Believe it or not, I think real Excel compatibility is the hardest to achieve because there are so many different macros (VB Script), charting features, and other goodies in Excel that its easy to get "locked in".
Plus, Excel's UI is actually very good (or maybe I'm just too used to it). MS Word is replace, and you don't notice the UI difference, but not so with Excel. Ever other spreadsheet I've used (not many, i admit: only Appleworks, Lotus 123, OpenOffice's), the UI is noticable. Not a good thing for a UI.
If I had one with me I wouldn't post AC either, so as to get the karma.
Karma whore.
/. needs special AC moding. Starting at 0 just isn't enough. I propose that moding AC post at 0 should be done for free by moderators. Also, there should be a limit to the number of AC posts from a single account, or maybe treat it a little like moderation. You have to earn your right to post AC.
Posting a message to the discussion as an AC instead of yourself just because you don't think it will be moded up is proof that AC is overused for all the wrong reasons. If your going to past as an AC, you must either flame someone, post fact sparse comments, advertise something, be totally off topic, or any combination of these. Do we also need guidlines for AC posters.
ESR probably got the copy because of his past counter-productive behavoir. A selling point to someone not familar to the situation might be "hey, look, that loony-leftist ESR doesn't approve of this book. It must be good."
But it doesn't matter. The idea is not to sell a lot of copies. It is to publish the book and then give Sun, Microsoft, Apple,..., ammunition for their current or eventual fight against Linux.
But your logic is flawed and your facts are incorrect. You make the assumption that clean code means fewer clock cycles. A very "cleanly" written OO application is not going to be more energy efficient than a single, inlined, c function with embedded machine code if both were written to be energy efficient for exactly the reason you claim it would. Fewer cycles.
I have not seen windows source code, and I bet the author of the article has not either. His statement is purely biased, and by inserting his opinion, he degrades the credibility of the article. There was no reason to add that statement.
Here is why your logic is broken:
() You use as your conlclusion that More cycles == more energy use == more weight to carry to power said unit. True enough, but the hypothesis you so moronically defended is that clean code = less energy. So, if you don't mind, explain how clean code = less cycles. As I originally stated, clean code and energy use are NOT related exactly because clean code doesn't equal energy efficiency. (Since you are at least logically impaired, let me also explain more. Dirt code doesn't equal energy efficiency. Semi-clean code doesn't, semi-dirty code doesn't. As a matter of fact, the only thing about the code thatmakes a bit of difference for energy efficiency is THAT THE CODE IS WRITTEN TO BE ENERGY EFFICIENT.
Grow up, graduate, and quit pressing that AC button just so you can use complex, intelligent words like asshat and dink.
Don't confuse me with a Windows appologist, but there is no direct relation between "cleaner" software and energy use. It is quite possible for software to be "dirty" but use energy efficiently.
I'm all for jumping on window's faults, but assuming that windows uses more energy because it is not "clean" is wrong and biased. When it becomes a requirement to use less energy to sell a bazillion copies of Windows to the military, MS will throw a bazillion and one programers at the task. Then there will be a "dirty" but energy efficient version of windows (maybe thay can call it an earthen wall).
Even more importantly, assuming that a "clean" program will use less energy is absurd. There is no direct relation between the two. A clean program in general will be easier to maintain, tweek, etc, and may be easier to make energy efficient, but being "clean" doesn't make it energy efficient.
Creating a way to use the specialize GPUs for vector processing that is not graphics related is ingenious. Like a lot of great ideas, it is sooo obvious AFTER you see some one else do it.
Don't miss the point that this is not intended for general purpose computing. Don't port OoO to the graphics chip.
Where it is huge is in signal processing. FPGAs have begun replacing even the G4s in this area recently because of the huge gains in speed vs. power consumption an FPGA affords. However, FPGAs are not bought and used as is, and end up costing a significant amount (of development time/money) to become useful. Being able to use these commodity GPUs for vector processing creates a very desirable price/processing power/power consumption option. If I were nVIDIA or ATI, I would be shoveling these guys money to continue their work.
