As for privatly funded OpenSource, I guess it depeneds on your definition. To me Open Source=Developed by people for free, and made free.
Actually, after thinking about it for awhile, I can kind of see where you're coming from. The Microsoft argument can be seen as "No one motivated by mere interest can innovate." I disagree, because the world's greatest artists and musicians aren't motivated by money at all. But, much of the interesting projects *have* been funded by companies and governments.
Of course, oftentimes the funding came as an afterthought (as in the case of UNIX, where Bell Labs completely disapproved of the project and it had to be done secretly on spare time). There's also Linux, which started out as an experiment in programming for the protected mode of the i386 processor (and then became an attempt to create a better Minix).
I think this is probably a key point in American History that's glossed over - because that notion, is bundled with slavery, at least in the propaganda that's pushed.
Right. This is why I've found the phrase "The Right to Secede" to be of some value. Of course, many people still have a knee-jerk reaction when they hear this but at least a few people here and there realize that I'm not a racist when I say it.
I know, of course, that there is a lot of corruption in our government; but I think that in this case, the DoJ really thinks they are defending a lawful business being attacked by pirates. If what you say about the DoJ is true, why did they go up against M$?
Right. But what I'm saying is that the government views protection of business as one of their primary duties--and what they are doing now isn't so much that they just "like the rich" as that they are doing what they think they are supposed to be doing. They see this as an extension of trying to protect a small-time business from robbery or vandals or whatever.
Unix, Started as a goverment project called Mulics
Actually, it was completely different from Multics and it was a non-funded project that was built despite Bell Labs' denial of permission. Furthermore, any of this really doesn't matter: all that's required for something to be open source is that the environment of free sharing of information be present.
SGI is a private company that has funded many projects. Are they not open source because they have been privately funded? Business is not the root of all evil, you know.
As for the government's brief filed here, I think it's more of a lack of understanding of the problem than a mere "favor the rich" kind of thing. In all likelyhood, they have not even a clue as to what the other side of the argument really is. All they know is that "an industry is under attack and it is our duty to see that justice is done." Remember, our government was founded by a group of entrepreneurs who had gotten a raw deal. They wanted to make sure, among other things, that businesses were protected at least as much as individuals.
BTW, we started to lose our freedoms in 1861 when Lincoln decided that states didn't have the right to secede.
This would be very very bad. Cocoa (formerly OpenStep) is the way to go for this. The core GNUstep libraries are approaching completion and will make porting between MOSX and other platforms very easy.
GNUstep has an implementation of OpenStep (Cocoa) as a frontend and it's possible to have any number of backend implementations (DPS and X11 are all we have so far but it's entirely possible to write backends for Berlin, BeOS, or Win32). Of course, the nice thing for MOSX is that we don't *have* to write a backend--with Cocoa, we're source compatible!
DS9 - Agreed, but only toward the end with the Dominion episodes.
Right. I also liked the way they often portrayed the Federation as having some corruption here and there. And they had some absolutely bone-chilling episodes about the nature of war itself. Much more realistic than ST:TNG.
What about the war with the Dominion in DS9? That was a pretty long-running sequence of episodes. And what about ST:TNG? The unifying theme there was: "In the future, human nature will evolve and we'll all form The Perfect Marxist Society (TM). Everyone will love each other." Actually, the germ of this was in TOS as well, but a little less perfected.
Yeah, no kidding. I mean, she could have been a really hot looking chick if it hadn't of been for the dumb costume. Oh, and the oh-so-precious psycho-babble.
Honestly, the record companies shouldn't hold the copyright to the music in the first place... that should be the domain of the artist and the artist alone.
Yeah, that's definitely the way it *ought* to be. The problem is that musicians freely sign their rights over to the recording companies in exchange for funds to record, distribution, and promotion. Actually, what often happens is that the recording companies find some mediocre band, offer to prop them up with big-time advertising and promotion, all in exchange for a sizable cut of the profits. These bands are hardly in any position to resist because even the small cut they get is usually a fair chunk of change.
And, if the original author allowed other people to use the name before, it's hard to make the case that he should be able to change his mind and destroy somebody else's name.
Well, he's not destroying anyone's name, exactly. But if he can be shown to be practicing a selective enforcement of his trademark (which, according to this article, he seems to be doing) then I don't think he has a leg to stand on. But I do believe it would be a nice gesture for OpenSSH to change its name.
Why is it your right to use technology that they developed?
Why is it a carpenter's right to use a screwdriver that someone else invented? I'm not talking about pirating music here, I'm talking about recording your *OWN* music.
If you're buying products that have the capability to manufacture CD-DA discs, then maybe you should pay a royalty.
I prefer the term "protection." What if I'm a musician and I want to burn demos of my stuff to send to radio stations and the like? You mean I have to pay record companies for the right to produce my own music instead of giving them all my rights?
It isn't good will. If it were, he'd leave them alone or license the name.
So, if someone wanted to use your social security number and drivers license you'd be cool with that? I doubt it. Those are things that *identify* you.
