History only partially backs you up on this one. Remember Microsoft's numerous attempts to define a networking standard so that they could crush the TCP/IP network protocol? NetBUI anyone?
But yes, it can be hard to overcome the market leader. But, then again, if Microsoft were really sure that they controlled the market, why go through the trouble of standardizing? Because large parts of the world were looking elsewhere, especially governments.
But that's not the point. They are not only telling you that they don't support your changes to the phone you own, YOUR phone, but that they have the right to go in and undo your changes. You can avoid it by not doing an update, but, what makes this feel like an MS move is that they want to control your phone. You bought it. It's yours, not theirs.
What we're seeing is Apply trying to do to the phone what they did with the PC. The only thing that keeps them from doing this type of thing if you install Linux or XP on your Mac laptop is that they would lose market share that Apple cannot spare. If they were number one, they would be as bad, or worse, about keeping other OSs off their computers. If you don't think so, look at this and their iPod/iTunes behavior.
In 1981, when I was in the sixth grade, I saved up my money, and bought a slide rule from KMart for $1.20. It came with instructions for use, and I taught myself how to use it. It wasn't that hard. I had fun with it, until one winder day when I stood too long to the heater and the end melted in my back pocket. At the end of the year, my sixth grade math teacher brought in the first calculator I had ever seen, a TI-83 I think.
Having done a quick reread of the licenses, they seem to fit somewhere between BSD (no requirements other than copyright of the original author) and GPL (require that derivations are GPL). Isn't this where the Mozilla Public License fits? If so, isn't part of what the OSI is trying to do is reduce the number of licenses that are doing the same thing?
Why is Microsoft submitting the licenses in the first place? It's not like they need OSI's blessing in order to use them. Even if the OSI were to reject the license because they overlap with existing approves licenses, Microsoft could still use them. But, by having OSI approve them, Microsoft does gain the ability to say that they release "community approves" open source software, just like having OOXML approved means Microsoft can say that they have an open, standard file format. This isn't a reason to reject these licenses, they need to be studied for their technical merit. But I think one of the technical merits is: Does it allow one company to manipulate the system over anyone else.
I'll take my name off the list when I am allowed to charge $9.95/minute to listen to the calls. I'll even sit through all of them. When it enters my house, I should have the right to set the terms.
Having a better compiler is nice, but doing it just because you don't like the the open source license attached to the compiler - not the code it generates, just the compiler - just seems petty and a waste of effort.
It's just stupid all of the effort being wasted on the feud between BSD and GPL. The energy should be used to have all software released as open software, and then, interestingly, there would be no need for the GPL.
They couldn't even do the job Microsoft hired them to do. 1. To spread FUD to make people think twice about Linux - sure they scared off some people, who were just looking for an excuse not to adopt Linux. But a larger number of people and companies not only adopted Linux as their OS, but actually switched to doing FOSS development. 2. Damaged IBM - this probably cost IBM more in the time its lawyers spent dealing with SCO rather than going after IP violators itself. But, IBM demonstrated beyond a doubt what happens if you go after them with a frivolous lawsuit. 3. Scare FOSS developers - Rather than scaring developers, the community created and supported Groklaw, discussions on/., and put the heat on other writers that liked to make up information. Now, there are defenses in the FOSS community for dealing with legal threats, the press, and public opinion.
Don't give too much credit to Darl, though. Microsoft was playing to keep people on Windows. Darl, on the other hand, was hoping IBM would pay him to go away. Pure greed on his part
Both customers: Microsoft and Sun (depending on the day of the week). If Novell takes all their money, then they can no longer be a front. "Maybe we can recover from bankruptcy and sue again." - Darl
The suit isn't against eBay. No, eBay isn't required to carry anything they don't want to, but Autodesk is requiring them to pull the software because of a license requirement that is probably illegal.
We're talking about cell phones. You're out in public talking with 100 people around you and you're worried about privacy?!! If you want privacy wait until you get home.
No. As an older person who goes to college, I can tell you that college doesn't change political beliefs, nor are college students open to more ideas than the general population. Other studies have shown that college students are more likely to have a particular political affiliation, conservative or republican, than the general population.
Don't let the fact that the article was pointing out differences between liberals and conservatives mean that one is better than the other. While I, as a liberal, prefer being open to new ideas, sometimes you can be so open to ideas that you can be led over a cliff.
I think they would have been allowed to have a jury trial had SCO still had something to argue about. But after all the arguments and rulings, it's now just about how much money SCO owns Novell. And Novell is just asking the judge to decide that. It's part of a judge's job to decide if there are legal matters that should go in front of a jury, and there's nothing left here.
The post office is a private company that is completely controlled by the US government. Do the internet companies want to be completely controlled by the government?