I wouldn't assume that tech jobs are easy to move. India has a large population of smart and educated people, and it would take more than just lower wages to make another location look more attractive.
Tech jobs are leaving the US now not because India has lower wages, but because India has lower wages and is doing as good or better of a job at meeting customer requirements. People can make jokes about tech support that is hard to understand, but it is only a FUD joke. A lot of us Americans got fat and happy in the internet boom and lost focus, and now we are paying for it. India did not lose focus, it is benefiting now.
Don't fool yourselves thinking that the US is losing jobs just because wages are lower elsewhere.
We live in al capitalistic world, and capitalism pays a premium to those that have the capital. Copyrights are very much capitalistic.
Free market is the balance of the buyer and seller's value of a thing/service to determine the price without external influence.
The GPL effects the free market (why would a buyer pay $$$$ for a app that is free?), but doesn't effect its principals.
Comparing Copyright vs GPL is more like comparing capitalism vs "a economic theory that gives no benefit to innovators", and this is NOT how I intended the word communism to be used.
But why resent the implication? If "possesion" is 9/10s of the law, then look at the similarities:
communism - theory advocating public ownership of source code
GPLism - theory advocating public right of posession of source code
The
intent of the GPL is to provide "access" not ownership, yes.
The knee jerk reaction to the analogy that the GPL is like a communist licence, however, is absurd. It is very obvious that the GPL can not be equated to communism, as communism is a economic/political theory and the GPL is a software licence, but the intent in both is the benefit to all by the sharing of all.
If someone were to compare the GPL to Capitalism, Feudilism, Socialism, or an other economic/social "ism", the reaction of GPLites would not be so quick and forceful. The comparision would also not be very accurate.
Forget for a second your preconceptions about communism and try and accept the GPL / Communism analogy. Its not a perfect analogy, but it is a pretty good one. And not worthy of its own myth
It's more like copyrights are an overbearing government regulation
I think you mean copyright abuse and special interest controlled overbearing government regulation. Copyrights and government regulations are a very important check and balance in the modern "free" market economy.
According to my Oxford Desk Dictionary
communismn.1 political theory advocating public ownership of property.
I'd say that is not to far off of what SOME open source licences are about (GPL). The problem with calling something communist in the USA is that there is decades of hatred associated with that single concept. So even if it is a comparsion based in fact, biases against communism prevent an unbiased view of the analogy.
The "Myth" that all open source is communist is very similar to the "Myth" that the only open source licence is the GPL.
I'm not Australian, so I probably have no right to comment, but that change seems good. There is nothing more infuriating than being forced to use a tool "just because". The wording "prefer" could be weighted in different ways. If the deciding factor in choosing is the openness of the source not the usefullness of the application, everyone losses. User are forced to use an inferior product, and they know it, and an open source project that may have blossomed, starts to get a bad reputation.
For example, I am not an artist, and when I want to touch up a image on my computer, I use the GIMP. My brother is an artist and when he manipulates an image, he uses Photoshop. I chose the GIMP because of its price (directly related to its openness), but if my brother were forced to use the GIMP, he would hate it. It is a good tool, but not the best. And those that care about the difference don't want the choice determined by openness.
On the other hand, forcing all to be considered, including open source, is a win for everyone. Users get the best tool, good open source projects get to play on even ground, and losing open source projects know exactly what to improve on.
As a longtime user of Atari, they never fumbled the desktop. GEM was used by Atari as a cheap alternative/response to the MacOS. GEM had promise, but was declawed by an Apple suit. Although the suit didn't directly change Atari's version of GEM, it did stunt its growth (mostly over fear of a lawsuit from Apple). The value of the ST was the cheap price, easy API, and multitude of ports for such a low price. Very little time was spent on the desktop UI and OS, and it showed.
Remember, some of the must have applications for the ST made the desktop usuable and the OS faster - QuickST, Universal Item Selector, TurboST, G+Plus, MultiDesk, NeoDesk...
First off, thanks for a reasoned discussion. Not often easy on this subject.
