I don't quite understand what you are saying. I don't think that makes Microsoft like "pirates". Thats not to say they haven't been convicted of mass copyright violations ("piracy") on various occassions--where for some reason they don't manage to buy up the unfortunate company that happens against all odds to discover somehow that their code has been copied into MSW.
Gneo*: That sounds like a really good deal. But...I think I've got a better one. How 'bout I give Microsoft the finger, and I start replacing ALL my crappy installations of Microsoft Windows with GNU and free software, FREE...as in freedom... That way we'll all be free of the evil tyrrany.
Agent Smith^WGates:Hmmm, Mr. Anderson, you disappoint me.
Gneo: You can't scare me with this gestapo crap. I know my rights, I want to use my free software.
For the same reason they are known to encourage illegal copying of their software generally: to mantain their monopoly on the market as well as their crazy prices while (along with intertia) stopping users from going to free-software alternatives.
This has been well documented. Basically, its the best of both worlds for Microsoft because the illegal copies are not counting towards Microsoft's sales (and therefore not helping antitrust prosecutions), the governments and large businesses were the majority of desktop PCs are (who have to obey the law and can afford the ludicrous per-seat prices of MSW) have to buy MSW because it is ubiqitous as everyone else uses (illegal copies of) MSW. If MS inflates the prices of MSW enough (as they have) they will get illegal copying but that just encourages the ubiquity of MSW, but they will be more than payed back by the sales to the few who own the majority of PCs, need to stay within the law and will pay any ludicrious price.
Also, as Bill Gates stated in a frank moment, Microsoft want to introduce pirated copies of MSW "like a drug" into less-econmically developed countries in order to "get them hooked on" and lock them in to MSW and remove usage of free software in these countries.
When I read the "our goal is to get to the source" quote from Microsoft, was I the only one who thought "They're finally admitting it. They have lost the MSWindows source code. This explains a lot of things--for instance, why they haven't add any new features (or made changes) for a decade except for a few that look very tacked on*, and why they never close any of the gaping security holes...".
Was I also the only one who shortly afterwards imagined the Microsoft licensing manager, Alex Hilton, mutating into Darth Vader and saying "our goal is to get to the force".
[*Let's face it MSW XP is just MSW 2000 with WindowBlinds (so it needs a machine with double the RAM) as well as a prettier default backdrop; isn't it? That is why its so slow, and I can't be the only one who noticed MSW XP reverting back to the 2000 look when the user tries to push it to really silly limits (like actually trying to run more than one program simultaneously in a so-called multi-tasking OS or something like that). Actually talking of things being tacked on, maybe they lost the MS-DOS source code, hence tacking on MSW...hmmm....]
Well, if it was me, I wouldn't include that for the following reason.
This is nonsense. They cannot ask for any more damages than what they get under copyright law (and a copyright license is pointless without copyright law). See my aunt post.
I guess the idea is to stick with pure
usage restrictions
This is totally wrong as section 0 of the GNU GPL specifically states that there are no restrictions on usage (of software licensed under it).
avoid all money issues for corruption reasons.
Of course there are money issues for someone if they are succesfully prosecuted or sued for illegally copying or distributing software licensed under the GNU GPL (like any other work of art under any license): fines and compensation respectively. This is not really corruption as it is stated in the law (of almost every jurisdiction). (If you do object to people being fined or having to give compensation for breaking the law (or to the existence of copyright law) then campaign to have the law changed.)
Uhh...ye...they can do double that actually. Do the maths (and, if you cannot do mental arithmetic and haven't got a piece of paper or calculator handy; you know that thing you use to browse the WWW and submit silly stories to/. with...well did you know that it is really a glorified calculator too?)
Uuh...right. Actually, I'm guessing you're kind of asking whether the code outputted by such a regime would be any better than that produced by a monkey*. That really depends on factors such as how much caffeine has been consumed by the coder (or the extent to which any other kind of drug-, adrenaline- or hacking-induced high has been reached by the subject)**.
* Apologies to any monkeys out there (especially if there are an infinite number of them--mainly because I couldn't fight you, and, also, my argument would probably be false then). I've actually known some monkeys who could code quite well in my time but that's another story...