Doesn't this sound like the history of the browser all over again:
Someone comes out with a technology that threatens Microsoft's dominance: Netscape. Microsoft develops a multiplatform technology to defeat it: IE on Mac. Microsoft incorporates it into its OS to get it into 90% of the PCs. Once the competition is destroyed, it levels off development, and ends support on non-Windows platforms: IE on Mac.
It'll support *light on Linux/OSX until Flash is defeated.
ODF - A document format originally based on the Open Office file format. It spent four years going through the ISO process, being revised to comply with other ISO standards, and was released as a standard in 2006. The entire specification is a couple hundred pages long. Since then, an number of states in the US, and countries, have decided that all official documents must be saved in a standard format.
OOXML - Microsoft's format based on their Office Suite. It is about 6000 pages long.
A couple of my favorite reasons for not allowing OOXML to become a standard include: 1. 1900 is defined as a leap year because that's what MSOffice does. 2. The specification includes numerous definitions of tags like autoSpaceLikeWord95, which is defined as:
This element specifies that applications shall emulate the behavior of a previously existing word processing application (Microsoft Word 95) when determining the spacing between full-width East Asian characters in a document's content. [Guidance: To faithfully replicate this behavior, applications must imitate the behavior of that application, which involves many possible behaviors and cannot be faithfully placed into narrative for this Office Open XML Standard. If applications wish to match this behavior, they must utilize and duplicate the output of those applications. It is recommended that applications not intentionally replicate this behavior as it was deprecated due to issues with its output, and is maintained only for compatibility with existing documents from that application. end guidance]
The "Standard" contains an erroneous date calculation, and won't tell you how to properly do something defined in the standard.
Recent stuff: It seems that companies that never before bothered to show up for standards votes are magically showing up on the day of the OOXML vote, paying their dues, and voting. And we're not talking about a few. Suddenly, votes that would normally have ten to twenty companies show up all of the sudden have 20 new businesses. Also, there have been reports of companies that support Microsoft getting access to Microsoft technology they wouldn't otherwise have access to. Also, countries are supporting OOXML that never bothered with these votes.
BTW, have you been living under a rock? This story shows up almost as often as the BSD/GPL tussle.
Did you miss the part about ISO letters being submitted by new companies that had never voted before all looking exactly the same? Or the part about companies getting special access to Microsoft stuff if they vote in favor?
If Microsoft actually made a better product, in part that means creating a standard that's really a standard, everything would work out. But that's not what they are doing.
One thing we're going to get into trouble with here is everyone arguing two different things, though Theo didn't help in his letter.
1. Are you allowed to remove the BSD license from a file, even if you add onto it. 2. Which license is better, BSD or GPL.
To the first question, I say the answer is no. I read the BSD license at the OSI and it says do not remove the copyright notice or the license. This is what started this, and the license needs to remain in the file, no matter what additional licenses are added, unless the original author(s) give permission.
To the second question, this will be a philosophical matter. Add Microsoft's "no one shall touch our source code" license to the list. They're all just licenses. BSD says: I don't care what you do with the code, just make sure that I get credit for this part; you don't even have to distribute the code, just the copyright. GPL says: I worked hard to make your life easier, give something back to me or to the next person that uses it, even if all that is is the code that you used. Microsoft says: I worked hard to make you pay me money, give me money, and wait for me to ask for more money.
I think that there is a flaw in the BSD license: Microsoft, being a monopoly, could take BSD code, throw it into their operating system, and then use it and their money to completely block out the very developers that created the BSD code - kerberos anyone?
On the other hand, since we should play nice, if all you do is make minor changes to BSD code, is there any reason to automatically put your code under the GPL? The original authors put in a lot of work to get it to work, contributing back to them would be a good gesture.
I realize these are the exact tensions that we are all arguing about, and they will exist as long as both licenses exist. But we all need to remember that the real enemy is companies that any software written by someone else for their own ends.
Except, in the BSD version, the powerful lord collects seeds from the boy and plants them all over the place. When other people attempt to plant their seeds, the soldiers stop them, because the lord has already planted his seeds everywhere. And the lord builds walls around all of the apple trees and claims that it is through his skill that apples are plentiful.
This whole topic WAS about people removing licenses. But, by the end of Theo's letter, I got the distinct impression that he was ranting against the GPL.
All wikipedia entries should have some reference to source material to be considered valid. This should be true before or after this tool.
This sounds to me like the wikipedia version of Google's link count algorithm. This got me to thinking though: wikipedia is old enough that other articles are referencing it. Why not use the link counts to quantify the credibility of a page as well as this?
Slashdot Mirror
History only partially backs you up on this one. Remember Microsoft's numerous attempts to define a networking standard so that they could crush the TCP/IP network protocol? NetBUI anyone?
