Two open source projects quibiling over licences instead of producing software, and the project with the less restrictive licence needing to "re-invent the wheel."
What is the reason in "redesigning" an open source project under a different license? Is JBoss so poorly written that it can't be the base of another LGPL project? Is the Apache license so much better for open source projects that it needs to be done?
In the immortal words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" There sould be no issue here. (except maybe that "Free, as in freedom" doesn't mean what it should)
The article compares compulsory licensing to a tax and the benifits of downloading music to a public service (roads, prescription drugs, and health care).
Music is NOT a public service, it is a form of entertainment. The only way to make a tax fair for entertainment would be to make ALL entertainment paid for by revenues of the tax. Even if the tax is just an online tax, all online entertainment would have to be "free", because if the tax only covers a few things, there will be an online tea party. And if all online entertainment is free, the tax would be outrageous. It would have to pay for music, movies, games, porn, etc... You think spamming is bad now, just imagine all the schemes fighting for that "tax" pool.
Plus, the article seems very much against the RiAa(TS), but i can imagine that the RIAA will still figure out how to get its share of compulsory licensing fees.
I believe that as a human being, it is my duty to help improve my community, and give a helping hand to those that need it. But I sure as hell don't believe it is my duty to buy a bunch of P2P freeloading music addicts a $0.99 song.
Compulsory licensing fees for music is wrong and make only the RIAA and freeloaders happy.
From "The Oxford Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus" - religous -... scrupulous; conscientious.
No where does it mention "irrational". But, honestly that was the intent in that choice of words, but not in a negative way. You said that when you share code, you're not comfortable with the thought of others profiting from it. How can you rationalize that one way or another? It is just a feeling, so it is "irrational". But to me religous also infers that one's beliefs should be respected even if you disagree with them.
"Zealotry" is a demonizing term, and often confused with religion. It is a subset of religion. "Zealots" are not respectful of ideas contrary to their beliefs. The GPL has a small percentage of supporters who are "zealots", and do give the whole cause a bad name (though in/. the percentage is quite a bit higher).
My belief that open source (non GPL) is the way to go is also an "irrational" belief because there is no rational argument for "I feel comfortable allowing others to profit from my work." Guess that is why it is the developer's choice, huh?
I owned, used and programmed the ST, but always thought the Amiga was a better machine. The lower cost of the ST was the determining factor for me. I think that the guys that designed the Atari 400/800 designed the Amiga, and the former owner of Commodre bought Atari and designed the ST. lots of inbreading.
Programming the ST was pretty straight forward and you had easy access to the hardware. The OS was OK. It was a hobby computer at a time when there really was such a thing.
Is classifying the choice of a developer to use the GPL as either "cool" or religous demonization?
If so, I sincerly apologize.
Again, I think you get my point. For large apps (those more likely to need support), the GPL makes sense. For small apps, I don't think it does. Just how many times are you going to pay for support for iTerm?
I agree with you that the license is the choice of the developer, and that choice MUST be respected. The licence is just a tool, but one that needs to be used wisely.
Oh, but you did get my point in your reply. Free (as in free speech) is a "religous" reason, and one that I believe is totally valid. I meant for that to be clearer in the argument. I consider it to be religous, because less restrictive licences (BSD type) also ensure that software that a developer has written remains Free (as in speach). The belief that all derivatives and improvements must also remain Free is what is usually really meant. Authors that use the GPL for that purpose believe in the cause.
No where did I argue that GPL code should be allowed to be included in non GPL applications. We need to respect the beliefs of others (as well as follow the laws). I agree with you, those that use GPL code need to use it correctly. And those that use it incorrectly do so out of greed or laziness (reuse is a good thing, though), OR misunderstanding of free source vs GPL. Nor did I mean to imply that the GPL is viral or poisoness. Although, it could probably be said that "the GPL does not make source viral, PEOPLE who use the GPL do" (very bad, i know, but there is a small bit of truth in it. As you said, "Authors of non-GPL software are not forced...". But once they do so out of laziness, greed, or misunderstanding, then they do need to abide by the rules, as is argued in this thread).
