You stopped quoting too early. It is "restricting of denying rights".
You started quoting too late. I cited the entire paragraph, and supplied a hyperlink to the source document.
That equals to "ensuring more rights are granted".
I don't think you can do that sort of boolean logic in this context.If I restrict your rights to restrict mine, is that a net enablement?
If so I can promote freedom by having you locked up
The point is that this is not an either/or case. The GPL aims to provide maximal rights with the minimum restriction needed to maintain those rights.
Look at it this way: if you're arguing that the GPL is a Good Thing, and someone starts up a song and dance about how restrictive the GPL is,
they're inviting you to buy into a
false dichotomy, namely that the GPL has to be either absolutely liberating, or absolutely restrictive.
However, if you accept this notion, you hand your opponent a ready made straw man - all he now need do in order to refute you is to demonstrate
a single restriction at which point your proposition falls apart.
So what i'm saying is that it's better to reject the false dichotomy from the start. You may loose the warm fuzzy feeling of being the Defender Of An Instrument Of Absolute Freedom; but on the other hand, it'll be a lot harder to trip you up using schoolboy debating tricks.
The point of my original post was that people are making statements about the MS-Novell deal without knowledge of the language or the intent, since neither are public other than some general statements. You jumped right in repeating those same assertions.
You asked a question, I gave you the answer as I saw it. I'm sorry if you don't like my answer, but
I don't really feel it's my responsibility to check right back to the start of a thread,
just in case you're in a sarcastic mood.
I don't see how Novell is violating or "getting around" GPLv2 with the deal, since they don't seem to be trying to add any restrictions.
Yes, yes, yes. The general feeling is that they are contravening the spirit of the agreement whilst continuing to observe the letter of same. Which should be obvious, really, since it they were adding restrictions then they would forfeit their licence to distribute and would not be having this particular discussion.
However, just because they are conforming to the letter of the licence, that doesn't mean they are adhering to its intent.
In particular, the implied threat of litigation is seen by many as fundamentally contrary to the spirit of the GPL.
What is so very difficult about that?
I think it's more likely that they just want to improve their own offering and market share by eliminating one of the main concerns decision makers have about Linux which is what if MS decides to do a patent attack.
And do you think this particular initiative is well founded from the viewpoint of protecting people from patent attack?
It seems to have heightened concerns rather than allaying them, and given that Microsoft can cancel the deal at any time,
it doesn't seem to be terribly reassuring either.
On the other hand, it has garnered a number of high profile deployments for Novell. So if we do Ron Hovsepian the courtesy of assuming him to be other than a blithering incompetent, then it seems likely reassuring the business community was not uppermost in his mind
when he signed this agreement.
The only thing you can fault Novell for is that they aren't trying to help out their competitors as well as themselves. How rude of them.
I'm sorry, but you can't just invoke competition as if it were some arcane word of power and
expect it to drive all dissent before you. If Novell want to be twats with software that they
wrote and own themselves, then you might have a point. If they do it with software that they distribute under
licence from others, and if they do so at the expense of those others,
then they needn't come crying when the licence gets changed to preclude their bad behaviour.
Yup, and thats the law. Feeling its wrong, having it be common sense its wrong doesn't make it legal.
Changing the law will make it legal.
So in that case you wouldn't mind if someone with deep pockets were to attempt to
bring about a change in that law by using its legal muscle to help
establish a favourable precedent?
Technically you are still incorrect. There are a default set of restrictions put into place by copyright law that take effect when any copyrightable work is created. A Microsoft EULA adds additional restrictions on top of those. The GPL relaxes those restrictions under a certain set of conditions at no point does the GPL add any restrictions.
It's still a sliding scale; we're just quibbling now about where to put the zero point.