** As an aside, I hate coffee, but I tried taking 50 cups or sthg once, as part of a biology coursework experiment to measure its effects on the body, and it didn't make me high at all--just a bit tired and slightly sick. Also, I didn't sleep all of last week (mainly due to doing my uni work and stuff--nothing interesting). Although I usually have very few hours of sleep every night, this (especially given long periods in front of computer monitor) resulted in me looking a bit ill and starting to get minor hallucinations and disconnection with my senses, at which point I slept for a over a day. Not sure how any of that is relevant as I did no coding either time (and cannot even code) but you know...
[Disclaimer: I'm of course joking...and I should probably read more than the story titles before posting replies too]
[Note for Idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H^HModerators: If you didn't understand the last bit, that means I should be modded "Funny"--not "Flamebait"]
According to RMS, this clause made more sense at the start (to port free-software to other Unix platforms and use thier compilers/libraries) and the FSF were less aware of how open the clause was, but now he thinks it might be wise to be more specfic and tighten it. See the article I referenced earlier.
>>leaving Red Hat and especially Novell with a big problem<<
uhhh...unless of course they replace Linux with Solaris in their GNU distros (that is assuming that Solaris is so amazingly better than Linux which I doubt very much).
As well as seeing the irony in *that* year, I also find it slightly ironic that/. are now readily admitting in their stories that their stories are 20 years old.
I've known about this for years--not 20 years--but then I wasn't even born then.
Ummm...maybe because the damages are dealt with by the copyright law [so it wouldn't make any sense to specify damages unless, assuming you can legally do this (which is questionable), you wanted to, maybe, make a promise to people violating your copyright that you would only seek part of the damages you are due when you sue them].
(If you are instead suggesting that a judge has never found anyone guilty of copyright violation for not following the terms of the GNU GPL (when that is the only license they had for a piece of software) you are unfortunately mistaken.)
Well, however much it is nice to jump to a conspiracy theory, they promised that when they have something for us to look at they will release it to the public for consultation but they haven't come up with a first draft yet.
Maybe (I'm just guessing), they are being so slow in coming up with a first draft because the current version is so good that it is difficult to think of any ways to really improve on it and it would be v. bad to modify it hastely lest the modifications somehow damage its legal watertightness ("if it ain't broke don't fix it").
I'm guessing the reasons for the perceived slowness of the GNU GPL's development are that it is such a good document that no one
can think of any ways to really improve on it
wants to hastily change it lest they somehow damage its legal watertightness ("if it ain't broke don't fix it").
However, there is now talk of releasing a new version (GNU GPL 3.0) and maybe a first draft of the new version sometime "soon" (in terms of it's slow development cycle--some people are bandying around 2006 as a possible date). There is no draft ATM but possible changes that have been talked about in the past include:
an anti-DMCA clause;
clarification of the section on granting patent licenses (and better protection against algorithmic patents in general);
possibly something about trusted/trecherous computing to stop free software being effectively shackled by that technology;
possibly allowing the offer of source code for binaries without source to refer to a URI where it can be downloaded (as opposed to the out-dated snail-mail method);
clarification (and possible tightening) of "as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed...with the major components...of the operating system on which the executable runs..." to close the loophole that people could argue quite a wide defintion of "major components of OS";
most significantly, a new clause saying that source code must be available to users who use the software remotely over a network (e.g.: the Internet). [See the relevant official GNU-GPL FAQ and section 2(d) of the Affero GPL (which is very similar to what the FSF are considering for the new GNU-GPL clause).]
See this FSF presentation and NewsFourge's two-partarticle interviewing RMS for more background--neither recent. Those are the main official sources I could find.
I'm sure a public draft will be released for discussion some time before anything gets finalised.
Confused me there. GNU Press is the FSF's publishing division. After trying to work out whether you meant a new book, I'm assuming you mean a press release about GNU, or maybe you are trying to confuse GNU with the FSF themselves and mean a press release by the FSF--not of course that the "soon" quote had anything to do with the FSF as it was the/. (mis)interpretation of an eWeek article--note that word doesn't even appear in the article.
>>Are you also waiting for a Christmas release of GNU/Hurd?<<
Ummm...I've used Hurd a bit and there have been quite a few (obviously not officially stable) releases...it's even *kinda* stable now...
>>I'm actually an RMS fanboy<<
Really anyone who uses the word "fanboy" has to be a troll...kinda clinches it...good troll though...
But you knew what I meant which means what I said made perfect sense. Rarely (if ever) is anything truly 100% impossible (wrt to laws of physics) and for that reason the word "cannot" does not, in general usage, mean that.
