IMHO, any source that is not peer-reviewed by identified experts and can be edited by anyone at a moment's notice is not authoritative.
By your definition of "authoritative", no encyclopedia can be authoritative because an encyclopedia is, by definition, a tertiary source.
An encyclopedia is a large work that attempts to summarise the entirety of human knowledge through a number of articles on distinct topics. Each article gives a concise summary of the current state of knowledge on that topic by referencing secondary sources, which are themselves based on original research (and in part the results of any peer reviewing of said research).
Wikipedia may be a decent general information source or even a starting point for more serious research That is all an encyclopedia is supposed to do. If you are doing serious research (for, say an academic thesis, something relating to a decision of grave importance to you) you should always refer to the original sources such as those referenced by the encyclopedia article.
I have a better idea. Rather than an appeal-to-personal-authority based approach, maybe Wikipedia could adopt some policies regarding verifiability of claims, so as not to rely on the personal credibility of the submitter. Which, in case you weren't been sarcastic, is exactly how Wikipedia does work. Stuff that isn't common knowledge having to be referenced is the cardinal rule of Wikipedia. See the Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V) policy.
Also, the founder, Jimmy Wales, has commented many a time on the fact that Wikipedians should just remove unreferenced statements that are potentially controversial or that someone disagrees with.
In Wikipedia, appeals to personal authority don't work at all, unlike Britannica, which bases its entire approach on these. They are at either end of these extremes, andf both work to some extent. Being in the middle would like not work at all.
I had my browser set up like this a few years back, but stopped, and now I've tried it again I remember why. Because popular sites I wanted to use were broken in that they set the foreground colour to override my stylesheets but not the background colour or vice versa (resulting in black on black or white on white text) even though this is against the specification (in fact the W3C's validator picks it up).
Well, it seems things haven't changed. Most Google pages still have a background set with at least some of the text not set to over-ride resulting in light colored text (in my case I used yellow, a very light grey might be slightly better) on a white background. Most annoying the subjects of my messages in the Google Mail inbox, where you can't even select text to deem it readable because of their use of Javascript, suffer this problem.
may be passively supporting piracy in countries like China and India Keep up...Bill Gates already admitted doing exactly that in China at least (and I think maybe India too) at a conference. He also said, in a very frank moment, that Microsoft was a bit like a drug dealer trying to get people hooked on their products (before asserting their copyright).
Back on topic, the real middle ground would be for them to not override the colour settings set in the user's stylesheets (from their browser prefs) with their own. (This is what the W3C recommend unless you have a good reason not to.) This would make all their users happy and their site would be more accessible for those with visual impairments, different colour preferences or who want to save on power.
BTW,Who goes to the Google homepage, now there are built in search boxes in browsers, anyway?
just as a preemptive strike against all the Linus-entirely-made-the-OS-himself trolls before they come out of the woodwork, here is the last paragraph of section 2 from the announcement in the TFA. Torvalds says it better than I could:
Sadly, a kernel by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system you
need a shell, compilers, a library etc. These are separate parts and may
be under a stricter (or even looser) copyright. Most of the tools used
with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft. These tools
aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU) for more info.
I love the rant. But, from skim reading it, I understand your main argument is that it isn't the CEO's job to know all about their copyright license (which is probably true*) and my main point was I don't think he's read it before issuing a press release explaining why they've decided to use it (which you thought was "disparaging" and my saying he was a "moron" which I didn't). So, really, we aren't in disagreement. Actually the real main point of my post was H-U-M-O-U-R; it wasn't supposed to be taken seriously.
Just to knock down a few of the less abrasive strawmen/ad hominems: yes I do know how difficult it is to run your own business as I've considered it (and realised how difficult it would be); and FTR I'm merely a computer user not a programmer (at all), but have studied my jurisdiction's copyright law quite a bit (not using/. but textbooks, legislation and case law).
Too bad that that's not all it takes to succeed Clearly that is why Linux hasn't succeeded then, as success can only be defined as a corporation making lots of money for its shareholders in your world view.