Why bother? It's like arguing that the freezing point of water is warmer in Celsius
than it is in Kelvin
People who say the GPL introduces restrictions are looking at it from the latter perspective, and people who say the GPL gives you freedom are looking at it from the former perspective; it's as simple as that.
mmm... the point I've been trying to make is that both perspectives are intrinsically flawed. The GPL doesn't ust give you Freedom, and it doesn't just Restrict you; it aims at minimaxing freedom and restriction. It seeks to maximise what can be done with the software from the widest social perspective, while attempting to minimise the restrictions placed on the licensee. Hmm... put like that, it's the exact opposite of how commercial licences work. Fancy that:D
Anyway, the point is that it's not an either/or case. If someone says that the GPL is very restrictive licence, then the proper responses are "for whom?" (I'm sure Bill and Steve find it so) and "in comparison to what?" (because it comes out rather well in comparison to the average commercial EULA).
Otherwise, you're inviting the uncommitted reader to dismiss you as just another Linux zealot. And that doesn't help our case at all.
I meant to say "Am I less free, or is everyone else more free?" It was not my intent to create a dichotomy between restriction/freedom, since that is what I'm arguing against.
Got it. Certainly I don't think we disagree on anything important. On the other hand...
Total freedom does not mean you can rape and murder. Total freedom means everyone is free from rape and murder.
You see, I'd say that was more "utopian" than "free". I don't have a problem with considering the greatest common weal as being my highest social priority; I just think that freedom is orthogonal to the common good.
Is it me, or is this drifting way off-topic? Which isn't to say I'm not interested in the subject we're drifting into...
The Linux kernel is a special case. Parts of the code are "V2 only" and parts are "V2 or later". This combination is OK. However, it would essentially be impossible to move the Linux kernel to "V3 only" or "V3 and later" because EVERY contributor with "V2 only" code in the kernel must agree to this change, and several of them have died and their estates own the copyright on their contributions.
Not disagreeing as such, but you could probably find some substantial portions of the code where the ownership was not in doubt, and where the contributor was willing to relicence under V3. In combination with the existing "or later" code, that would probably make it possible to recode from scratch for the remaining code. It would still be a hell of aa job, but I think it's far from impossible.
Whether the will to do so exists, that's another question. I think will depend on how the Microvell pact plays out.
I am not free to own slaves. Am I restricted, or is everyone else more free?
It's not an either/or proposition. Total freedom means I can rape murder and enslave to the limits of my capability. Total restriction means I have to seek permission in order to breathe. Clearly neither extreme is desirable.
And just because some tossers are making the argument that "less than perfect freedom" implies "absolute restriction", that doesn't mean we should play into their hands by arguing the opposite extreme when both are demonstrably ludicrous.
The answer is everyone is more free because nobody can own slaves.
Yes. The overall level of freedom in society increases because of certain carefully crafted restrictions upon that freedom. But the fact that the purposes of freedom are served does not make the restrictions other than restrictions.
My copy of the GPLv2 says nothing about "passing on" rights.
mmm... my mistake. I got that from Stallman's address to the 5th international GPLv3 conference. Sadly, he's talking about phraseology already in the GPLv3 draft at the time of the Novell-MS announcement, and not how v2 works as I had originally thought. So my bad.
On the other hand, it's not a million miles away from this:
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
You just have to look at it from the other perspective.
Wow. I'm glad you know all the details of the deal, the intent of the two companies and the legal rules that apply. Thanks for sharing that.
IMHO, obviously. I take it from the sarcasm (was I rude to you?) that you might have a different theory on their motivation? Perhaps I could encourage you to share it. I'll be interested to see if you have any better support for your view than I have for mine.
Yes, of course. The law is semantics. Programming is semantics. Semantics are important.
How is that restricting?
It's restricting because the concept of restriction is an analogue value, and it's possible for something to be more restrictive than one thing, and at the same time less so than some other thing. For example, GPLv2 is less restrictive that a Microsoft EULA, but more so than the BSD licence. As you point out yourself.
They never hid that goal, it is the GNU manifesto, for god sake.
This is only a problem if you assume that a restriction is automatically a bad thing. There's certainly a lot of room for philosophical debate on the idea of restricting your freedom to preserve that of others, and the GPLv3 inevitably raises questions about how much freedom we want to let it restrict, and where the sweet spot lies between restriction and enablement. But to my programmer's mind at least, the GPLv2 passes the test of pragmatism:
has been shown to work, and work very well.
