issue
mmm... I was challenging the assertion that Microsoft's patent agreement prevented GPL'd software from being freely distributed.
I wasn't suggesting that Microsoft's actions should be beneath our notice. And really, I think that freedom to distribute is the fundamental aspect of the issue.
That still isn't to defend Microsoft's actions in any way, of course.
Well let set aside GCC since what happens there I'm not clear on. But suppose someone redistributes some GNU entitity as part of their package. Let's say SAMBA or make. Perhaps they are even using GCC to compile make and optimize their code on the customers machine, so they are redistribution GCC. That for example, might apply to apple.
I think we can set Apple aside as well. After all Apple are big enough and prosperous enough to sponsor a GPLv2 fork if they think they need it, and they have enough lawyers to decide if they need it or not. I'd be more worried for the small businesses. But even so, under what circumstances does it make more sense to distribute source code upgrades rather than a binary firmware download? I can't see if happening, myself.
But let's suppose it does...
And of course they don't want their customer, who's some fortune 500 travel arrangement company, to have to worry... But that company does not want to indemnify the planet for SAMBA or GCC
Well, the rule is that your downstream recipients have to be able to pass on all the rights you grant to them. So if your travel agency has a sideline selling travel agent software, you could be in trouble. On the whole though, I'd say your exposure was small to non-existent. Also, what stops you from indemnifying your own software, and disclaiming the rest? A lot of commercial concerns sell stuff bundled with GPLv2 software and it has big notices saying (in effect) that GPL stuff has only the rights and warranties supplied by the original licensor - I don't see why the new licence should change that practice.
But that company does not want to indemnify the planet for SAMBA or GCC, just their customers. As I understand it that selectivity is not possible with the GCC. Maybe I don't understand it correctly?
I can't see what would prohibit it. The obvious case here is TiVO, where they are going to be required to release the lockdown keys for their hardware if they use GPLv3 software. But that doesn't mean they need to licence their proprietary code under the GPL, be it version two, three or whatever; they just need to provide the info needed for the downstream recipients to run modified copies.
And since the proprietary bits aren't GPL'd, they can just indemnify that, and let upstream take care of the GPL'd bits as above.
JUst in case I forgot earlier: IANAL
Re:meanwhile, the evidence is missing
on
GCC 4.2.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
There's a reason why the previous GPL was called version 2. Hint: it's not because it was the first version.
Just because there was a GPLv1, that doesn't imply that the "... or later"
boilerplate was widely used (or indeed used at all) before version two.
Still, feel free to prove me wrong.
Like the subject line says - your evidence is missing.
So that entirely breaks the idea that GPL software it redistributable.
You know, I don't think it does. GPL software is still GPL software, even if MS say they probably maybe won't sue you but only if you buy your distro from an approved commercial source. All that happens if you don't follow MS's tacked on terms and conditions is that you lose the promise not to sue unless they really really want to - which was pretty much worthless in the first place.
So the software is just as re-distributable as it was before. Nothing has
changed, much as MS might like us to think otherwise.
It makes one so angry one wants to strike back with the GPL v3 which
says if you confer immunity to one then you confer it to all.
I suppose it might do - but that's not the way it happened. The GPLv3
was devised as a preventative measure against the day when someone tried to enclose
free software using a patent thicket. Microsoft's recent fun and games
only arrived in the closing stages of the GPLv3 review process.
These are commercial firms and they need to indemnify their customers
that using their products won't expose them to risk.
Lost me there. Suppose I use a GPLv3 compiler, compile a completely
unrelated product with it, and sell it to you under a commercial
licence? How does that expose you to any additional risk?
Re:meanwhile, the evidence is missing
on
GCC 4.2.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
I was under the impression that the GCC project had special wording added to the GPL so that you didn't have to GPL your project simply because it was compiled using GCC libraries and such. Am I correct in this?
I belive the issue there is around the C++ standard libraries, and yes, there's an exception in that case.
If this is true, I don't understand what the big deal is about migrating GCC (in particular) to GPL3.
I don't think there are any technical or legal issues around GCC and the GPL (IANAL).