But yes, it can be hard to overcome the market leader. But, then again, if Microsoft were really sure that they controlled the market, why go through the trouble of standardizing? Because large parts of the world were looking elsewhere, especially governments.
He paid the guy at Intel to make the comments so that it would show on slashdot and he could post his comment.
But that's not the point. They are not only telling you that they don't support your changes to the phone you own, YOUR phone, but that they have the right to go in and undo your changes. You can avoid it by not doing an update, but, what makes this feel like an MS move is that they want to control your phone. You bought it. It's yours, not theirs.
What we're seeing is Apply trying to do to the phone what they did with the PC. The only thing that keeps them from doing this type of thing if you install Linux or XP on your Mac laptop is that they would lose market share that Apple cannot spare. If they were number one, they would be as bad, or worse, about keeping other OSs off their computers. If you don't think so, look at this and their iPod/iTunes behavior.
You hack YOUR phone, and Apple says you can't do that. That's why this has a MS feel to it.
In 1981, when I was in the sixth grade, I saved up my money, and bought a slide rule from KMart for $1.20. It came with instructions for use, and I taught myself how to use it. It wasn't that hard. I had fun with it, until one winder day when I stood too long to the heater and the end melted in my back pocket. At the end of the year, my sixth grade math teacher brought in the first calculator I had ever seen, a TI-83 I think.
Having done a quick reread of the licenses, they seem to fit somewhere between BSD (no requirements other than copyright of the original author) and GPL (require that derivations are GPL). Isn't this where the Mozilla Public License fits? If so, isn't part of what the OSI is trying to do is reduce the number of licenses that are doing the same thing?
Why is Microsoft submitting the licenses in the first place? It's not like they need OSI's blessing in order to use them. Even if the OSI were to reject the license because they overlap with existing approves licenses, Microsoft could still use them. But, by having OSI approve them, Microsoft does gain the ability to say that they release "community approves" open source software, just like having OOXML approved means Microsoft can say that they have an open, standard file format. This isn't a reason to reject these licenses, they need to be studied for their technical merit. But I think one of the technical merits is: Does it allow one company to manipulate the system over anyone else.
I'll take my name off the list when I am allowed to charge $9.95/minute to listen to the calls. I'll even sit through all of them. When it enters my house, I should have the right to set the terms.
Desperate to get off topic, huh?
Having a better compiler is nice, but doing it just because you don't like the the open source license attached to the compiler - not the code it generates, just the compiler - just seems petty and a waste of effort.
It's just stupid all of the effort being wasted on the feud between BSD and GPL. The energy should be used to have all software released as open software, and then, interestingly, there would be no need for the GPL.
http://komplexify.com/blog/2006/10/12/circumloqution/ I think this is pretty fitting.
They couldn't even do the job Microsoft hired them to do. /., and put the heat on other writers that liked to make up information. Now, there are defenses in the FOSS community for dealing with legal threats, the press, and public opinion.
1. To spread FUD to make people think twice about Linux - sure they scared off some people, who were just looking for an excuse not to adopt Linux. But a larger number of people and companies not only adopted Linux as their OS, but actually switched to doing FOSS development.
2. Damaged IBM - this probably cost IBM more in the time its lawyers spent dealing with SCO rather than going after IP violators itself. But, IBM demonstrated beyond a doubt what happens if you go after them with a frivolous lawsuit.
3. Scare FOSS developers - Rather than scaring developers, the community created and supported Groklaw, discussions on
Don't give too much credit to Darl, though. Microsoft was playing to keep people on Windows. Darl, on the other hand, was hoping IBM would pay him to go away. Pure greed on his part
Both customers: Microsoft and Sun (depending on the day of the week). If Novell takes all their money, then they can no longer be a front. "Maybe we can recover from bankruptcy and sue again." - Darl
The suit isn't against eBay. No, eBay isn't required to carry anything they don't want to, but Autodesk is requiring them to pull the software because of a license requirement that is probably illegal.
We're talking about cell phones. You're out in public talking with 100 people around you and you're worried about privacy?!! If you want privacy wait until you get home.
No. As an older person who goes to college, I can tell you that college doesn't change political beliefs, nor are college students open to more ideas than the general population. Other studies have shown that college students are more likely to have a particular political affiliation, conservative or republican, than the general population.
Don't let the fact that the article was pointing out differences between liberals and conservatives mean that one is better than the other. While I, as a liberal, prefer being open to new ideas, sometimes you can be so open to ideas that you can be led over a cliff.
The fun part about this is, I know of some password systems that prevent you from using special characters. No idea why.
I think they would have been allowed to have a jury trial had SCO still had something to argue about. But after all the arguments and rulings, it's now just about how much money SCO owns Novell. And Novell is just asking the judge to decide that. It's part of a judge's job to decide if there are legal matters that should go in front of a jury, and there's nothing left here.