But because of the likes of Tivo, Novell and others, that will try to find a loophole and release derivative works without granting those rights, FSF has to created this tangled network of legalese, to close as many holes as they can.
I'm not arguing with you there. I had serious reservations about GPLv3; they went away when Novell started these shenanigans. I think they've made the case for GPLv3 quite nicely.
However, I also think that there is already enough confusion over the GPL, and over how it works, and I don't think that adding to the confusion (even with the best intentions) is ultimately going to help matters.
The GPL says you can't distribute anything covered by its terms unless the people you distribute to have the rights to distribute passing on all the rights you passed on to them. So whatever benefits I confer when I give you a GPL
program, they have to also apply when you give a copy to someone else. It's to stop some sneaky tricks that
could otherwise be used to effectively take a project proprietary.
So, under this clause, Novell couldn't buy a licence from MS (assuming there is in fact any basis for a licence) that would benefit their customers unless the same licence also applied to recipients further downstream. Or at least they could - but that would contravene the terms of the GPL, which would mean Novell had no licence to distribute at all.
So, instead of MS giving Novell the rights directly, they've made a deal where they grant them to Novell customers, rather than Novell making the grant. It's a technicality used to evade the intent of the licence. If that doesn't sound so bad, imagine (as Jeremy Allison pointed out) Microsoft's likely response if someone found a clever loophole and used it do distribute MS Office without paying MS for the privilege.
The reason they went to all this trouble is so that Novell can try and pressure people into buying only from them,
and so MS can get a cut of the income from Linux. Basically Novell is the skinny kid standing by the school gate saying "see my big friend over there? Well he promises not to beat you up, but only if you give me all your lunch money" Except that Microsoft is muttering under its breath "unless I really feel like it"
So that's what they're going to stop when they say "deals like this"
A lot of people would disagree with that. Hell, the
GPL disagrees with that:
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
See? "restrictions". Just because they are lesser restrictions than the default case of "no rights at all", that
doesn't mean they ain't restrictive.
I'm a big fan of the GPL myself, but let's try not to sacrifice accuracy to zealotry here.
If the EU demanded a total, open, no cost solution, MS probably wouldn't give in. Heck they might even rather pull out of the European market entirely than do that
And that would be a bad thing because.... ?
Sorry, let me rephrase that: That would be a bad thing for the EU because...?
Since pretty much every device and appliance in my house uses the same plug and runs on the same type of power (60hz A/C), I don't have to check the side of the box when I go out and buy a new toaster to see if it's going to "run" on my "system".
Well, first of all I'd like to point out that there's considerable difference in complexity between an operating system and a plug. Or even a toaster, for that matter.
Secondly, if that's a valid argument for a single brand of operating system, then we should probably all still be running Windows 3.1.
While there could be a need for a different OS for specialized devices, even in the Mac world Apple seems about ready to prove that their OS can power both computers and phones. Doesn't Linux already power some phones as well?
Yes. Um... what's your point?
If a program is really popular, why do I need to rewire (rewrite) three times to port it to different platforms?
So why does it need to run on three different platforms? What's wrong with targeting a single OS? Of course, if you're writing FOSS for Linux you probably won't need to port it. If it's really popular, someone else will port it for you.
I suppose the problem here is that we haven't specified what it is that MS are supposed to be good or bad at. Personally I was thinking in terms of Microsoft's deliberate abuse of it's position in the market, and its systematic suppression of emerging competitors. In that light, neither "good" or "bad" is particularly
complimentary.
I suppose it's possible that you were talking about software quality rather than anticompetitive practices. In which case, I'll just say that "good" isn't an adjective I'm used to seeing in the same sentence as Mircosoft and software. Your mileage may, of course, vary
If they migrate to Mac OSX, does that make it less likely that at some point in the future they would switch to Linux?
Possibly, possibly not. After all, in a lot of ways the jump from OS/X to Linux is a lot shorter than the one from Windows to Linux. They're both Unix descended systems and have a lot of apps in common. And when it comes to Linux, the price is always going to be had to beat.