I do understand the very important role that CEOs have in a corporate system, but I would dispute why generating wealth is so much more useful than any other job like programming (if by wealth, you mean the net worth of a company). In particular, assuming you are using the economic meaning, they aren't generating it as such, but taking it from somewhere else (e.g.: private individuals or other companies), in general.
* Although I think it does help if they have a very basic level of understanding of the essentials of their business so the wool can't be pulled over their eyes--not saying this CEO has or hasn't BTW based on a few short quotes).
Actually, there's a new EU directive capping roaming call charges in the EU (as their against the common market) to levels not much above domestic calls (see this BBC article), but, for bizarre reason, it doesn't apply to SMS.
Actually 10p is the normal rate for pay-as-you-go texts over here (regardless of what that article says). Regular texters can also get a pay-as-you-go text pack (where you buy a lot of texts at once) or sign up for a contract (where you usually get lots of free texts).
That's mobile phone companies for you. There are only a few companies in the market who are involved in a hegemonic price-fixing cartel controlled by the use of proprietary protocols. This means they think they can get away with charging you anything.
I just looked at the prices for these things and was shocked. I just bought a new Sharp Zaurus SL-C3200 palmtop (which is a proper computer running on Linux with various totally FLOSS OSs available, 6" x 4", 6GB HDD, 416 MHz Intel XScale CPU, 64 MB RAM, 128 MB Flash ROM, USB host and client, IrDACF & SD slots for memory and WiFi and few hours of heavy use on battery life) for 256 GBP, which looks like it is quite a bit cheaper than the iPhone is going for in the US if I have my conversion right.
I just have a Nokia 1100 for a phone, which I've had for several years. It's very cheap, small and reliable, and the battery lasts, it can be thrown about and is very easy to use. What more do you need from a ''phone''. And these phone/PDA hybrids aren't proper PDAs and often aren't very easy-to-use phones either.
It was really bad legalese-ridden license. And, yes, with the restrictions on free distribution and the advertising clause (that was worse than the old BSD one), it clearly isn't free or open-source, even if the company claimed that themselves.
BTW, I've come across one of the threads with "user pressure" on this issue, which I found interesting.
Interesting point, but I think you'll find those people using it are using it in a descriptive sense and don't have a contract with OSI to only use it with OSI's permission or even an license to use the term from OSI, so the cat is out of the bag (at least, until people stop using the term "open source" for a while). One could also argue that it is a generic term for a class of products which would mean it could never be trademarked even if it stops being used in a descriptive or generic way (hence Microsoft paying off Lindows when the judge made it clear that the likely outcome of the case was for MS's trademark on Windows to be declare invalid for this reason).
The whole problem with this is that OSI want(ed) to use trademark law to designate a class of products or describe products, when it is meant to be used to protect a particular company's brand (so other products of that class don't pas themselves off as that company's). If people are claiming their products are open source when they aren't the correct way to deal with that is to use the criminal laws on fraud, misleading advertising and trade descriptions. If OSI are indeed still insisting they should have a trademark on it (which I didn't think they were), that suggests to me that they may have an ulterior motive like wanting to fill their coffers with license fees or control the distribution of open source software.
I agree about minor license moves and updates not being newsworthy. But I think software which is quite popular (which I think this is) moving from a non-free to a free/open-source license is definitely deserving of a story here.
I've looked this up and here is the OSI post you're probably thinking of, by their president, Michael Tiemann.
The OSI (who I should make clear I definitely don't support) were not, as you say, complaining because SugarCRM hadn't payed them money but because the old license clearly didn't follow the OSI open source definition, the FSF free software definition, or the Debian Free Software Guidelines (due to various issues including an advertising clause that was worse than the old BSD one).
OSI were also not claiming a legal right to stop this, but, I think, more that the industry and customers should deem it unacceptable (and maybe even, although he doesn't say it, pursuing a case for false advertising).
No, because the trademark office wouldn't let OSI trademark "open source" as it is descriptive. Now, if SugarCRM was claiming to be "OSI certified", OSI might have complained.
Ye, since when was "copyleft" a comparative adjective, anyway? I think "We just think it's a great license...more copyleft...less restrictive" was CEO speak for "I haven't read it and I don't understand what a copyright license is (it's something technical). But my people in the know say we've changed ours because there's a new one out with go faster stripes, and my PR people tell me that if I make an announcement about it, it will get the company on/. and help me get a bigger bonus".