What the GPL does do, however, is take the power (money) away from the developers, and puts it into the hands of the distributors and contract supporters. Using the current example of iTerm, if CocoaTech improves iTerm and then tries to make money off of the improvement by selling it, they can (provided users have access to the GPL'd source). Economically, if people are willing to pay a price for the new improved CocoaTech iTerm, then the amount they are willing to pay is the value of the improvement (iTerm = free, iTerm + CocoaTech = x, so CocoaTech's work is worth $x). Now, a smart customer figures out that the CocoaTech improvement is worth x, but knows that he can get the code, compile and resell (distribute) the improvement without incurring any cost (money or sweat). They do so, and begin distributing CocoaTech's improved iTerm for x/2. CocoaTech loses money on its investment, and now sees that improving iTerm any more is a waste of time. In the mean time, some one who is truly lazy and greedy is using the GPL to make money. So what happens? CocoaTech spends resources rewritting an application that is similar to iTerm instead of improving it, just so they can get a return on their investment. As a whole, the users (that the FSF claims it is acting for in their best interests) lose out because the creative people of CocoaTech are busy rewriting iTerm instead of improving it.
The reason I argue against the use of the GPL, except for the rare cases of big apps and OSes, is because I feel the users are not truly served by free software. Open source, on the other hand does improve a user's experience and keeps creative, hardworking developers creative and hardworking.
Let me preface this with this statement: "I am a code monkey. I get paid for designing and programming software. I do not beleive that the GPL is in MY best interest. My objections to the GPL might be because of this belief and my selfishness, but I try to convince myself otherwise."
My question, "Why would (should) a project release code under the GPL?"
If the sole purpose were to allow others to use the code to be more efficient in creating new programs, then a BSD licence would do. If it were to involve a community in development, BSD would do. If it were to distribute source code along with the binaries of the project, BSD would do. If it was to prevent someone else from using your code and taking credit for it, then BSD would do.
I believe that there are three main resons that someone would choose to use a GPL licence over a BSD licence:
- Religous - Belief in "the cause".
- Status - It's cool to use the GPL.
- Political - wrestle control of software from the big players.
I personally (as stated above) don't believe in "the cause", BUT if you DO, then that is a VERY valid reason to release code under the GPL. The Political reason's for releasing code make sense in some very specific cases (OS's and major apps).
My feeling is, however, that more and more projects are being released under the very restrictive (NOT free as in freedom) GPL because it is cool to be part of GPL community.
I don't know why iTerm choose to release under the GPL, but if it were anything but religous reason, it was a mistake. It is a nice app. CocoaTech integrates the app into its cool product (PathFinder), improves it, rerelease's the improvements, and continues to charge for its product. GPL fanatics bombard CocoaTech to release its source, its source of income. Given the license that iTerm was licenced under, CocoaTech is obliged to do so.
BUT, was this what was intended by the iTerm project when it released the project under the GPL. Only if the GPL was chosen for religous reasons. Politically, CocoaTech is not one of the big players, but instead could be a challenger to them - the GPL hampers the political effort here. As for status, its should be more cool to have more people use your code (is it?). That leaves the only religous reasons for releasing iTerm under the GPL.
Given that, the code was released under the GPL and it should be abided by. The best option I've seen in discussions so far, is the negotiation of a seperate license for CocoaTech from the iTerm team. Hopefully this can happen.
Please, if you are releasing open source code, ask yourself - why? And does it make sense. If you are using the GPL to keep microsoft from using your code to a floppy driver, your probably using the wrong licence. If you are using the GPL because you believe all software should be free (as in no cost), then you've got the right licence.
AND, before you flame a developer in support of the GPL, ask yourself why? Is it Political, Religous, or are you just cheap and want the developer's cool app free of charge?
Ten years ago, nothing beat appletalk from a user's prespective. Finding printers was easy and straight forward, as was finding servers. It was easy to share your work with others. And at the time, there was (and still really is no) equivilent in the Windows or Unix worlds.
I've heard administrators horror stories of dealing with apple talk, but they don't seem to much worse than other horror stories. And even if they were the cause of a little more pain, isn't that the price of providing a good network solution to the users.
At my former company, when it was time to move away from appletalk, the network adminstrators jumped as fast as they could to replace it. But they didn't have horror stories of having to patch thousands of users computers, or bringing down entire networks as reasons for their JOY of seeing appletalk go away. Instead, it was that appletalk "slowed down the network".
So, we got a new network where we had to remember the IP address of any printer we wanted to use and any server we needed to access, and to share our work we had to tell everyone our IP address and hope that they wrote it down or you'd be telling them again, and again, and again... We went from a user centric network to a faster IT centric network.