As a economist by training and a developer by trade (only 15 years being paid for developing, but been doing it for fun since the '70s), it is hard for me to swallow non-capitalistic theroies on software. If the software market were a free market, then the GPL would not need to exist. A natural balance between cost and benefit would be reached. Unfortunatley, the software market is not free and is controlled by a few monopolies. I believe the GPL was created to break the grip that the big companies have on the market, and it is starting to do so. This is a good thing, and I don't know that there would have been any other way to do that.
My belief is that the GPL will eventually create a "virtual monopoly", and (dare i say it, even in a economic discussion) a socialist software market. It is my belief that such a market would inhibit innovation. You've said it yourself, "Managers need first to learn that large swathes of the software landscape are now completely in the domain of "as cheap as air", and only foolish people will still pay for something that their competitors get for nothing."
What happens when everyone figures that out? Commerical software will dissappear. The model that most GPLers argue is when this happens, people that enjoy programming will continue to do so, continuing innovation. This I agree with, but honestly, how many people in the world enjoy programming and coding so much that they will do it for free? A lot, no doubt, but significantly less than would do it if they could also make a living doing it. Assumuption - significantly less people == less inovation.
Your argument about software being a model of thinking is interesting, and the difference between our conclusions. I'm not sure I understand your arguement, unless you are refering to patents. Yes an "office suite" is now obvious, and yes I can visualize a "office suite" in my head, but doing so doesn't make one appear on my desktop. A significant amount of effort went into creating an office suite, whether it was done by a group of volunteers or a group of mercenaries, a lot of work was done. Please explain this a little more, because I want to understand you idea.
Business (in a non monopolistic environment) must innivate or die. A sort of darwanism applied to economics. I don't see how software is any different, or how keeping the premium as long as possible prohibits innovation. The more innovative, the higher and longer the premium.
Also, the internet is a poor example to highlight either of our arguments. It was created by the governemnt for nationalists reasons, upkept by researchers for pratically reasons, stiffled by monopolies trying to control it, and brought to the public by fun loving hobbyies and money loving capitalists. How much fun and how much money is really hard to debate, both were needed.
Also, as a former Apple employee, I would be surprised if it was done "without using the employer's equipment." Nearly every engineer I knew had an apple supplied laptop. And who wouldn't choose to design and code on a apple laptop if given on for "free"?
while protecting me (as a commercial software author) from my competitors who might seek to repackage and resell my work without due benefit.
I don't buy this argument. What keeps a competitor from obtaining a copy of your product and rereleasing it as is for less than you sell it for? If, as an author, you release software under the GPL, you must realize that it is released for the good of all and you should have no expectation of due benefit. That is THE POINT of the GPL. A few companies have been able to leverage this into a way to recoup investment, but for the most part the companies making money on the GPL are hardware, or consulting businesses.
If all software were GPL'd, it WOULD inhibit innovation. It would not suppress innovation like a monopoly, but it would inhibit innovation. Like it or not, money is what rewards and encourages innovation. Yes, innovation does come "from a fundamental need to build the best solutions to the problems we face," but without financial support, the only innovators would be hobbyists. The whole internet boom was created by the hope of finicial reward, and without that hope, we would probably talking to each other on a BBS right now (if at all).
But, as I stated earlier, GPL'd software should get financial support from hardware and consulting businesses. But that support would only reward inovations related to those areas.
Yes, there is no fraud in the GPL, nor did I intend to imply there was. But I don't think there is any fraud in this MS license that has also been called a honeypot. Other than the fact that it is a MS vs/. thing, I don't see the difference in the use of honeypot. MS is not trying to fraudualently convince everyone to use their licence, just giving everyone a nice reason to do so.
What I don't understand, is why differentiate between "uses"? Wanting to reuse a piece of code from an open source application is no different than wanting to use an open source application to open a MS Word file. The GPL differentiates between these uses, and gives a user of a binary file freedom, but restricts the user of a source file.
What I have seen in discussing this with advocates of the GPL, is that developers that choose the GPL usually do so "so no one else can profit from my work." I translate this into, "anything that improves my work, must also be free."