BTW, I do support this license move, just commenting on CEOs.
Was it really likely that someone was going to make a tivo-like device and lock it down, requiring the user to only use the SugarCRM that was provided? Even if you can't be bothered reading TFA you could at least read the first sentence of the story which makes it clear that they weren't moving from GPLv2 but their own custom license.
I think the Independent article that claimed that that was proven was later shown to have been based on misinterpreting the results of a scientific study. I seem to remember the original story and update were both on Slashdot.
how can a wifi dongle give you a headache but a wifi router not? I didn't test this too much, so it may just be that I tended to spend extended periods of time very close to the dongle (what with it being on the PC) but not the router. The dongle was a bit faulty in that it used to overheat and cut out, so that may be connected somehow. I haven't had headaches as much when I've tried other people's dongles. Anyway, I'm got good old cat5e cabling now, much less hassle.
They've already done that, and I think most of the studies done so far have shown some correlation (although I don't think it was glaringly strong).
They are now trying to prove a causal link. There are many reasons for an apparent correlation, including just coincidence and bias in the studies (e.g.:where they choose to do them), and, even if there is a real correlation, a direct causal link is one of many possible explanations (e.g.: off the top of my head, poor people might get ill more due to a lack of good food and medical care and radio transmitters might be put in poor areas more because people there have less resources to combat planning applications for masts).
This method is the most obvious and easiest/cheapest way to attempt to prove a causal link (but if the study shows no link it doesn't mean there isn't one). For the reasons you give, they need to do further more complicated studies to be sure whether there is a proven link or not.
Actually, I've inadvertently subjected myself to blind tests on this (with my Wi-Fi dongle--the router doesn't give me a headache) on a couple of occasions by wondering why I had a headache when I thought it was off and going to check it. I think this depends very much on the person and the WiFi transmitter used.
Can't believe no one has mentioned the Zaurus series of awesome Linux palmtops, which Sharp announced they were discontinuing at the start of this year. There is a petition BTW.
Well he isn't going to declare it, is he? That's too unsubtle even for Bush and pretty dated. If you're going to become a dictator, government transparency about the changeover probably isn't top of your worries.
The modern way is to make all up sorts of ludicrous excuses (that are just about believable) why the constitution doesn't apply to you (uhh...Bush wouldn't..oh...ye...nevermind) and rig the election (but I really can't see anyone being audacious enough to rig an election to get Bush in...oh...ye...nevermind).
because software patents can still be filed in Europe Well, I interpret the treaty as saying they aren't valid, and when they try using the patents the courts may well take the same view (which is why Microsoft et al are so scared of testing software patents in court over here), which may only make them useful for FUD. Although, they don't even need patents for some people/journalists to believe their FUD (they'll just say "we have an undisclosed secret new form of intellectual property in Linux"/"a new magical OS-destroying dragon"). Now I can ''file'' my perpetual motion machine in Europe, it doesn't mean it will get granted, or I can get some of my cool ideas like human communication/reproduction ''granted'' if I send enough brown envelopes the EPO's way, but it doesn't mean I'll be able to get the courts to injuct people to keep quiet or celibate because they're clearly not inventions.
One of the reasons for this is quite likely that patent owners are afraid of a total ban. Quite likely, either that or they are going to try to get it through the fisheries committee again while everyone is asleep.
written in patent free countries, which uses whatever is the best technique for the job. Ye, in theory. It is a shame that even the European distros are afraid to distribute any software that the US government doesn't like (in case they extradite them to Guantanamo using their new-found universal jurisdiction, I guess; I'm only half joking: Sklyarov was held by the US without trial for over 6 months, I seem to remember, for breaking rot13 in a foreign country were it isn't unlawful)
Slashdot Mirror
By your definition of "authoritative", no encyclopedia can be authoritative because an encyclopedia is, by definition, a tertiary source.
An encyclopedia is a large work that attempts to summarise the entirety of human knowledge through a number of articles on distinct topics. Each article gives a concise summary of the current state of knowledge on that topic by referencing secondary sources, which are themselves based on original research (and in part the results of any peer reviewing of said research).