On the other hand, I have to say that it doesn't much bother me. What I'd like to see is a bit more diversity O/S world. I suppose if Apple ever attain Microsoft's market share, they might well turn out just as bad - I doubt we'll ever know. In the meantime anything help break Redmond's dominance
of the market is to be applauded.
Hey, the television owner here is not the person who buys songs for personal use for a buck on iTunes. It is the artist who puts his life long effort at getting good at what he does and bringing it to you for your personal use *only*.
Exactly. It's a bad analogy.
Yes, but those five *interesting* minutes from the middle of a random episode in all its whatever form are not Googles property to publish. And is it fair use? I think not
Imagine a store selling stolen televisions for dirt cheap on the high street. Millions of them. Even if they claim to have bought it in the first place from their clients before reselling it to their other clients, are they lawfully doing legal business?
First of all, you'll notice that I'm not arguing that no law has been broken. Secondly, theft is a different crime, and different laws apply.Thirdly the situation is
not comparable; if your high street store is selling a copy of my television, and I still have the fully functional original, then I'm probably not going to get too bent
out of shape over it. Doubly so if they're selling tiny low qality copies of my television.
Do the 1% (or less) of the masses, have a right to deny the artist (or their agent) their means of livelihood,
You know I'm trying to imagine someone saying "Dude! No way am I buying the next season of CSI on DVD. Not when YouTube has five minutes from the middle of a random episode in all its grainy, compressed, low-res glory". I can't see it happening, somehow.
I say, slap them with a billion here, and many more billions to come.
Right! Because they... because...
You know, now I think on it, you never did get around to making the case as to why that figure was even
remotely justified, You just rehashed some tired old RIAA trolls, rolled out a couple of sloppy, emotive
analogies, and then dropped in your opinion as if it logically followed.
I agree. It's not a simple either/or question. Does Viacom have a right to protect its copyrights? Yes! Is one billion dollars in damages sensible, sane, or in any way
indicative of the damage to Viacom's earnings? Absolutely not. I mean they could protect their copyrights with a simple injunction and a token payment to cover legal fees. But no, they've got to go all SCO and look for a billion dollar settlement.
And for that sort of money, you have to suspect that they're after more than just
getting their stuff removed. I don't know whether it's just greed, dislike of Google or that they want to destroy YouTube. But I have to say that I don't really care.
As far as I'm concerned, Viacom's IP isn't worth one billion dollars of anyone's money and for them to win would be a serious miscarriage of justice. IMHO, YMMV and IANAL; but if TFA wants to know who's side I'm on, then that's who, and that's why.
Now if Viacom want to drop the amount they're suing for to something that makes sense in this parallel universe, then I might change my mind. Otherwise, Go Google!
I hope you aren't
drawing this conclusion based on what you read here on/. Group-think
and group-speak run rampant in this place.
It's a bit of a stretch, perhaps. Still something seems to be driving the recent spate of high profile
open source migrations.
I doubt they'd be happening if the numbers didn't make some sort of sense.
Isn't "group-think", the psychological term for "no one around here takes me seriously?";)
One thing you can be certain of - if I use it and am impressed
by it, I will freely and willingly say so. I am not blinded by ideology
or envy (of the Redmondians). I just want good products that help me
be productive.
Good for you. You might check back in a year or so when they
finish the graphing re-write. They'll probably still not use the
same formula syntax though. Pity you're not on Linux or I'd suggest
Gnumeric which used to boast bug-for-bug compatibility with Excel.
I don't know what the graphing is like though.
But really, do what works.
So far as I'm concerned, the argument is all about choice. And that includes
the choice to use MS products if you so choose.
It's just that, personally, I don't think they're
destined to remain a popular choice, not once the world's expand a little more.
Oops, you made a small slip there. As I have explained, I gravitate to
the best product that lets me do my job.
Perhaps, but I wasn't talking about you - I was talking about Redmond's
pricing policies, and how they are increasingly viewed in the rest of the
industry.