Although I am a big Mac fan, I don't agree with Cringley on this issue. There are other reasons that Macs are being used in most businesses besides IT looking out for their own jobs. And most seem to be outlined here by/. users (preceived costs, lack of apps, unfamilarity, high cost of experiment, vendor lock,...).
But whenever I think about the lose of AppleTalk, and now see it being blamed for Apple's shortcomings, I really wonder who IT thinks they work for. Always thought the user, but maybe not...
I believe it is a "TRUE story... *shudder!*", but wtf?
What does "talking over an AirPort" have to do with file permissions?
What does "connecting through an OpenBSD firewall" have to do with file permisions?
And if he is having problems with file permisions on a samba mount to a linux server, and you are responsible for IT, then he is perfectly correct in asking you to "fix that"!!
Sun should probably not be lumped into the same muddy waters as MS. From a August 5 eWeek article (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1210889,00.a sp):
In the early 1990's, Schwartz said, Sun chief executive Scott McNealy agreed to spend several million dollars to take a broad license with AT&T, essentially granting Sun legal rights equivalent to ownership of Unix code.
"As a result of that decision in 1993, we can do whatever we want (to the code)," Schwartz said. "We can drive forward and indemnify our customers too," a basic responsibility of any intellectual property provider, he said.
Seems to imply that Sun just decided to cover their ass a long time ago. At the time they had money to burn. Although they have flung some FUD in the SCO soap opera, they probably are not financing SCO in any way.
SCO is not trying to make money from the licences, if they were, the fee would be more like $10 per cpu.
For some reason they are trying to kill linux. The point isn't to ransom money, but to keep users from using Linux. The government is not going to ante up $699 per copy of linux until there is proof that it MUST. HOWEVER, no government purchaser watching this linux/SCO soap opera should approve new linux boxes to be bought (and for that manner, any big business IT department). This happening at a time when linux was just starting to get on a roll and look to be a real force.
The exorbinate fee sure seems to make that agreement with Microsoft seem even more sleezy...
An advantage of paying taxes is public services. Pay more taxes, (hopeful) get more services.
No internet taxes equates to no internet law enforcement. Instead we get traditional law enforcement that don't have the same values or boundries that the internet has.
Now after saying this, I've not seen any internet tax proposal that was more than just a money grab for some local government. And each such money grab did not offer the adding services to the internet.
What would be nice is if a large group of ISPs worked together to create an internet "law" enforcement agency that actually cared about catching hackers and stopping them BEFORE damages are done. For each of us it would only be a few more dollars per year in ISP charges, and we would gain an agency that did care about OUR interenet security.
Yes, sending paedophilic pictures to anybody and everybody is not legal, but that is an extreme, and as far as I can tell, rare.
What do spammers do that is illegal? Not too much. Nearly everything spammers do is annoying, but not illegal. The article mentioned "criminal penalties should be explored for those who falsify their return addresses." Making spoofing addresses a crime (for anyone, spammer or not) criminal would be good.
The FCC is a regulatory commision not a law enforcement branch of government. Let the FCC regulate email marketers like it regulates other phone marketers, and approriate law enforcement authorities go after individuals that break the law.
"Microsoft is highly unlikely to be aware, as a company, if Open Source has penetrated its products. This presents a significant risk to shareholders."
What would the legal ramifications be if a single 'rogue' coder inserted GPLed code into a commerical product? Would such sabatoge open MS stockholders finacially responsible for the damage done to a freely distributed OS? That would be a tough case to win. More likely, MS would be asked to remove the offending code, and they would do so.
Having a policy not to use GPL code and the money to buy good lawyers, there is NO incentive for MS to patrol for GPL code. I would argue the opposite, that M$ would benefit by borrowing GPL code for a quick implementation while bugs are worked out on their own versions. Not saying that they do it, just that individuals working for MS and MS don't have much to lose, as long as the official policy is NOT to use open source code.
Good point. But business only care about themselves, so in such a model, who looks after consumers?
To answer your more important question, "but if it did then what is left for programmers to do?" -- drink beer
Good Argument, Scary Conclusion
on
Latest SCO News
·
· Score: 1
Linux is fundemently good for humanity.
But what happens if ALL software is free? At that point, all programmers become hobbyist. Software inovation slows to a crawl. Talented programmers are now finding other ways to make a living, and skills are wasted.
- Is the initial benefit to society of free software nullified?
- Is it worth stagnating to "level the playing field"?