Licensing? You don't get it. He doesn't want people to confuse OpenSSH with his product.
People are being seriously confused by the name, his private requests to Theo and others have been ignored, and he has a trademark: he would be entirely within his rights to sue the hell out of them. If it were Apple or Sun, he would have done this months ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, after thinking about it for awhile, I can kind of see where you're coming from. The Microsoft argument can be seen as "No one motivated by mere interest can innovate." I disagree, because the world's greatest artists and musicians aren't motivated by money at all. But, much of the interesting projects *have* been funded by companies and governments.
Of course, oftentimes the funding came as an afterthought (as in the case of UNIX, where Bell Labs completely disapproved of the project and it had to be done secretly on spare time). There's also Linux, which started out as an experiment in programming for the protected mode of the i386 processor (and then became an attempt to create a better Minix).
Right. This is why I've found the phrase "The Right to Secede" to be of some value. Of course, many people still have a knee-jerk reaction when they hear this but at least a few people here and there realize that I'm not a racist when I say it.
I know, of course, that there is a lot of corruption in our government; but I think that in this case, the DoJ really thinks they are defending a lawful business being attacked by pirates. If what you say about the DoJ is true, why did they go up against M$?
Right. But what I'm saying is that the government views protection of business as one of their primary duties--and what they are doing now isn't so much that they just "like the rich" as that they are doing what they think they are supposed to be doing. They see this as an extension of trying to protect a small-time business from robbery or vandals or whatever.
Actually, it was completely different from Multics and it was a non-funded project that was built despite Bell Labs' denial of permission. Furthermore, any of this really doesn't matter: all that's required for something to be open source is that the environment of free sharing of information be present.
SGI is a private company that has funded many projects. Are they not open source because they have been privately funded? Business is not the root of all evil, you know.
BTW, we started to lose our freedoms in 1861 when Lincoln decided that states didn't have the right to secede.
This is like Grape Nuts: no grapes, no nuts, just "Grape Nuts."
This would be very very bad. Cocoa (formerly OpenStep) is the way to go for this. The core GNUstep libraries are approaching completion and will make porting between MOSX and other platforms very easy.
GNUstep has an implementation of OpenStep (Cocoa) as a frontend and it's possible to have any number of backend implementations (DPS and X11 are all we have so far but it's entirely possible to write backends for Berlin, BeOS, or Win32). Of course, the nice thing for MOSX is that we don't *have* to write a backend--with Cocoa, we're source compatible!
Right. I also liked the way they often portrayed the Federation as having some corruption here and there. And they had some absolutely bone-chilling episodes about the nature of war itself. Much more realistic than ST:TNG.
What about the war with the Dominion in DS9? That was a pretty long-running sequence of episodes. And what about ST:TNG? The unifying theme there was: "In the future, human nature will evolve and we'll all form The Perfect Marxist Society (TM). Everyone will love each other." Actually, the germ of this was in TOS as well, but a little less perfected.
Yeah, no kidding. I mean, she could have been a really hot looking chick if it hadn't of been for the dumb costume. Oh, and the oh-so-precious psycho-babble.
DS9 was the only series that *didn't* read like a soap opera. It had lots of cool military and political plots.
I think I'm going to keel over and die...someone on /. actually behaved as a mature adult. I wish I could shake your hand right now.
Actaully, they remind me more of a drug cartel.
Yeah, that's definitely the way it *ought* to be. The problem is that musicians freely sign their rights over to the recording companies in exchange for funds to record, distribution, and promotion. Actually, what often happens is that the recording companies find some mediocre band, offer to prop them up with big-time advertising and promotion, all in exchange for a sizable cut of the profits. These bands are hardly in any position to resist because even the small cut they get is usually a fair chunk of change.
Well, he's not destroying anyone's name, exactly. But if he can be shown to be practicing a selective enforcement of his trademark (which, according to this article, he seems to be doing) then I don't think he has a leg to stand on. But I do believe it would be a nice gesture for OpenSSH to change its name.
Why is it a carpenter's right to use a screwdriver that someone else invented? I'm not talking about pirating music here, I'm talking about recording your *OWN* music.
Of course, he also has a trademark on it. The question is: when did he acquire the trademark?
And God bless you, Mr. Scrooge.
What's really sad is that the news from MSN.com and CBS News is no more accurate than what we get here.
I prefer the term "protection." What if I'm a musician and I want to burn demos of my stuff to send to radio stations and the like? You mean I have to pay record companies for the right to produce my own music instead of giving them all my rights?
Where do I sign up to be a Swiss citizen?
Go for that straw man.
So, if someone wanted to use your social security number and drivers license you'd be cool with that? I doubt it. Those are things that *identify* you.
Licensing? You don't get it. He doesn't want people to confuse OpenSSH with his product.
People are being seriously confused by the name, his private requests to Theo and others have been ignored, and he has a trademark: he would be entirely within his rights to sue the hell out of them. If it were Apple or Sun, he would have done this months ago.