Wikipedia may be a decent general information source or even a starting point for more serious research That is all an encyclopedia is supposed to do. If you are doing serious research (for, say an academic thesis, something relating to a decision of grave importance to you) you should always refer to the original sources such as those referenced by the encyclopedia article.Also, the founder, Jimmy Wales, has commented many a time on the fact that Wikipedians should just remove unreferenced statements that are potentially controversial or that someone disagrees with.
In Wikipedia, appeals to personal authority don't work at all, unlike Britannica, which bases its entire approach on these. They are at either end of these extremes, andf both work to some extent. Being in the middle would like not work at all.
I had my browser set up like this a few years back, but stopped, and now I've tried it again I remember why. Because popular sites I wanted to use were broken in that they set the foreground colour to override my stylesheets but not the background colour or vice versa (resulting in black on black or white on white text) even though this is against the specification (in fact the W3C's validator picks it up).
Well, it seems things haven't changed. Most Google pages still have a background set with at least some of the text not set to over-ride resulting in light colored text (in my case I used yellow, a very light grey might be slightly better) on a white background. Most annoying the subjects of my messages in the Google Mail inbox, where you can't even select text to deem it readable because of their use of Javascript, suffer this problem.
BTW,Who goes to the Google homepage, now there are built in search boxes in browsers, anyway?
I love the rant. But, from skim reading it, I understand your main argument is that it isn't the CEO's job to know all about their copyright license (which is probably true*) and my main point was I don't think he's read it before issuing a press release explaining why they've decided to use it (which you thought was "disparaging" and my saying he was a "moron" which I didn't). So, really, we aren't in disagreement. Actually the real main point of my post was H-U-M-O-U-R; it wasn't supposed to be taken seriously.
Just to knock down a few of the less abrasive strawmen/ad hominems: yes I do know how difficult it is to run your own business as I've considered it (and realised how difficult it would be); and FTR I'm merely a computer user not a programmer (at all), but have studied my jurisdiction's copyright law quite a bit (not using /. but textbooks, legislation and case law).
Too bad that that's not all it takes to succeed Clearly that is why Linux hasn't succeeded then, as success can only be defined as a corporation making lots of money for its shareholders in your world view.I do understand the very important role that CEOs have in a corporate system, but I would dispute why generating wealth is so much more useful than any other job like programming (if by wealth, you mean the net worth of a company). In particular, assuming you are using the economic meaning, they aren't generating it as such, but taking it from somewhere else (e.g.: private individuals or other companies), in general.
* Although I think it does help if they have a very basic level of understanding of the essentials of their business so the wool can't be pulled over their eyes--not saying this CEO has or hasn't BTW based on a few short quotes).
Actually, there's a new EU directive capping roaming call charges in the EU (as their against the common market) to levels not much above domestic calls (see this BBC article), but, for bizarre reason, it doesn't apply to SMS.
Actually 10p is the normal rate for pay-as-you-go texts over here (regardless of what that article says). Regular texters can also get a pay-as-you-go text pack (where you buy a lot of texts at once) or sign up for a contract (where you usually get lots of free texts).
That's mobile phone companies for you. There are only a few companies in the market who are involved in a hegemonic price-fixing cartel controlled by the use of proprietary protocols. This means they think they can get away with charging you anything.
I just looked at the prices for these things and was shocked. I just bought a new Sharp Zaurus SL-C3200 palmtop (which is a proper computer running on Linux with various totally FLOSS OSs available, 6" x 4", 6GB HDD, 416 MHz Intel XScale CPU, 64 MB RAM, 128 MB Flash ROM, USB host and client, IrDACF & SD slots for memory and WiFi and few hours of heavy use on battery life) for 256 GBP, which looks like it is quite a bit cheaper than the iPhone is going for in the US if I have my conversion right.
I just have a Nokia 1100 for a phone, which I've had for several years. It's very cheap, small and reliable, and the battery lasts, it can be thrown about and is very easy to use. What more do you need from a ''phone''. And these phone/PDA hybrids aren't proper PDAs and often aren't very easy-to-use phones either.