"GPL software comes at a price", and I am willing to bet that price is too high for most companies that design software.
Yet the companies that design software are the ones that are most desirable to get into the open source fold. So how do you do that? By NOT advocating the GPL.
For example, your company makes a kick ass game. You want to use a routine to save files in an XML format, and that routine is GPL. IF you use it, then the whole game becomes GPL. What company in their right mind would use that routine?
On the other hand, if the routine were LGPL, the company could use and benefit from it, and then maybe a real nice routine that the company has developed that reads XML format will be released with a similar licence. In this way there is a symbiotic realationship.
This requires that a company be a good open source citizen, but that is a far easier battle to win than the GPL zealotry battle.
I think you missed the point. If you include a GPL library or subroutine in a program you are writting, now what?
If you are just using that for yourself, no problem. But what if that program is for a customer? Because of the GPL licence on the one unmodified routine, the whole program would need to be GPL'd. Although many advocate that, it is not a business model most companies that write and sell programs to others would agree to.
The point is, if you are going to get your company to allow you to contribute code back to the community, how do you approach it?
1) prove it is not parasitic 2) provide a model that is agreeable to the company and the community
LGPL licences allow use and release of specific portions. A meeting place for GNU zealots and big business.
Unfortunately, part of M$'s rants about open source software is true. Unless a company is willing to contribute, using GPL type of licenced source is a parasite.
The LGPL provides a happy medium. And contrary to GNU's belief (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html), it does provide a way for companies to get their toes wet in the Open Source world.
Don't think this means much to Apple. Moto has traditionally targetted embedded systems with its processors, and keeping the power consumption down is extremly important there.
The quote "frequency doubling every 18 months or so, and get into the 2GHz range" implies that 2GHz is still a year or so away. Motorola is not trying to keep apple's businees, but to continue to grow embedded business.
Motorola "The World's Embedded Technology Leader". http://e-www.motorola.com/index.html
Slashdot Mirror
And /.ers treating Microsoft harsher than other companies surprises you?
To save you from shock in the future, please read the rules of slashdot
(but don't ever admit to doing so!)
Two open source projects quibiling over licences instead of producing software, and the project with the less restrictive licence needing to "re-invent the wheel."
What is the reason in "redesigning" an open source project under a different license? Is JBoss so poorly written that it can't be the base of another LGPL project? Is the Apache license so much better for open source projects that it needs to be done?
In the immortal words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" There sould be no issue here.
(except maybe that "Free, as in freedom" doesn't mean what it should)
The article compares compulsory licensing to a tax and the benifits of downloading music to a public service (roads, prescription drugs, and health care).
Music is NOT a public service, it is a form of entertainment. The only way to make a tax fair for entertainment would be to make ALL entertainment paid for by revenues of the tax. Even if the tax is just an online tax, all online entertainment would have to be "free", because if the tax only covers a few things, there will be an online tea party. And if all online entertainment is free, the tax would be outrageous. It would have to pay for music, movies, games, porn, etc... You think spamming is bad now, just imagine all the schemes fighting for that "tax" pool.
Plus, the article seems very much against the RiAa(TS), but i can imagine that the RIAA will still figure out how to get its share of compulsory licensing fees.
I believe that as a human being, it is my duty to help improve my community, and give a helping hand to those that need it. But I sure as hell don't believe it is my duty to buy a bunch of P2P freeloading music addicts a $0.99 song.
Compulsory licensing fees for music is wrong and make only the RIAA and freeloaders happy.
From "The Oxford Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus" - religous - ... scrupulous; conscientious.
/. the percentage is quite a bit higher).
No where does it mention "irrational". But, honestly that was the intent in that choice of words, but not in a negative way. You said that when you share code, you're not comfortable with the thought of others profiting from it. How can you rationalize that one way or another? It is just a feeling, so it is "irrational". But to me religous also infers that one's beliefs should be respected even if you disagree with them.
"Zealotry" is a demonizing term, and often confused with religion. It is a subset of religion. "Zealots" are not respectful of ideas contrary to their beliefs. The GPL has a small percentage of supporters who are "zealots", and do give the whole cause a bad name (though in
My belief that open source (non GPL) is the way to go is also an "irrational" belief because there is no rational argument for "I feel comfortable allowing others to profit from my work." Guess that is why it is the developer's choice, huh?
pauL
I owned, used and programmed the ST, but always thought the Amiga was a better machine. The lower cost of the ST was the determining factor for me. I think that the guys that designed the Atari 400/800 designed the Amiga, and the former owner of Commodre bought Atari and designed the ST. lots of inbreading.