Using it to mean "within the bounds of the law" is quite common (and was clearly, given the context, what I meant), but actually less common than laxer meanings such as "cannot be bothered" or "within the bounds of being polite to all the parties involved".
Slashdot Mirror
I don't quite understand what you are saying. I don't think that makes Microsoft like "pirates". Thats not to say they haven't been convicted of mass copyright violations ("piracy") on various occassions--where for some reason they don't manage to buy up the unfortunate company that happens against all odds to discover somehow that their code has been copied into MSW.
foobar
Gneo*: That sounds like a really good deal. But...I think I've got a better one. How 'bout I give Microsoft the finger, and I start replacing ALL my crappy installations of Microsoft Windows with GNU and free software, FREE...as in freedom... That way we'll all be free of the evil tyrrany.
Agent Smith^WGates:Hmmm, Mr. Anderson, you disappoint me.
Gneo: You can't scare me with this gestapo crap. I know my rights, I want to use my free software.
Agent Smith^WGates:Tell me, Mr. Anderson. What good is your free software if you can't use a computer without our (evil unpronouncable) NGSCB...Next-Generation Secure Computing Base...?
(If you don't get this, read the Trusted Computing FAQ (incidentally by a guy called Mr. Anderson) and google for trusted (aka trecherous) computing. Also, this study on effects on free software in PDF (also by Mr. Anderson). Also, the FSF's summary.)
[* blend of GNU and Neo. Also note that Gnu sounds like new which is English for `neo'...uhhh...I need a life]
Parts of this post are fair-use copies of The Matrix screenplay and/or parent post.
This has been well documented. Basically, its the best of both worlds for Microsoft because the illegal copies are not counting towards Microsoft's sales (and therefore not helping antitrust prosecutions), the governments and large businesses were the majority of desktop PCs are (who have to obey the law and can afford the ludicrous per-seat prices of MSW) have to buy MSW because it is ubiqitous as everyone else uses (illegal copies of) MSW. If MS inflates the prices of MSW enough (as they have) they will get illegal copying but that just encourages the ubiquity of MSW, but they will be more than payed back by the sales to the few who own the majority of PCs, need to stay within the law and will pay any ludicrious price.
Also, as Bill Gates stated in a frank moment, Microsoft want to introduce pirated copies of MSW "like a drug" into less-econmically developed countries in order to "get them hooked on" and lock them in to MSW and remove usage of free software in these countries.
When I read the "our goal is to get to the source" quote from Microsoft, was I the only one who thought "They're finally admitting it. They have lost the MSWindows source code. This explains a lot of things--for instance, why they haven't add any new features (or made changes) for a decade except for a few that look very tacked on*, and why they never close any of the gaping security holes...".
Was I also the only one who shortly afterwards imagined the Microsoft licensing manager, Alex Hilton, mutating into Darth Vader and saying "our goal is to get to the force".
[*Let's face it MSW XP is just MSW 2000 with WindowBlinds (so it needs a machine with double the RAM) as well as a prettier default backdrop; isn't it? That is why its so slow, and I can't be the only one who noticed MSW XP reverting back to the 2000 look when the user tries to push it to really silly limits (like actually trying to run more than one program simultaneously in a so-called multi-tasking OS or something like that). Actually talking of things being tacked on, maybe they lost the MS-DOS source code, hence tacking on MSW...hmmm....]
Uuh...right. Actually, I'm guessing you're kind of asking whether the code outputted by such a regime would be any better than that produced by a monkey*. That really depends on factors such as how much caffeine has been consumed by the coder (or the extent to which any other kind of drug-, adrenaline- or hacking-induced high has been reached by the subject)**.
* Apologies to any monkeys out there (especially if there are an infinite number of them--mainly because I couldn't fight you, and, also, my argument would probably be false then). I've actually known some monkeys who could code quite well in my time but that's another story...
** As an aside, I hate coffee, but I tried taking 50 cups or sthg once, as part of a biology coursework experiment to measure its effects on the body, and it didn't make me high at all--just a bit tired and slightly sick. Also, I didn't sleep all of last week (mainly due to doing my uni work and stuff--nothing interesting). Although I usually have very few hours of sleep every night, this (especially given long periods in front of computer monitor) resulted in me looking a bit ill and starting to get minor hallucinations and disconnection with my senses, at which point I slept for a over a day. Not sure how any of that is relevant as I did no coding either time (and cannot even code) but you know...