It was really bad legalese-ridden license. And, yes, with the restrictions on free distribution and the advertising clause (that was worse than the old BSD one), it clearly isn't free or open-source, even if the company claimed that themselves.
BTW, I've come across one of the threads with "user pressure" on this issue, which I found interesting.
Also, there is an official press release and an FAQ list on the license change.
Interesting point, but I think you'll find those people using it are using it in a descriptive sense and don't have a contract with OSI to only use it with OSI's permission or even an license to use the term from OSI, so the cat is out of the bag (at least, until people stop using the term "open source" for a while). One could also argue that it is a generic term for a class of products which would mean it could never be trademarked even if it stops being used in a descriptive or generic way (hence Microsoft paying off Lindows when the judge made it clear that the likely outcome of the case was for MS's trademark on Windows to be declare invalid for this reason).
The whole problem with this is that OSI want(ed) to use trademark law to designate a class of products or describe products, when it is meant to be used to protect a particular company's brand (so other products of that class don't pas themselves off as that company's). If people are claiming their products are open source when they aren't the correct way to deal with that is to use the criminal laws on fraud, misleading advertising and trade descriptions. If OSI are indeed still insisting they should have a trademark on it (which I didn't think they were), that suggests to me that they may have an ulterior motive like wanting to fill their coffers with license fees or control the distribution of open source software.
(Also see my great aunt post.)
I agree about minor license moves and updates not being newsworthy. But I think software which is quite popular (which I think this is) moving from a non-free to a free/open-source license is definitely deserving of a story here.
I've looked this up and here is the OSI post you're probably thinking of, by their president, Michael Tiemann.
The OSI (who I should make clear I definitely don't support) were not, as you say, complaining because SugarCRM hadn't payed them money but because the old license clearly didn't follow the OSI open source definition, the FSF free software definition, or the Debian Free Software Guidelines (due to various issues including an advertising clause that was worse than the old BSD one).
OSI were also not claiming a legal right to stop this, but, I think, more that the industry and customers should deem it unacceptable (and maybe even, although he doesn't say it, pursuing a case for false advertising).
No, because the trademark office wouldn't let OSI trademark "open source" as it is descriptive. Now, if SugarCRM was claiming to be "OSI certified", OSI might have complained.
Ye, since when was "copyleft" a comparative adjective, anyway? I think "We just think it's a great license...more copyleft...less restrictive" was CEO speak for "I haven't read it and I don't understand what a copyright license is (it's something technical). But my people in the know say we've changed ours because there's a new one out with go faster stripes, and my PR people tell me that if I make an announcement about it, it will get the company on /. and help me get a bigger bonus".
BTW, I do support this license move, just commenting on CEOs.
I think the Independent article that claimed that that was proven was later shown to have been based on misinterpreting the results of a scientific study. I seem to remember the original story and update were both on Slashdot.
They are now trying to prove a causal link. There are many reasons for an apparent correlation, including just coincidence and bias in the studies (e.g.:where they choose to do them), and, even if there is a real correlation, a direct causal link is one of many possible explanations (e.g.: off the top of my head, poor people might get ill more due to a lack of good food and medical care and radio transmitters might be put in poor areas more because people there have less resources to combat planning applications for masts).
This method is the most obvious and easiest/cheapest way to attempt to prove a causal link (but if the study shows no link it doesn't mean there isn't one). For the reasons you give, they need to do further more complicated studies to be sure whether there is a proven link or not.
Actually, I've inadvertently subjected myself to blind tests on this (with my Wi-Fi dongle--the router doesn't give me a headache) on a couple of occasions by wondering why I had a headache when I thought it was off and going to check it. I think this depends very much on the person and the WiFi transmitter used.
Can't believe no one has mentioned the Zaurus series of awesome Linux palmtops, which Sharp announced they were discontinuing at the start of this year. There is a petition BTW.
The modern way is to make all up sorts of ludicrous excuses (that are just about believable) why the constitution doesn't apply to you (uhh...Bush wouldn't..oh...ye...nevermind) and rig the election (but I really can't see anyone being audacious enough to rig an election to get Bush in...oh...ye...nevermind).