Another overly broad generalisation, I think
I have been careful to qualify all of my statements to refer to OO Calc,
not generically to OO.
Have you? That doesn't come across in phrases
like "open office is a toy", or
"the entire code base may be beyond repair". Call me
picky, but a non-telepathic lifeform could easily form the
conclusion that you were
referring to more than just OO Calc with those statements.
If you were looking
at buying a product, say a car. You sit in the driver's seat and hit
the heat button and cold air blows. You hit the AC button and room
temperature air blows. You turn the fan speed knob and the fan speed
does not change. Obviously the HVAC system in this car is messed up.
Suppose I go to buy a car and the vendor says "it car's in good shape
and will do everything you need, but the cord holding the fluffy dice
dangling from the rear-view mirror is worn almost through. But if you wait
a couple of weeks, I'll send you a new one in the mail". Do I therefore
assume the engine is shot?
You're projecting your own values and work patterns onto the rest of the
world. You're making the assumption that if you don't like marmalade
then no one likes marmalade, and that therefore marmalade vendors are
guilty of criminal negligence. It's not a valid inference.
If each employee only wastes 5 minutes a day waiting unnecessarily, or
working around some feature deficit, then I am wasting 1 of every 100
employees (5 minutes is about 1% of an 8 hour day). That means that if I
spend less than $75K dollars to eliminate that 5 minutes of wasted time,
I am ahead.
Sure. If. On the other hand, if only 5 employees out of a thousand are thus
affected, it makes sense to get 5 copies of Excel and save the cash for the
rest. And that's assuming the difference is that pronounced,
which is certainly open to debate.
And ODF is not some world-changing thing.
I suppose that depends on what aspects of the world you consider.
It's going to end the MS office software lock-in; that's going allow
other developers to compete with them, which is going to bring down
the price of office software generally, and drive innovation in the
area. I think we're going to see some far reaching changes as a result
of ODF.
If it helps me do my job better I will. But I won't like it just because
it isn't from Microsoft, or because it's free.
Indeed. And I've said on at least two occasions in this discussion
that Excel clearly meets your needs better than OOo at this time,
and that I encourage you to continue using it. But hey, why let anything
people actually say get in the way of your pre-conceived notions?
Slashdot Mirror
You started quoting too late. I cited the entire paragraph, and supplied a hyperlink to the source document.
I don't think you can do that sort of boolean logic in this context.If I restrict your rights to restrict mine, is that a net enablement? If so I can promote freedom by having you locked up
The point is that this is not an either/or case. The GPL aims to provide maximal rights with the minimum restriction needed to maintain those rights.
Look at it this way: if you're arguing that the GPL is a Good Thing, and someone starts up a song and dance about how restrictive the GPL is, they're inviting you to buy into a false dichotomy, namely that the GPL has to be either absolutely liberating, or absolutely restrictive. However, if you accept this notion, you hand your opponent a ready made straw man - all he now need do in order to refute you is to demonstrate a single restriction at which point your proposition falls apart.
So what i'm saying is that it's better to reject the false dichotomy from the start. You may loose the warm fuzzy feeling of being the Defender Of An Instrument Of Absolute Freedom; but on the other hand, it'll be a lot harder to trip you up using schoolboy debating tricks.
Which would make the system broken, perhaps, but doesn't mean that Google is doing a bad thing with this action.
It's nice to see one of the players pushing in the other direction for once. That's all.
You asked a question, I gave you the answer as I saw it. I'm sorry if you don't like my answer, but I don't really feel it's my responsibility to check right back to the start of a thread, just in case you're in a sarcastic mood.
Yes, yes, yes. The general feeling is that they are contravening the spirit of the agreement whilst continuing to observe the letter of same. Which should be obvious, really, since it they were adding restrictions then they would forfeit their licence to distribute and would not be having this particular discussion.
However, just because they are conforming to the letter of the licence, that doesn't mean they are adhering to its intent. In particular, the implied threat of litigation is seen by many as fundamentally contrary to the spirit of the GPL.
What is so very difficult about that?