The post office is a private company that is completely controlled by the US government. Do the internet companies want to be completely controlled by the government?
Doesn't this sound like the history of the browser all over again:
Someone comes out with a technology that threatens Microsoft's dominance: Netscape.
Microsoft develops a multiplatform technology to defeat it: IE on Mac.
Microsoft incorporates it into its OS to get it into 90% of the PCs.
Once the competition is destroyed, it levels off development, and ends support on non-Windows platforms: IE on Mac.
It'll support *light on Linux/OSX until Flash is defeated.
ODF - A document format originally based on the Open Office file format. It spent four years going through the ISO process, being revised to comply with other ISO standards, and was released as a standard in 2006. The entire specification is a couple hundred pages long. Since then, an number of states in the US, and countries, have decided that all official documents must be saved in a standard format.
OOXML - Microsoft's format based on their Office Suite. It is about 6000 pages long.
A couple of my favorite reasons for not allowing OOXML to become a standard include:
1. 1900 is defined as a leap year because that's what MSOffice does.
2. The specification includes numerous definitions of tags like autoSpaceLikeWord95, which is defined as:
This element specifies that applications shall emulate the behavior of a previously existing word processing application (Microsoft Word 95) when determining the spacing between full-width East Asian characters in a document's content.
[Guidance: To faithfully replicate this behavior, applications must imitate the behavior of that application, which involves many possible behaviors and cannot be faithfully placed into narrative for this Office Open XML Standard. If applications wish to match this behavior, they must utilize and duplicate the output of those applications. It is recommended that applications not intentionally replicate this behavior as it was deprecated due to issues with its output, and is maintained only for compatibility with existing documents from that application. end guidance]
The "Standard" contains an erroneous date calculation, and won't tell you how to properly do something defined in the standard.
Recent stuff:
It seems that companies that never before bothered to show up for standards votes are magically showing up on the day of the OOXML vote, paying their dues, and voting. And we're not talking about a few. Suddenly, votes that would normally have ten to twenty companies show up all of the sudden have 20 new businesses. Also, there have been reports of companies that support Microsoft getting access to Microsoft technology they wouldn't otherwise have access to. Also, countries are supporting OOXML that never bothered with these votes.
BTW, have you been living under a rock? This story shows up almost as often as the BSD/GPL tussle.
Did you miss the part about ISO letters being submitted by new companies that had never voted before all looking exactly the same? Or the part about companies getting special access to Microsoft stuff if they vote in favor?
If Microsoft actually made a better product, in part that means creating a standard that's really a standard, everything would work out. But that's not what they are doing.
One thing we're going to get into trouble with here is everyone arguing two different things, though Theo didn't help in his letter.
1. Are you allowed to remove the BSD license from a file, even if you add onto it.
2. Which license is better, BSD or GPL.
To the first question, I say the answer is no. I read the BSD license at the OSI and it says do not remove the copyright notice or the license. This is what started this, and the license needs to remain in the file, no matter what additional licenses are added, unless the original author(s) give permission.
To the second question, this will be a philosophical matter. Add Microsoft's "no one shall touch our source code" license to the list. They're all just licenses. BSD says: I don't care what you do with the code, just make sure that I get credit for this part; you don't even have to distribute the code, just the copyright. GPL says: I worked hard to make your life easier, give something back to me or to the next person that uses it, even if all that is is the code that you used. Microsoft says: I worked hard to make you pay me money, give me money, and wait for me to ask for more money.
I think that there is a flaw in the BSD license: Microsoft, being a monopoly, could take BSD code, throw it into their operating system, and then use it and their money to completely block out the very developers that created the BSD code - kerberos anyone?
On the other hand, since we should play nice, if all you do is make minor changes to BSD code, is there any reason to automatically put your code under the GPL? The original authors put in a lot of work to get it to work, contributing back to them would be a good gesture.
I realize these are the exact tensions that we are all arguing about, and they will exist as long as both licenses exist. But we all need to remember that the real enemy is companies that any software written by someone else for their own ends.
Except, in the BSD version, the powerful lord collects seeds from the boy and plants them all over the place. When other people attempt to plant their seeds, the soldiers stop them, because the lord has already planted his seeds everywhere. And the lord builds walls around all of the apple trees and claims that it is through his skill that apples are plentiful.
This whole topic WAS about people removing licenses. But, by the end of Theo's letter, I got the distinct impression that he was ranting against the GPL.
I'm trying to image the microsoft software that could have been used to make this work. That's right, only they are allowed to innovate.
All wikipedia entries should have some reference to source material to be considered valid. This should be true before or after this tool.
This sounds to me like the wikipedia version of Google's link count algorithm. This got me to thinking though: wikipedia is old enough that other articles are referencing it. Why not use the link counts to quantify the credibility of a page as well as this?