[Disclaimer: I'm of course joking...and I should probably read more than the story titles before posting replies too]
[Note for Idiots^H^H^H^H^H^H^HModerators: If you didn't understand the last bit, that means I should be modded "Funny"--not "Flamebait"]
Do you have evidence for the VB thing?
According to RMS, this clause made more sense at the start (to port free-software to other Unix platforms and use thier compilers/libraries) and the FSF were less aware of how open the clause was, but now he thinks it might be wise to be more specfic and tighten it. See the article I referenced earlier.
Why can't something be ironic and apropos. (In fact off-topic irony wouldn't work unless the irony were in the fact it were off-topic).
>>leaving Red Hat and especially Novell with a big problem<<
uhhh...unless of course they replace Linux with Solaris in their GNU distros (that is assuming that Solaris is so amazingly better than Linux which I doubt very much).
As well as seeing the irony in *that* year, I also find it slightly ironic that /. are now readily admitting in their stories that their stories are 20 years old.
I've known about this for years--not 20 years--but then I wasn't even born then.
Ummm...maybe because the damages are dealt with by the copyright law [so it wouldn't make any sense to specify damages unless, assuming you can legally do this (which is questionable), you wanted to, maybe, make a promise to people violating your copyright that you would only seek part of the damages you are due when you sue them].
This *was* a general accusation without any backing and has since been withdrawn by TSG.
No and you don't have to (however much you thought you were on to an evil conspiracy).
Actually tell me one state where the Microsoft EULA is valid? Have fun searching...
>>I'm waiting for them to claim that looking at an image or piece of text creates a copy on my retina or in the neurons of my occipital lobe.<<
Having read my local (UK) copyright laws, I'm not at all sure that this claim is not correct in my jurisidction.
(If you are instead suggesting that a judge has never found anyone guilty of copyright violation for not following the terms of the GNU GPL (when that is the only license they had for a piece of software) you are unfortunately mistaken.)
Well, however much it is nice to jump to a conspiracy theory, they promised that when they have something for us to look at they will release it to the public for consultation but they haven't come up with a first draft yet.
Maybe (I'm just guessing), they are being so slow in coming up with a first draft because the current version is so good that it is difficult to think of any ways to really improve on it and it would be v. bad to modify it hastely lest the modifications somehow damage its legal watertightness ("if it ain't broke don't fix it").
However, there is now talk of releasing a new version (GNU GPL 3.0) and maybe a first draft of the new version sometime "soon" (in terms of it's slow development cycle--some people are bandying around 2006 as a possible date). There is no draft ATM but possible changes that have been talked about in the past include:
See this FSF presentation and NewsFourge's two-part article interviewing RMS for more background--neither recent. Those are the main official sources I could find.
I'm sure a public draft will be released for discussion some time before anything gets finalised.
>>GNU press release<<
/. (mis)interpretation of an eWeek article--note that word doesn't even appear in the article.
Confused me there. GNU Press is the FSF's publishing division. After trying to work out whether you meant a new book, I'm assuming you mean a press release about GNU, or maybe you are trying to confuse GNU with the FSF themselves and mean a press release by the FSF--not of course that the "soon" quote had anything to do with the FSF as it was the
>>Are you also waiting for a Christmas release of GNU/Hurd?<<
Ummm...I've used Hurd a bit and there have been quite a few (obviously not officially stable) releases...it's even *kinda* stable now...
>>I'm actually an RMS fanboy<<
Really anyone who uses the word "fanboy" has to be a troll...kinda clinches it...good troll though...
Use the Power of Google. Also,I believe Debian has been used on NASA space shuttles before now and they use their own version of GNU/Linux a lot.
But you knew what I meant which means what I said made perfect sense. Rarely (if ever) is anything truly 100% impossible (wrt to laws of physics) and for that reason the word "cannot" does not, in general usage, mean that.
Using it to mean "within the bounds of the law" is quite common (and was clearly, given the context, what I meant), but actually less common than laxer meanings such as "cannot be bothered" or "within the bounds of being polite to all the parties involved".
Your Rights Online unless you're an online drug dealer or something...
Not that my mind wasn't at rest really, but that has reassured me. He sounds quite a lot like DNA actually.