And do you think this particular initiative is well founded from the viewpoint of protecting people from patent attack? It seems to have heightened concerns rather than allaying them, and given that Microsoft can cancel the deal at any time, it doesn't seem to be terribly reassuring either.
On the other hand, it has garnered a number of high profile deployments for Novell. So if we do Ron Hovsepian the courtesy of assuming him to be other than a blithering incompetent, then it seems likely reassuring the business community was not uppermost in his mind when he signed this agreement.
I'm sorry, but you can't just invoke competition as if it were some arcane word of power and expect it to drive all dissent before you. If Novell want to be twats with software that they wrote and own themselves, then you might have a point. If they do it with software that they distribute under licence from others, and if they do so at the expense of those others, then they needn't come crying when the licence gets changed to preclude their bad behaviour.
Again, what's so complicated about that?
So in that case you wouldn't mind if someone with deep pockets were to attempt to bring about a change in that law by using its legal muscle to help establish a favourable precedent?
Well, Go Google!
Well, it was pretty much a rhetorical question - but fair enough, I suppose :)
It's still a sliding scale; we're just quibbling now about where to put the zero point.
Why bother? It's like arguing that the freezing point of water is warmer in Celsius than it is in Kelvin
mmm... the point I've been trying to make is that both perspectives are intrinsically flawed. The GPL doesn't ust give you Freedom, and it doesn't just Restrict you; it aims at minimaxing freedom and restriction. It seeks to maximise what can be done with the software from the widest social perspective, while attempting to minimise the restrictions placed on the licensee. Hmm... put like that, it's the exact opposite of how commercial licences work. Fancy that :D
Anyway, the point is that it's not an either/or case. If someone says that the GPL is very restrictive licence, then the proper responses are "for whom?" (I'm sure Bill and Steve find it so) and "in comparison to what?" (because it comes out rather well in comparison to the average commercial EULA).
Otherwise, you're inviting the uncommitted reader to dismiss you as just another Linux zealot. And that doesn't help our case at all.
Got it. Certainly I don't think we disagree on anything important. On the other hand ...
You see, I'd say that was more "utopian" than "free". I don't have a problem with considering the greatest common weal as being my highest social priority; I just think that freedom is orthogonal to the common good.
Is it me, or is this drifting way off-topic? Which isn't to say I'm not interested in the subject we're drifting into...
Not disagreeing as such, but you could probably find some substantial portions of the code where the ownership was not in doubt, and where the contributor was willing to relicence under V3. In combination with the existing "or later" code, that would probably make it possible to recode from scratch for the remaining code. It would still be a hell of aa job, but I think it's far from impossible.
Whether the will to do so exists, that's another question. I think will depend on how the Microvell pact plays out.
It's not an either/or proposition. Total freedom means I can rape murder and enslave to the limits of my capability. Total restriction means I have to seek permission in order to breathe. Clearly neither extreme is desirable.
And just because some tossers are making the argument that "less than perfect freedom" implies "absolute restriction", that doesn't mean we should play into their hands by arguing the opposite extreme when both are demonstrably ludicrous.
Yes. The overall level of freedom in society increases because of certain carefully crafted restrictions upon that freedom. But the fact that the purposes of freedom are served does not make the restrictions other than restrictions.
mmm... my mistake. I got that from Stallman's address to the 5th international GPLv3 conference. Sadly, he's talking about phraseology already in the GPLv3 draft at the time of the Novell-MS announcement, and not how v2 works as I had originally thought. So my bad.
On the other hand, it's not a million miles away from this:
You just have to look at it from the other perspective.
IMHO, obviously. I take it from the sarcasm (was I rude to you?) that you might have a different theory on their motivation? Perhaps I could encourage you to share it. I'll be interested to see if you have any better support for your view than I have for mine.
Yes, of course. The law is semantics. Programming is semantics. Semantics are important.
It's restricting because the concept of restriction is an analogue value, and it's possible for something to be more restrictive than one thing, and at the same time less so than some other thing. For example, GPLv2 is less restrictive that a Microsoft EULA, but more so than the BSD licence. As you point out yourself.