Personally, I think it's purely political, in the sense that a lot of people who
would like the GPLv3 to fail in general are going to oppose it every
chance they get, and in particular in a high profile project like GCC.
That said, there's a temptation to dismiss all critics of the new licence
as astroturfers for MS/Tvio/whoever, and I don't think that's wise.
This is the first time the FSF has exercised the power implicit in all that
"... or later" boilerplate, and it's easy to form the feeling that they're
throwing their weight around, especially in that attracts so many
individualists and libertarians as the Free Software Movement.
I think this needs sensitive handling from the FSF, or they risk
seeing opposition to the wait-and-see camp. I'm just worried it'll turn into
an outing for the "if-you-don't-like-it-use-windows-instead" crowd.
Re:meanwhile, the evidence is missing
on
GCC 4.2.1 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's worth noting that the linked to article actually contains nothing about GCC developers complaining about GPLv3.
Very true, and it would be foolish to assume that we heading for the sort of
apocalyptic sundering of the community prophesied by GPLv3 skeptics.
On the other hand, I think it's undeniable that the community is
divided over the issue.
How serious the objections are, and how large the dissenting camp...
that remains to be seen. If the FSF consultancy works as intended
there should be little in the way of serious opposition. On the other
hand, if they've placed Stallman's political agenda ahead of the needs
of the community (as some have suggested) then we may be in for a rocky
ride.
Either way, we'll find out soon enough.
Re:How will the FSF/GNU handle the GPL 3 revolt?
on
GCC 4.2.1 Released
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
How does making a license freely available for software authors to use translate into "shoveling [sic] GPL3 down our throats"?
I suppose that a lot of free software authors feel that the FSF is being
a little heavy handed. In fairness, it's hard to see how
(after consultations lasting more than a year) that the foundation could
have handled this better. All the same, there are inevitably going to
be people who are not comfortable with the new licence. Given a choice
of accept v3 or start a fork, it's perhaps inevitable that people who
have invested a lot of effort in GNU projects are going to regard the
licence as an imposition.
The new licence was always going to be divisive, although in the light of
the MS-Novell pact, I think the benefits will be worthwhile in the long
run. But that doesn't mean that devs on large projects like GCC don't have
a valid point.
The trouble is that there's nothing now to be done about it, but to see how
the dice fall.
Yep. In fact, as a signatory to the Berne Convention, in the US copyright exists in every work not explicitly released into the publci domain. Which makes it a particularly stupid thing to say. I mean it is fairly obvious that they mean "no unauthorised downloading of copyright material", but if they really plan to implement a "no excuses, no appeal" policy, you'd think they'd take the 30 seconds or so it needed to phrase the thing correctly.
Even then, it's still way OTT. Half the papers on Citeseer (for instance)
are there in technical violation of the copyright of the journals where
they were first published. The journals turn a blind eye, which is why
the site can keep on, but I can see a lot of sudents getting banned, which
considering how widely used citeseer is as an academic resource, is a but
ridiculous.
I suppose the only other way they could implement the policy as expressed
is to rely on the word "caught". That way, if they don't look for
downloaders, they don't find them, and selective enforcement becomes
the order of the day. I suppose it might be useful if the they forsee
needing a pretext to silence unruly students.
Slashdot Mirror
Furthermore, there's no point in walking anywhere unless you can walk right around the world. So until someone gets around to draining those nasty, inconvenient oceans, you might as well just sit on your ass, because if you can't walk everywhere there is to walk, then there's no point in walking anywhere at all.
I can see it now:
Linux Guy: I think we should migrate to GNU/Linux ... I think so...
...
Chief Technical Officer: I'd be interested in the results of a pilot project. Will it do everything we need in the company?
LG: I... um
CTO: You only think so? You mean you haven't tried this out for yourself?
LG: I was going to, but this guy on Slashdot said not to install it unless the entire company did, and, um
CTO: You're an idiot! Get out of my sight!
Yep. I expect that'd work real well.