Programming the ST was pretty straight forward and you had easy access to the hardware. The OS was OK. It was a hobby computer at a time when there really was such a thing.
and mostly that was on the Amiga
:)
while we're at it, Atari ST rules!!!
Is classifying the choice of a developer to use the GPL as either "cool" or religous demonization?
If so, I sincerly apologize.
Again, I think you get my point. For large apps (those more likely to need support), the GPL makes sense. For small apps, I don't think it does. Just how many times are you going to pay for support for iTerm?
I agree with you that the license is the choice of the developer, and that choice MUST be respected. The licence is just a tool, but one that needs to be used wisely.
pauL
Oh, but you did get my point in your reply. Free (as in free speech) is a "religous" reason, and one that I believe is totally valid. I meant for that to be clearer in the argument. I consider it to be religous, because less restrictive licences (BSD type) also ensure that software that a developer has written remains Free (as in speach). The belief that all derivatives and improvements must also remain Free is what is usually really meant. Authors that use the GPL for that purpose believe in the cause.
No where did I argue that GPL code should be allowed to be included in non GPL applications. We need to respect the beliefs of others (as well as follow the laws). I agree with you, those that use GPL code need to use it correctly. And those that use it incorrectly do so out of greed or laziness (reuse is a good thing, though), OR misunderstanding of free source vs GPL. Nor did I mean to imply that the GPL is viral or poisoness. Although, it could probably be said that "the GPL does not make source viral, PEOPLE who use the GPL do" (very bad, i know, but there is a small bit of truth in it. As you said, "Authors of non-GPL software are not forced...". But once they do so out of laziness, greed, or misunderstanding, then they do need to abide by the rules, as is argued in this thread).
What the GPL does do, however, is take the power (money) away from the developers, and puts it into the hands of the distributors and contract supporters. Using the current example of iTerm, if CocoaTech improves iTerm and then tries to make money off of the improvement by selling it, they can (provided users have access to the GPL'd source). Economically, if people are willing to pay a price for the new improved CocoaTech iTerm, then the amount they are willing to pay is the value of the improvement (iTerm = free, iTerm + CocoaTech = x, so CocoaTech's work is worth $x). Now, a smart customer figures out that the CocoaTech improvement is worth x, but knows that he can get the code, compile and resell (distribute) the improvement without incurring any cost (money or sweat). They do so, and begin distributing CocoaTech's improved iTerm for x/2. CocoaTech loses money on its investment, and now sees that improving iTerm any more is a waste of time. In the mean time, some one who is truly lazy and greedy is using the GPL to make money. So what happens? CocoaTech spends resources rewritting an application that is similar to iTerm instead of improving it, just so they can get a return on their investment. As a whole, the users (that the FSF claims it is acting for in their best interests) lose out because the creative people of CocoaTech are busy rewriting iTerm instead of improving it.
The reason I argue against the use of the GPL, except for the rare cases of big apps and OSes, is because I feel the users are not truly served by free software. Open source, on the other hand does improve a user's experience and keeps creative, hardworking developers creative and hardworking.
Let me preface this with this statement: "I am a code monkey. I get paid for designing and programming software. I do not beleive that the GPL is in MY best interest. My objections to the GPL might be because of this belief and my selfishness, but I try to convince myself otherwise."
My question, "Why would (should) a project release code under the GPL?"
If the sole purpose were to allow others to use the code to be more efficient in creating new programs, then a BSD licence would do. If it were to involve a community in development, BSD would do. If it were to distribute source code along with the binaries of the project, BSD would do. If it was to prevent someone else from using your code and taking credit for it, then BSD would do.
I believe that there are three main resons that someone would choose to use a GPL licence over a BSD licence:
- Religous - Belief in "the cause".
- Status - It's cool to use the GPL.
- Political - wrestle control of software from the big players.
I personally (as stated above) don't believe in "the cause", BUT if you DO, then that is a VERY valid reason to release code under the GPL. The Political reason's for releasing code make sense in some very specific cases (OS's and major apps).
My feeling is, however, that more and more projects are being released under the very restrictive (NOT free as in freedom) GPL because it is cool to be part of GPL community.