This is only a problem if you assume that a restriction is automatically a bad thing. There's certainly a lot of room for philosophical debate on the idea of restricting your freedom to preserve that of others, and the GPLv3 inevitably raises questions about how much freedom we want to let it restrict, and where the sweet spot lies between restriction and enablement. But to my programmer's mind at least, the GPLv2 passes the test of pragmatism: has been shown to work, and work very well.
I'm not arguing with you there. I had serious reservations about GPLv3; they went away when Novell started these shenanigans. I think they've made the case for GPLv3 quite nicely.
However, I also think that there is already enough confusion over the GPL, and over how it works, and I don't think that adding to the confusion (even with the best intentions) is ultimately going to help matters.
Hence: semantics are important.
The GPL says you can't distribute anything covered by its terms unless the people you distribute to have the rights to distribute passing on all the rights you passed on to them. So whatever benefits I confer when I give you a GPL program, they have to also apply when you give a copy to someone else. It's to stop some sneaky tricks that could otherwise be used to effectively take a project proprietary.
So, under this clause, Novell couldn't buy a licence from MS (assuming there is in fact any basis for a licence) that would benefit their customers unless the same licence also applied to recipients further downstream. Or at least they could - but that would contravene the terms of the GPL, which would mean Novell had no licence to distribute at all.
So, instead of MS giving Novell the rights directly, they've made a deal where they grant them to Novell customers, rather than Novell making the grant. It's a technicality used to evade the intent of the licence. If that doesn't sound so bad, imagine (as Jeremy Allison pointed out) Microsoft's likely response if someone found a clever loophole and used it do distribute MS Office without paying MS for the privilege.
The reason they went to all this trouble is so that Novell can try and pressure people into buying only from them, and so MS can get a cut of the income from Linux. Basically Novell is the skinny kid standing by the school gate saying "see my big friend over there? Well he promises not to beat you up, but only if you give me all your lunch money" Except that Microsoft is muttering under its breath "unless I really feel like it"
So that's what they're going to stop when they say "deals like this"
HTH
A lot of people would disagree with that. Hell, the GPL disagrees with that:
See? "restrictions". Just because they are lesser restrictions than the default case of "no rights at all", that doesn't mean they ain't restrictive.
I'm a big fan of the GPL myself, but let's try not to sacrifice accuracy to zealotry here.
And that would be a bad thing because.... ?
Sorry, let me rephrase that: That would be a bad thing for the EU because...?
Really? Can't say I've noticed.
Well, first of all I'd like to point out that there's considerable difference in complexity between an operating system and a plug. Or even a toaster, for that matter.
Secondly, if that's a valid argument for a single brand of operating system, then we should probably all still be running Windows 3.1.
Yes. Um... what's your point?
So why does it need to run on three different platforms? What's wrong with targeting a single OS? Of course, if you're writing FOSS for Linux you probably won't need to port it. If it's really popular, someone else will port it for you.
I don't see your point at all.
I suppose the problem here is that we haven't specified what it is that MS are supposed to be good or bad at. Personally I was thinking in terms of Microsoft's deliberate abuse of it's position in the market, and its systematic suppression of emerging competitors. In that light, neither "good" or "bad" is particularly complimentary.
I suppose it's possible that you were talking about software quality rather than anticompetitive practices. In which case, I'll just say that "good" isn't an adjective I'm used to seeing in the same sentence as Mircosoft and software. Your mileage may, of course, vary
Possibly, possibly not. After all, in a lot of ways the jump from OS/X to Linux is a lot shorter than the one from Windows to Linux. They're both Unix descended systems and have a lot of apps in common. And when it comes to Linux, the price is always going to be had to beat.
On the other hand, I have to say that it doesn't much bother me. What I'd like to see is a bit more diversity O/S world. I suppose if Apple ever attain Microsoft's market share, they might well turn out just as bad - I doubt we'll ever know. In the meantime anything help break Redmond's dominance of the market is to be applauded.
Exactly. It's a bad analogy.
Is it worth a billion dollars? I think not.