Failure is only possible with a time limit. This isn't like a commercial competitor where they have the capital for one big push and then they fold for lack of funds. Linux isn't going to go away, and it's not going to cease development. And it's going to keep on getting better and better. I think you're arguing based on faulty assumptions.
For that matter, even if we accept that Linux had a limited window of opportunity to gain popular acceptance, I still think you'd be premature in declaring failure. A lot of people are just starting to hear about Linux for the first time. In particular, I think a lot of corporate decision makers are just becoming aware that an alternative to the proprietary OSes exists. The evaluation process is far from over.
maybe you should explain a little so we can all understand what you're on about
I can almost imagine that being a deliberate ploy. "
I'm sorry your honour, but one of our programmers (no longer under our employ) hard coded a weak password in complete disregard of coding standards. Regretably, the weakness of the password has enabled certain parties to guess what it is, and thereby subvert the electoral process. But it's not our fault."
Hanlon's Razor be dammned. In cases like this we should start assuming malice unless they can prove stupidity beyond any reasonable doubt.
Exactly. Now instead of just bundling office software that no one wants and no one uses with new PCs, they're going to bundle sotware that no one wants, no one uses, and that advertises at you.
Of course, this being MS, they're going to try and sell this as an added value proposition: "seventy five percent of all the sock puppets that responded to our market research all said that they felt the lack of advertising was a serious lack in Microsoft Works"
A bit like the way MS got into trouble for threatening to withdraw Dell's reseller licence if they started offering PCs with no preinstalled OS? The only problem that caused Microsoft was that Steve Ballmer laughed so hard he fell off his chair. (It is all right to use the words "Ballmer" and "chair" in the same sentence, is it? I'd hate to be unoriginal).
I think of it more as offering an alternative explanation to the Acer press release. I live in the UK, and what they say doesn't entirely jibe with my experience, you see. And as you're well aware, this wouldn't be the first time MS flexed its economic muscles like this.
I bet they could. And if they did, and if MS didn't like that, they might lose their licence to resell Windows. They probably wouldn't like that much.
It's a good job for me then that you're not the unoriginality police, or I'd be in deep trouble.
So are you suggesting that Microsoft are above placing pressure on an OEM not to bundle any OS other than Windows with their hardware?
Oh, I see. It's not that MS aren't engaged in anti competitive practices, just you think it's terribly, terribly unoriginal of me to keep bringing up like this. I'll bear it in mind for next time :)
A Mac quality O/S that did cost Mac prices, and didn't tie you to Microsoft? I should think that once word got about, they'd walk off the shelves.
How open are you to the idea that you may be being taking my words a little too literally?
Whenever a vendor tells you that there's "no demand" for such-and-such, I think an important question to ask is "no demand from whom?"
For instance, it's possible that the lack of demand in this case comes from a certain Washington based software company.
You could do it if you had a pair of sub-atomic soap bubbles. ntfs-3g has been stable for a while now.
To address the question in the subject line - bad reporting. There was a much better radio interview on BBC Radio 4 with one of the researchers, and a representative from one of the mast pressure groups.
IIRC, it was acknowledged all round that the test was well conducted and that the methodology was sound. The primary criticism raised was that the test didn't account for long term exposure effects. The researcher conceded that proper controls were problematic in a case like this; that more research was needed into long term effects, and that a double blind test would also be useful. The possibility of confirmation bias among those complaining of ill-health due to EM radiation was also discussed.
The problem here seems to be the Beeb web page punching up the headlines, and then Slashdot exacerbating the effect by further sensationalising things. At the end of the day, the result didn't prove anything other than the fact that people don't seem to be able to consciously detect when a phone mast is on or off, and the researchers seem quite happy with that result.
That said, I was listening with half an ear whilst driving home down the A19, so I may have some of the details wrong. Take it for what it's worth....
Problem solved then. All Cliff and Sir Paul have to do is buy property with their earnings and rent it out.
No need for any special legislation at all.
You could well be right about that - it's difficult to say much with certainty based upon a one line put-down. On the other hand, there's a worrying tendency among some free market libertarians to take the infallibility of the market and the evil of government intervention as articles of faith.