I don't know why iTerm choose to release under the GPL, but if it were anything but religous reason, it was a mistake. It is a nice app. CocoaTech integrates the app into its cool product (PathFinder), improves it, rerelease's the improvements, and continues to charge for its product. GPL fanatics bombard CocoaTech to release its source, its source of income. Given the license that iTerm was licenced under, CocoaTech is obliged to do so.
BUT, was this what was intended by the iTerm project when it released the project under the GPL. Only if the GPL was chosen for religous reasons. Politically, CocoaTech is not one of the big players, but instead could be a challenger to them - the GPL hampers the political effort here. As for status, its should be more cool to have more people use your code (is it?). That leaves the only religous reasons for releasing iTerm under the GPL.
Given that, the code was released under the GPL and it should be abided by. The best option I've seen in discussions so far, is the negotiation of a seperate license for CocoaTech from the iTerm team. Hopefully this can happen.
Please, if you are releasing open source code, ask yourself - why? And does it make sense. If you are using the GPL to keep microsoft from using your code to a floppy driver, your probably using the wrong licence. If you are using the GPL because you believe all software should be free (as in no cost), then you've got the right licence.
AND, before you flame a developer in support of the GPL, ask yourself why? Is it Political, Religous, or are you just cheap and want the developer's cool app free of charge?
Ten years ago, nothing beat appletalk from a user's prespective. Finding printers was easy and straight forward, as was finding servers. It was easy to share your work with others. And at the time, there was (and still really is no) equivilent in the Windows or Unix worlds.
/. users (preceived costs, lack of apps, unfamilarity, high cost of experiment, vendor lock, ...).
I've heard administrators horror stories of dealing with apple talk, but they don't seem to much worse than other horror stories. And even if they were the cause of a little more pain, isn't that the price of providing a good network solution to the users.
At my former company, when it was time to move away from appletalk, the network adminstrators jumped as fast as they could to replace it. But they didn't have horror stories of having to patch thousands of users computers, or bringing down entire networks as reasons for their JOY of seeing appletalk go away. Instead, it was that appletalk "slowed down the network".
So, we got a new network where we had to remember the IP address of any printer we wanted to use and any server we needed to access, and to share our work we had to tell everyone our IP address and hope that they wrote it down or you'd be telling them again, and again, and again... We went from a user centric network to a faster IT centric network.
Although I am a big Mac fan, I don't agree with Cringley on this issue. There are other reasons that Macs are being used in most businesses besides IT looking out for their own jobs. And most seem to be outlined here by
But whenever I think about the lose of AppleTalk, and now see it being blamed for Apple's shortcomings, I really wonder who IT thinks they work for. Always thought the user, but maybe not...
I believe it is a "TRUE story... *shudder!*", but wtf?
What does "talking over an AirPort" have to do with file permissions?
What does "connecting through an OpenBSD firewall" have to do with file permisions?
And if he is having problems with file permisions on a samba mount to a linux server, and you are responsible for IT, then he is perfectly correct in asking you to "fix that"!!
*shudder!*
yes. Why else not disclose the company name?
(well, ok there probably are a million reasons a company would not want to be named, but a microsoft link is so much more fun to discuss)
Sun should probably not be lumped into the same muddy waters as MS. From a August 5 eWeek article (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1210889,00.a sp):
In the early 1990's, Schwartz said, Sun chief executive Scott McNealy agreed to spend several million dollars to take a broad license with AT&T, essentially granting Sun legal rights equivalent to ownership of Unix code.
"As a result of that decision in 1993, we can do whatever we want (to the code)," Schwartz said. "We can drive forward and indemnify our customers too," a basic responsibility of any intellectual property provider, he said.
Seems to imply that Sun just decided to cover their ass a long time ago. At the time they had money to burn. Although they have flung some FUD in the SCO soap opera, they probably are not financing SCO in any way.
SCO is not trying to make money from the licences, if they were, the fee would be more like $10 per cpu.
For some reason they are trying to kill linux. The point isn't to ransom money, but to keep users from using Linux. The government is not going to ante up $699 per copy of linux until there is proof that it MUST. HOWEVER, no government purchaser watching this linux/SCO soap opera should approve new linux boxes to be bought (and for that manner, any big business IT department). This happening at a time when linux was just starting to get on a roll and look to be a real force.
The exorbinate fee sure seems to make that agreement with Microsoft seem even more sleezy...
You see, there is overhead in SMP because the two processors need to communicate to make sure they are on the same page, so to speak.