But, my assertation that GPL'd code is a "honeypot", is based on that argument. If a company invisions a way extend or improve a GPL'd app, the GPL app itself is the honeypot. In order for the community to receive the inovation, the company needs to use the GPL, or redesign the app and recode the original app that is GPL'd. The GPL then forces a company to make a discission, recode and waste resources, or GPL and lose competitive advantage of the inovation.
The GPL moves control of software from the developer to the end user, and will eventually inhibit inovation. MS is attempting to counter that movement with this licence. Unfortunately, a monopoly also inhibits inovation.
Any 'open' standard that imposes conditions on its use is not actually open at all.
Careful, BSD and GPL both impose conditions on their use, but are generally considered 'open'. Plus, many GPL'd apps themself can technically be called a "honeypot", and I feel that that is the intent much of the time when developers choose the GPL.
The real problem is the type of conditions on this licence and the history of the orginator of the licence. It is a honeypot, it is open source, and it is, to an extent, free; the big question is "why?". And to that question, you are dead on.
Yeah, a kind of win the battle, lose the war thing. SCO self destructs, but in the process spreads FUD, starts open/free religous wars, distracts the public enough that MS can launch a (PR) attack on Linux security, and show the business world that a very few linux supporters go too far in their support.
Each SCO move may seem ludicrous, but don't celebrate their demise too much. So far this thing has been awful for Linux at a time when it should be gaining on Windows (security issues).
Slashdot Mirror
Believe it or not, I think real Excel compatibility is the hardest to achieve because there are so many different macros (VB Script), charting features, and other goodies in Excel that its easy to get "locked in".
Plus, Excel's UI is actually very good (or maybe I'm just too used to it). MS Word is replace, and you don't notice the UI difference, but not so with Excel. Ever other spreadsheet I've used (not many, i admit: only Appleworks, Lotus 123, OpenOffice's), the UI is noticable. Not a good thing for a UI.
If I had one with me I wouldn't post AC either, so as to get the karma.
/. needs special AC moding. Starting at 0 just isn't enough. I propose that moding AC post at 0 should be done for free by moderators. Also, there should be a limit to the number of AC posts from a single account, or maybe treat it a little like moderation. You have to earn your right to post AC.
Karma whore.
Posting a message to the discussion as an AC instead of yourself just because you don't think it will be moded up is proof that AC is overused for all the wrong reasons. If your going to past as an AC, you must either flame someone, post fact sparse comments, advertise something, be totally off topic, or any combination of these. Do we also need guidlines for AC posters.
So many AC's defending ESR. And so many AC's attacking AC's defending ESR. Why does ESR provoke such a fear of bad karma that ACism is necessary?
ESR probably got the copy because of his past counter-productive behavoir. A selling point to someone not familar to the situation might be "hey, look, that loony-leftist ESR doesn't approve of this book. It must be good."
..., ammunition for their current or eventual fight against Linux.
But it doesn't matter. The idea is not to sell a lot of copies. It is to publish the book and then give Sun, Microsoft, Apple,
Really depends on your defination of "clean".
But your logic is flawed and your facts are incorrect. You make the assumption that clean code means fewer clock cycles. A very "cleanly" written OO application is not going to be more energy efficient than a single, inlined, c function with embedded machine code if both were written to be energy efficient for exactly the reason you claim it would. Fewer cycles.
I have not seen windows source code, and I bet the author of the article has not either. His statement is purely biased, and by inserting his opinion, he degrades the credibility of the article. There was no reason to add that statement.
Here is why your logic is broken:
() You use as your conlclusion that More cycles == more energy use == more weight to carry to power said unit. True enough, but the hypothesis you so moronically defended is that clean code = less energy. So, if you don't mind, explain how clean code = less cycles. As I originally stated, clean code and energy use are NOT related exactly because clean code doesn't equal energy efficiency.
(Since you are at least logically impaired, let me also explain more. Dirt code doesn't equal energy efficiency. Semi-clean code doesn't, semi-dirty code doesn't. As a matter of fact, the only thing about the code that makes a bit of difference for energy efficiency is THAT THE CODE IS WRITTEN TO BE ENERGY EFFICIENT.