That leads to some interesting lines of reasoning. For instance: monopolies are bad; markets can do no ill; therefore monopolies cannot arise from inside the market. Then, having rejected that notion, we look to government intervention as the root cause of all evil and - oh look, patents and copyright! It's all the government's fault.
Exactly! Both extremes are poisonous.
I think the "completely free market" is a bit like the "spherical cow of uniform density" beloved of physicists. It may be a useful approximation in some circumstances, but it's never going to happen. The difference is that farmers don't set long term policy based on the assumption that their cows will one day attain spherical form and uniform density and that they will do so without outside intervention.
I think perhaps it's a characteristic of young companies, and of young economies. When you have nothing to lose, you can only benefit from shaking things up a bit. When you have an established and successful company, you have a strong interest in preserving the status quo.
Interesting points by the way - thanks for the reply.
I think that's a little simplistic.
Many of the mechanisms by which a monopoly may be perpetuated were enacted by past governments, certainly. However, that doesn't mean that he government creates this monopoly. It's not like we have some sixteenth century monarch, giving trade monopolies to reward his political supporters. The monopolies arise from inside the market, and sustain themselves by whatever means are available.
In other words: The government created the mechanism, they don't create the monopolies.
So, (to pick an example beloved of this forum), we see Microsoft seeking to perpetuate its monopoly using government and non-government measures. On the one hand they are building a patent thicket to raise further the barrier to entry to its markets. On the other, we also see them putting pressure on the OEMs not to bundle any software but their own with new computers.
Now if you want to tell me that patents and copyright are broken and need to be abolished, then go ahead. I'd be interested to hear your take on that issue.
A rational position
Well, if that boils down to "the guys who do the work get to choose the licence" then I completely agree. The trouble is that a lot of FSF agitators use it as an all purpose mantra to silence any and all criticism.
And it gets a bit silly after a while: Have doubts about the Tvioisation clause? Tough - use windows instead. Don't think it should be called GNU/Linux - use windows instead. Think Richard's beard could use a trim? Well you just better uninstall Linux and use Windows instead.
The annoying thing is that it makes no sense! The licence doesn't say anything about thought police - it doesn't mandate acceptance of the FSF's political goals - all it requires really, is that you share your improvements with the other users. But once the faithful get going, they're like the sheep in Orwell's Animal Farm: "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Better!"
And I know you're not doing that - I just needed to rant about it.
I agree entirely. I can't think who else would or could push this angle, and I think the FSF on the whole does excellent work. I just think that some of their more zealous converts are quite frequently counter productive. Not that that's a new problem for the movement, I suppose...
mmm... I was challenging the assertion that Microsoft's patent agreement prevented GPL'd software from being freely distributed. I wasn't suggesting that Microsoft's actions should be beneath our notice. And really, I think that freedom to distribute is the fundamental aspect of the issue.
That still isn't to defend Microsoft's actions in any way, of course.
I think we can set Apple aside as well. After all Apple are big enough and prosperous enough to sponsor a GPLv2 fork if they think they need it, and they have enough lawyers to decide if they need it or not. I'd be more worried for the small businesses. But even so, under what circumstances does it make more sense to distribute source code upgrades rather than a binary firmware download? I can't see if happening, myself.
But let's suppose it does...
Well, the rule is that your downstream recipients have to be able to pass on all the rights you grant to them. So if your travel agency has a sideline selling travel agent software, you could be in trouble. On the whole though, I'd say your exposure was small to non-existent. Also, what stops you from indemnifying your own software, and disclaiming the rest? A lot of commercial concerns sell stuff bundled with GPLv2 software and it has big notices saying (in effect) that GPL stuff has only the rights and warranties supplied by the original licensor - I don't see why the new licence should change that practice.
I can't see what would prohibit it. The obvious case here is TiVO, where they are going to be required to release the lockdown keys for their hardware if they use GPLv3 software. But that doesn't mean they need to licence their proprietary code under the GPL, be it version two, three or whatever; they just need to provide the info needed for the downstream recipients to run modified copies.
