The definition of these two classes of software seems to be greatly confused. Most posts here seem to think that Adware and Spyware are the same thing. I don't agree with this and it isn't what I tell my customers and users.
To me the definition of Spyware is any program that spies on it's users for any reason. Targeted adds is just one example. If a program is watching what I am doing and reporting it back to anyone, whether I knowingly installed it or not, it is Spyware. Here's the Jargon File definition.
The Jargon File definitions aren't as clear as mine, but they do support mine.
It can be argued that most Spyware is also Adware, but there are examples of Adware that is not Spyware. Opera and Eudora are both programs that I consider to be Adware, but do not consider to be Spyware. For the sake of companies like this, it isn't fare to lump the two together. I will be writing to both of them encouraging them to speak out on this issue and maybe even sue Gator for tarnishing their reputations.
Gator is trying to clean up its reputation by confusing the issue. This isn't fare to legitimate Adware authors, and I hope someone sues over it. Gator's reputation is well deserved and bullying sites because they state the obvious, only serves to further tarnish their reputation. I make it a point to remove Gator from any computer I work on. This isn't going to change that. If anything it's going to make me insist on it's removal even for users who think it's useful in some way. There is nothing Gator offers that users can't get someplace else, without the Spyware.
Get to it then. If you have 7 years to burn and can muster enough support to make it happen, I'll pat you on the back. But, I'll look to the future to find things to spend my time on. Stallman's contributions make this possible and I think he deserves to be recognized for it. His position is clear and justified; I've read it and agree with him. I have no problem calling the system GNU/Linux. It is proper.
Now when it comes to marketing, what is proper and what sells are two different things. Redhat's system is called Redhat Linux for marketing reasons. That is the product they are selling. It's probably proper that they should describe it as a GNU/Linux system someplace in there documents, but It doesn't make sense to call it Redhat GNU/Linux. That doesn't meet the needs of marketing.
I don't know whether they do or not (I don't have a version of Redhat handy), but the propper thing would be to use Linux alone only when describing the kernel, GNU/Linux when describing the system, and Redhat Linux when describing their product (which should be most of the uses). I think this even fits within RMS' philosophy.
Given the current SCO FUD, emphasizing the GNU/Linux fact may actually be useful in winning back support from managers worried by the threat of legal issues. In fact, if this FUD drags on for too long, I wouldn't be surprised if Redhat changes their product name to deemphasize the use of Linux. They could still sell a GNU/Linux system, but call it something like...
Redhat Windows -->Assuming MS looses their trademark Redhat Unix -->Assuming The Open Group looses their trademark Redhat OS -->Not likely to sell much Redhat {some fancy name that causes people to drool}
You get the idea. I personally thank RMS for publicly taking this position. This article will be a useful link in calming any fears my customers may have....Izzy
I think you confuse free as in "beer" with free as in "speech".
The GPL prevents anyone from distributing code if it can't be distributed free as in speech. If SCO's claims of IP infringement on the Linux kernel are true, then it can't be distributed under the GPL and simply buying a lisence from SCO doesn't resolve the problem.
In order for SCO to be able to sell you a license for a non-free Linux, they'd need permission from all the copyright holders for all the pieces. This isn't going to happen. Here is the
best explanation I have seen for this. Too bad the poster didn't put their name on it. It's actually quite good!
If, and this is far from certain, there is code in linux that violates SCO's IP, the only way for Linux to move forward is for the code to be removed, or SCO to lisence it under the GPL. SCO doesn't like either of these solutions. They want to continue there FUD campaign as long as possilbe in the hopes of extorting money from companies in the confusion.
That's why they wont show anyone proof of their alligations (all of them, and without a NDA). They know any valid issues would be fixed within weeks and they'd once again become irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't fare to companies that are Adware, but not Spyware. See my post below
To me the definition of Spyware is any program that spies on it's users for any reason. Targeted adds is just one example. If a program is watching what I am doing and reporting it back to anyone, whether I knowingly installed it or not, it is Spyware. Here's the Jargon File definition.
Adware is software that displays adds as a way to provide the author with a source of revenue. Again, the Jargon File definition.
The Jargon File definitions aren't as clear as mine, but they do support mine.
It can be argued that most Spyware is also Adware, but there are examples of Adware that is not Spyware. Opera and Eudora are both programs that I consider to be Adware, but do not consider to be Spyware. For the sake of companies like this, it isn't fare to lump the two together. I will be writing to both of them encouraging them to speak out on this issue and maybe even sue Gator for tarnishing their reputations.
Gator is trying to clean up its reputation by confusing the issue. This isn't fare to legitimate Adware authors, and I hope someone sues over it. Gator's reputation is well deserved and bullying sites because they state the obvious, only serves to further tarnish their reputation. I make it a point to remove Gator from any computer I work on. This isn't going to change that. If anything it's going to make me insist on it's removal even for users who think it's useful in some way. There is nothing Gator offers that users can't get someplace else, without the Spyware.
Get to it then. If you have 7 years to burn and can muster enough support to make it happen, I'll pat you on the back. But, I'll look to the future to find things to spend my time on. Stallman's contributions make this possible and I think he deserves to be recognized for it. His position is clear and justified; I've read it and agree with him. I have no problem calling the system GNU/Linux. It is proper.
...Izzy
Now when it comes to marketing, what is proper and what sells are two different things. Redhat's system is called Redhat Linux for marketing reasons. That is the product they are selling. It's probably proper that they should describe it as a GNU/Linux system someplace in there documents, but It doesn't make sense to call it Redhat GNU/Linux. That doesn't meet the needs of marketing.
I don't know whether they do or not (I don't have a version of Redhat handy), but the propper thing would be to use Linux alone only when describing the kernel, GNU/Linux when describing the system, and Redhat Linux when describing their product (which should be most of the uses). I think this even fits within RMS' philosophy.
Given the current SCO FUD, emphasizing the GNU/Linux fact may actually be useful in winning back support from managers worried by the threat of legal issues. In fact, if this FUD drags on for too long, I wouldn't be surprised if Redhat changes their product name to deemphasize the use of Linux. They could still sell a GNU/Linux system, but call it something like...
Redhat Windows -->Assuming MS looses their trademark
Redhat Unix -->Assuming The Open Group looses their trademark
Redhat OS -->Not likely to sell much
Redhat {some fancy name that causes people to drool}
You get the idea. I personally thank RMS for publicly taking this position. This article will be a useful link in calming any fears my customers may have.
The GPL prevents anyone from distributing code if it can't be distributed free as in speech. If SCO's claims of IP infringement on the Linux kernel are true, then it can't be distributed under the GPL and simply buying a lisence from SCO doesn't resolve the problem.
In order for SCO to be able to sell you a license for a non-free Linux, they'd need permission from all the copyright holders for all the pieces. This isn't going to happen. Here is the best explanation I have seen for this. Too bad the poster didn't put their name on it. It's actually quite good!
If, and this is far from certain, there is code in linux that violates SCO's IP, the only way for Linux to move forward is for the code to be removed, or SCO to lisence it under the GPL. SCO doesn't like either of these solutions. They want to continue there FUD campaign as long as possilbe in the hopes of extorting money from companies in the confusion.
That's why they wont show anyone proof of their alligations (all of them, and without a NDA). They know any valid issues would be fixed within weeks and they'd once again become irrelevant.