Grow up, graduate, and quit pressing that AC button just so you can use complex, intelligent words like asshat and dink.
Don't confuse me with a Windows appologist, but there is no direct relation between "cleaner" software and energy use. It is quite possible for software to be "dirty" but use energy efficiently.
I'm all for jumping on window's faults, but assuming that windows uses more energy because it is not "clean" is wrong and biased. When it becomes a requirement to use less energy to sell a bazillion copies of Windows to the military, MS will throw a bazillion and one programers at the task. Then there will be a "dirty" but energy efficient version of windows (maybe thay can call it an earthen wall).
Even more importantly, assuming that a "clean" program will use less energy is absurd. There is no direct relation between the two. A clean program in general will be easier to maintain, tweek, etc, and may be easier to make energy efficient, but being "clean" doesn't make it energy efficient.
hey moderator, it was satire...
can't beleive that satire in the thread of an article that contains the shizzle gets mod'd down, troll.
Creating a way to use the specialize GPUs for vector processing that is not graphics related is ingenious. Like a lot of great ideas, it is sooo obvious AFTER you see some one else do it.
Don't miss the point that this is not intended for general purpose computing. Don't port OoO to the graphics chip.
Where it is huge is in signal processing. FPGAs have begun replacing even the G4s in this area recently because of the huge gains in speed vs. power consumption an FPGA affords. However, FPGAs are not bought and used as is, and end up costing a significant amount (of development time/money) to become useful. Being able to use these commodity GPUs for vector processing creates a very desirable price/processing power/power consumption option. If I were nVIDIA or ATI, I would be shoveling these guys money to continue their work.
DAldredge (2353) signed: Only idiots have 4 digit UID's and subscribe to /.
./'s only subscribers will be teenage nerd weenies pretending they know something!
Come on! With that kind of attitude
And it works well. If you want to use Rendezvous with Java, try the package out.
Used the package to prototype and then debug a rendezvous app on a sun box. Very useful.
I wouldn't assume that tech jobs are easy to move. India has a large population of smart and educated people, and it would take more than just lower wages to make another location look more attractive.
Tech jobs are leaving the US now not because India has lower wages, but because India has lower wages and is doing as good or better of a job at meeting customer requirements. People can make jokes about tech support that is hard to understand, but it is only a FUD joke. A lot of us Americans got fat and happy in the internet boom and lost focus, and now we are paying for it. India did not lose focus, it is benefiting now.
Don't fool yourselves thinking that the US is losing jobs just because wages are lower elsewhere.
We live in al capitalistic world, and capitalism pays a premium to those that have the capital. Copyrights are very much capitalistic.
Free market is the balance of the buyer and seller's value of a thing/service to determine the price without external influence.
The GPL effects the free market (why would a buyer pay $$$$ for a app that is free?), but doesn't effect its principals.
Comparing Copyright vs GPL is more like comparing capitalism vs "a economic theory that gives no benefit to innovators", and this is NOT how I intended the word communism to be used.
But why resent the implication? If "possesion" is 9/10s of the law, then look at the similarities:
communism - theory advocating public ownership of source code
GPLism - theory advocating public right of posession of source code
The intent of the GPL is to provide "access" not ownership, yes.
The knee jerk reaction to the analogy that the GPL is like a communist licence, however, is absurd. It is very obvious that the GPL can not be equated to communism, as communism is a economic/political theory and the GPL is a software licence, but the intent in both is the benefit to all by the sharing of all.
If someone were to compare the GPL to Capitalism, Feudilism, Socialism, or an other economic/social "ism", the reaction of GPLites would not be so quick and forceful. The comparision would also not be very accurate.
Forget for a second your preconceptions about communism and try and accept the GPL / Communism analogy. Its not a perfect analogy, but it is a pretty good one. And not worthy of its own myth
I think you mean copyright abuse and special interest controlled overbearing government regulation. Copyrights and government regulations are a very important check and balance in the modern "free" market economy.