And since the proprietary bits aren't GPL'd, they can just indemnify that, and let upstream take care of the GPL'd bits as above.
JUst in case I forgot earlier: IANAL
Just because there was a GPLv1, that doesn't imply that the "... or later" boilerplate was widely used (or indeed used at all) before version two. Still, feel free to prove me wrong.
Like the subject line says - your evidence is missing.
You know, I don't think it does. GPL software is still GPL software, even if MS say they probably maybe won't sue you but only if you buy your distro from an approved commercial source. All that happens if you don't follow MS's tacked on terms and conditions is that you lose the promise not to sue unless they really really want to - which was pretty much worthless in the first place.
So the software is just as re-distributable as it was before. Nothing has changed, much as MS might like us to think otherwise.
I suppose it might do - but that's not the way it happened. The GPLv3 was devised as a preventative measure against the day when someone tried to enclose free software using a patent thicket. Microsoft's recent fun and games only arrived in the closing stages of the GPLv3 review process.
Lost me there. Suppose I use a GPLv3 compiler, compile a completely unrelated product with it, and sell it to you under a commercial licence? How does that expose you to any additional risk?
I belive the issue there is around the C++ standard libraries, and yes, there's an exception in that case.
I don't think there are any technical or legal issues around GCC and the GPL (IANAL). Personally, I think it's purely political, in the sense that a lot of people who would like the GPLv3 to fail in general are going to oppose it every chance they get, and in particular in a high profile project like GCC.
That said, there's a temptation to dismiss all critics of the new licence as astroturfers for MS/Tvio/whoever, and I don't think that's wise. This is the first time the FSF has exercised the power implicit in all that "... or later" boilerplate, and it's easy to form the feeling that they're throwing their weight around, especially in that attracts so many individualists and libertarians as the Free Software Movement.
I think this needs sensitive handling from the FSF, or they risk seeing opposition to the wait-and-see camp. I'm just worried it'll turn into an outing for the "if-you-don't-like-it-use-windows-instead" crowd.
Very true, and it would be foolish to assume that we heading for the sort of apocalyptic sundering of the community prophesied by GPLv3 skeptics. On the other hand, I think it's undeniable that the community is divided over the issue.
How serious the objections are, and how large the dissenting camp... that remains to be seen. If the FSF consultancy works as intended there should be little in the way of serious opposition. On the other hand, if they've placed Stallman's political agenda ahead of the needs of the community (as some have suggested) then we may be in for a rocky ride.
Either way, we'll find out soon enough.
I suppose that a lot of free software authors feel that the FSF is being a little heavy handed. In fairness, it's hard to see how (after consultations lasting more than a year) that the foundation could have handled this better. All the same, there are inevitably going to be people who are not comfortable with the new licence. Given a choice of accept v3 or start a fork, it's perhaps inevitable that people who have invested a lot of effort in GNU projects are going to regard the licence as an imposition.
The new licence was always going to be divisive, although in the light of the MS-Novell pact, I think the benefits will be worthwhile in the long run. But that doesn't mean that devs on large projects like GCC don't have a valid point.
The trouble is that there's nothing now to be done about it, but to see how the dice fall.
I stand corrected :)
Thank you for the explanation.
Yep. In fact, as a signatory to the Berne Convention, in the US copyright exists in every work not explicitly released into the publci domain. Which makes it a particularly stupid thing to say. I mean it is fairly obvious that they mean "no unauthorised downloading of copyright material", but if they really plan to implement a "no excuses, no appeal" policy, you'd think they'd take the 30 seconds or so it needed to phrase the thing correctly.
Even then, it's still way OTT. Half the papers on Citeseer (for instance) are there in technical violation of the copyright of the journals where they were first published. The journals turn a blind eye, which is why the site can keep on, but I can see a lot of sudents getting banned, which considering how widely used citeseer is as an academic resource, is a but ridiculous.
I suppose the only other way they could implement the policy as expressed is to rely on the word "caught". That way, if they don't look for downloaders, they don't find them, and selective enforcement becomes the order of the day. I suppose it might be useful if the they forsee needing a pretext to silence unruly students.