;)
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the overhead was there to make sure that they were NOT on the same page.
An advantage of paying taxes is public services. Pay more taxes, (hopeful) get more services.
No internet taxes equates to no internet law enforcement. Instead we get traditional law enforcement that don't have the same values or boundries that the internet has.
Now after saying this, I've not seen any internet tax proposal that was more than just a money grab for some local government. And each such money grab did not offer the adding services to the internet.
What would be nice is if a large group of ISPs worked together to create an internet "law" enforcement agency that actually cared about catching hackers and stopping them BEFORE damages are done. For each of us it would only be a few more dollars per year in ISP charges, and we would gain an agency that did care about OUR interenet security.
Yes, sending paedophilic pictures to anybody and everybody is not legal, but that is an extreme, and as far as I can tell, rare.
What do spammers do that is illegal? Not too much. Nearly everything spammers do is annoying, but not illegal. The article mentioned "criminal penalties should be explored for those who falsify their return addresses." Making spoofing addresses a crime (for anyone, spammer or not) criminal would be good.
The FCC is a regulatory commision not a law enforcement branch of government. Let the FCC regulate email marketers like it regulates other phone marketers, and approriate law enforcement authorities go after individuals that break the law.
"Microsoft is highly unlikely to be aware, as a company, if Open Source has penetrated its products. This presents a significant risk to shareholders."
What would the legal ramifications be if a single 'rogue' coder inserted GPLed code into a commerical product? Would such sabatoge open MS stockholders finacially responsible for the damage done to a freely distributed OS?
That would be a tough case to win. More likely, MS would be asked to remove the offending code, and they would do so.
Having a policy not to use GPL code and the money to buy good lawyers, there is NO incentive for MS to patrol for GPL code. I would argue the opposite, that M$ would benefit by borrowing GPL code for a quick implementation while bugs are worked out on their own versions. Not saying that they do it, just that individuals working for MS and MS don't have much to lose, as long as the official policy is NOT to use open source code.
Good point. But business only care about themselves, so in such a model, who looks after consumers?
To answer your more important question, "but if it did then what is left for programmers to do?" -- drink beer
Linux is fundemently good for humanity.
But what happens if ALL software is free? At that point, all programmers become hobbyist. Software inovation slows to a crawl. Talented programmers are now finding other ways to make a living, and skills are wasted.
- Is the initial benefit to society of free software nullified?
- Is it worth stagnating to "level the playing field"?
Moraly, yes it is. But that is a scary thought...
"GPL software comes at a price", and I am willing to bet that price is too high for most companies that design software.
Yet the companies that design software are the ones that are most desirable to get into the open source fold. So how do you do that? By NOT advocating the GPL.
For example, your company makes a kick ass game. You want to use a routine to save files in an XML format, and that routine is GPL. IF you use it, then the whole game becomes GPL. What company in their right mind would use that routine?
On the other hand, if the routine were LGPL, the company could use and benefit from it, and then maybe a real nice routine that the company has developed that reads XML format will be released with a similar licence. In this way there is a symbiotic realationship.
This requires that a company be a good open source citizen, but that is a far easier battle to win than the GPL zealotry battle.
I think you missed the point. If you include a GPL library or subroutine in a program you are writting, now what?
If you are just using that for yourself, no problem. But what if that program is for a customer? Because of the GPL licence on the one unmodified routine, the whole program would need to be GPL'd. Although many advocate that, it is not a business model most companies that write and sell programs to others would agree to.
The point is, if you are going to get your company to allow you to contribute code back to the community, how do you approach it?
1) prove it is not parasitic
2) provide a model that is agreeable to the company and the community
LGPL licences allow use and release of specific portions. A meeting place for GNU zealots and big business.
Unfortunately, part of M$'s rants about open source software is true. Unless a company is willing to contribute, using GPL type of licenced source is a parasite. The LGPL provides a happy medium. And contrary to GNU's belief (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html), it does provide a way for companies to get their toes wet in the Open Source world.
"I'm not a lawyer," he said. "I pick garbage."
Don't think this means much to Apple. Moto has traditionally targetted embedded systems with its processors, and keeping the power consumption down is extremly important there.
The quote "frequency doubling every 18 months or so, and get into the 2GHz range" implies that 2GHz is still a year or so away. Motorola is not trying to keep apple's businees, but to continue to grow embedded business.
Motorola "The World's Embedded Technology Leader". http://e-www.motorola.com/index.html