According to my Oxford Desk Dictionary
communism n. 1 political theory advocating public ownership of property.
I'd say that is not to far off of what SOME open source licences are about (GPL). The problem with calling something communist in the USA is that there is decades of hatred associated with that single concept. So even if it is a comparsion based in fact, biases against communism prevent an unbiased view of the analogy.
The "Myth" that all open source is communist is very similar to the "Myth" that the only open source licence is the GPL.
I'm not Australian, so I probably have no right to comment, but that change seems good. There is nothing more infuriating than being forced to use a tool "just because". The wording "prefer" could be weighted in different ways. If the deciding factor in choosing is the openness of the source not the usefullness of the application, everyone losses. User are forced to use an inferior product, and they know it, and an open source project that may have blossomed, starts to get a bad reputation.
For example, I am not an artist, and when I want to touch up a image on my computer, I use the GIMP. My brother is an artist and when he manipulates an image, he uses Photoshop. I chose the GIMP because of its price (directly related to its openness), but if my brother were forced to use the GIMP, he would hate it. It is a good tool, but not the best. And those that care about the difference don't want the choice determined by openness.
On the other hand, forcing all to be considered, including open source, is a win for everyone. Users get the best tool, good open source projects get to play on even ground, and losing open source projects know exactly what to improve on.
from sig... "There's a war going on, are you sure you're on the right side?"
4. In the Open Source Community, you're either "with us or against us"
nah, point four of James Turner's argument is bogus!!!
If only Atari hadn't fumbled the desktop
...
As a longtime user of Atari, they never fumbled the desktop. GEM was used by Atari as a cheap alternative/response to the MacOS. GEM had promise, but was declawed by an Apple suit. Although the suit didn't directly change Atari's version of GEM, it did stunt its growth (mostly over fear of a lawsuit from Apple). The value of the ST was the cheap price, easy API, and multitude of ports for such a low price. Very little time was spent on the desktop UI and OS, and it showed.
Remember, some of the must have applications for the ST made the desktop usuable and the OS faster - QuickST, Universal Item Selector, TurboST, G+Plus, MultiDesk, NeoDesk
well, not everything , but a heck of a lot of software does. That's the beauty of the BSD licence.
...uh, wait, they're doing that already. ... nevermind
If SCO can successfully attack the AT&T / BSD settlement (and don't get sued for copying BSD), imagine the carnage. They could sue *everybody*.
First off, thanks for a reasoned discussion. Not often easy on this subject.
As a economist by training and a developer by trade (only 15 years being paid for developing, but been doing it for fun since the '70s), it is hard for me to swallow non-capitalistic theroies on software. If the software market were a free market, then the GPL would not need to exist. A natural balance between cost and benefit would be reached. Unfortunatley, the software market is not free and is controlled by a few monopolies. I believe the GPL was created to break the grip that the big companies have on the market, and it is starting to do so. This is a good thing, and I don't know that there would have been any other way to do that.
My belief is that the GPL will eventually create a "virtual monopoly", and (dare i say it, even in a economic discussion) a socialist software market. It is my belief that such a market would inhibit innovation. You've said it yourself, "Managers need first to learn that large swathes of the software landscape are now completely in the domain of "as cheap as air", and only foolish people will still pay for something that their competitors get for nothing."
What happens when everyone figures that out? Commerical software will dissappear. The model that most GPLers argue is when this happens, people that enjoy programming will continue to do so, continuing innovation. This I agree with, but honestly, how many people in the world enjoy programming and coding so much that they will do it for free? A lot, no doubt, but significantly less than would do it if they could also make a living doing it. Assumuption - significantly less people == less inovation.
Your argument about software being a model of thinking is interesting, and the difference between our conclusions. I'm not sure I understand your arguement, unless you are refering to patents. Yes an "office suite" is now obvious, and yes I can visualize a "office suite" in my head, but doing so doesn't make one appear on my desktop. A significant amount of effort went into creating an office suite, whether it was done by a group of volunteers or a group of mercenaries, a lot of work was done. Please explain this a little more, because I want to understand you idea.