First of all, you'll notice that I'm not arguing that no law has been broken. Secondly, theft is a different crime, and different laws apply.Thirdly the situation is not comparable; if your high street store is selling a copy of my television, and I still have the fully functional original, then I'm probably not going to get too bent out of shape over it. Doubly so if they're selling tiny low qality copies of my television.
You know I'm trying to imagine someone saying "Dude! No way am I buying the next season of CSI on DVD. Not when YouTube has five minutes from the middle of a random episode in all its grainy, compressed, low-res glory". I can't see it happening, somehow.
Right! Because they... because... You know, now I think on it, you never did get around to making the case as to why that figure was even remotely justified, You just rehashed some tired old RIAA trolls, rolled out a couple of sloppy, emotive analogies, and then dropped in your opinion as if it logically followed.
Sorry, no sale.
I agree. It's not a simple either/or question. Does Viacom have a right to protect its copyrights? Yes! Is one billion dollars in damages sensible, sane, or in any way indicative of the damage to Viacom's earnings? Absolutely not. I mean they could protect their copyrights with a simple injunction and a token payment to cover legal fees. But no, they've got to go all SCO and look for a billion dollar settlement.
And for that sort of money, you have to suspect that they're after more than just getting their stuff removed. I don't know whether it's just greed, dislike of Google or that they want to destroy YouTube. But I have to say that I don't really care.
As far as I'm concerned, Viacom's IP isn't worth one billion dollars of anyone's money and for them to win would be a serious miscarriage of justice. IMHO, YMMV and IANAL; but if TFA wants to know who's side I'm on, then that's who, and that's why.
Now if Viacom want to drop the amount they're suing for to something that makes sense in this parallel universe, then I might change my mind. Otherwise, Go Google!
Nice one.
It's been a pleasure disagreeing with you.
It's a bit of a stretch, perhaps. Still something seems to be driving the recent spate of high profile open source migrations. I doubt they'd be happening if the numbers didn't make some sort of sense.
Isn't "group-think", the psychological term for "no one around here takes me seriously?" ;)
Useful site, thanks.
Good for you. You might check back in a year or so when they finish the graphing re-write. They'll probably still not use the same formula syntax though. Pity you're not on Linux or I'd suggest Gnumeric which used to boast bug-for-bug compatibility with Excel. I don't know what the graphing is like though.
But really, do what works. So far as I'm concerned, the argument is all about choice. And that includes the choice to use MS products if you so choose.
It's just that, personally, I don't think they're destined to remain a popular choice, not once the world's expand a little more.
Perhaps, but I wasn't talking about you - I was talking about Redmond's pricing policies, and how they are increasingly viewed in the rest of the industry.
Have you? That doesn't come across in phrases like "open office is a toy", or "the entire code base may be beyond repair". Call me picky, but a non-telepathic lifeform could easily form the conclusion that you were referring to more than just OO Calc with those statements.
Suppose I go to buy a car and the vendor says "it car's in good shape and will do everything you need, but the cord holding the fluffy dice dangling from the rear-view mirror is worn almost through. But if you wait a couple of weeks, I'll send you a new one in the mail". Do I therefore assume the engine is shot?
You're projecting your own values and work patterns onto the rest of the world. You're making the assumption that if you don't like marmalade then no one likes marmalade, and that therefore marmalade vendors are guilty of criminal negligence. It's not a valid inference.
Sure. If. On the other hand, if only 5 employees out of a thousand are thus affected, it makes sense to get 5 copies of Excel and save the cash for the rest. And that's assuming the difference is that pronounced, which is certainly open to debate.
I suppose that depends on what aspects of the world you consider. It's going to end the MS office software lock-in; that's going allow other developers to compete with them, which is going to bring down the price of office software generally, and drive innovation in the area. I think we're going to see some far reaching changes as a result of ODF.Indeed. And I've said on at least two occasions in this discussion that Excel clearly meets your needs better than OOo at this time, and that I encourage you to continue using it. But hey, why let anything people actually say get in the way of your pre-conceived notions?