Business (in a non monopolistic environment) must innivate or die. A sort of darwanism applied to economics. I don't see how software is any different, or how keeping the premium as long as possible prohibits innovation. The more innovative, the higher and longer the premium.
Also, the internet is a poor example to highlight either of our arguments. It was created by the governemnt for nationalists reasons, upkept by researchers for pratically reasons, stiffled by monopolies trying to control it, and brought to the public by fun loving hobbyies and money loving capitalists. How much fun and how much money is really hard to debate, both were needed.
Also, as a former Apple employee, I would be surprised if it was done "without using the employer's equipment." Nearly every engineer I knew had an apple supplied laptop. And who wouldn't choose to design and code on a apple laptop if given on for "free"?
while protecting me (as a commercial software author) from my competitors who might seek to repackage and resell my work without due benefit.
/. thing, I don't see the difference in the use of honeypot. MS is not trying to fraudualently convince everyone to use their licence, just giving everyone a nice reason to do so.
I don't buy this argument. What keeps a competitor from obtaining a copy of your product and rereleasing it as is for less than you sell it for? If, as an author, you release software under the GPL, you must realize that it is released for the good of all and you should have no expectation of due benefit. That is THE POINT of the GPL. A few companies have been able to leverage this into a way to recoup investment, but for the most part the companies making money on the GPL are hardware, or consulting businesses.
If all software were GPL'd, it WOULD inhibit innovation. It would not suppress innovation like a monopoly, but it would inhibit innovation. Like it or not, money is what rewards and encourages innovation. Yes, innovation does come "from a fundamental need to build the best solutions to the problems we face," but without financial support, the only innovators would be hobbyists. The whole internet boom was created by the hope of finicial reward, and without that hope, we would probably talking to each other on a BBS right now (if at all).
But, as I stated earlier, GPL'd software should get financial support from hardware and consulting businesses. But that support would only reward inovations related to those areas.
Yes, there is no fraud in the GPL, nor did I intend to imply there was. But I don't think there is any fraud in this MS license that has also been called a honeypot. Other than the fact that it is a MS vs
What I don't understand, is why differentiate between "uses"? Wanting to reuse a piece of code from an open source application is no different than wanting to use an open source application to open a MS Word file. The GPL differentiates between these uses, and gives a user of a binary file freedom, but restricts the user of a source file.
What I have seen in discussing this with advocates of the GPL, is that developers that choose the GPL usually do so "so no one else can profit from my work." I translate this into, "anything that improves my work, must also be free."
But, my assertation that GPL'd code is a "honeypot", is based on that argument. If a company invisions a way extend or improve a GPL'd app, the GPL app itself is the honeypot. In order for the community to receive the inovation, the company needs to use the GPL, or redesign the app and recode the original app that is GPL'd. The GPL then forces a company to make a discission, recode and waste resources, or GPL and lose competitive advantage of the inovation.
The GPL moves control of software from the developer to the end user, and will eventually inhibit inovation. MS is attempting to counter that movement with this licence. Unfortunately, a monopoly also inhibits inovation.
Any 'open' standard that imposes conditions on its use is not actually open at all.
Careful, BSD and GPL both impose conditions on their use, but are generally considered 'open'. Plus, many GPL'd apps themself can technically be called a "honeypot", and I feel that that is the intent much of the time when developers choose the GPL.
The real problem is the type of conditions on this licence and the history of the orginator of the licence. It is a honeypot, it is open source, and it is, to an extent, free; the big question is "why?". And to that question, you are dead on.
Yeah, a kind of win the battle, lose the war thing. SCO self destructs, but in the process spreads FUD, starts open/free religous wars, distracts the public enough that MS can launch a (PR) attack on Linux security, and show the business world that a very few linux supporters go too far in their support.
Each SCO move may seem ludicrous, but don't celebrate their demise too much. So far this thing has been awful for Linux at a time when it should be gaining on Windows (security issues).
I miss the old Microsoft, before Linux freaked them out.