To facilitate multiple users listening at once, an incredibly fast license "swapper" could exchange the owners back and forth, hopefully without adding any noticable pops, clicks or pauses to the audio.
You would be correct with "have eventually fallen". Although, the best model of human and societal behaviour, reality, has shown that people are just too easy to corrupt. True, the past is not enough of an indicator of future success, but it is a model. Then again, all civilizations, no matter what systems they use, fall and cycle through stages of totalitarianism.
Yeah, I never said communism is the cause of totalitarianism; it's just that they are equated because most (all?) communist experiments eventually fall to it.
Free Lunch!
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
At a more general level... he found the entire free-software trend "communistic", he says: "We don't get the whole free-lunch thing."
It's not about "free-lunch" and he knows it! This more appropriately equates to "We don't get the whole free-speech thing." This happens to fit with a quote in this story:
Darl McBride, current CEO, says the last straw for SCO was at Linux World this year. "An IBM executive stood up and basically announced, 'We're moving our AIX (Unix) expertise into Linux, and we're going to destroy the value of Unix,' " says McBride, who contends that
the statement alone was a violation of IBM's AIX contract. (emphasis added)
He wants a closed system, where any advancements made are the sole property of a central organization who can there-by control the market, and we're the communists? Alright, maybe in a classical sense of communism, the Open Source movement does share some traits. However, in the derogatory fashion he implies, SCOs recent actions much closer resemble the totalitarian regimes of applied communism.
If the law states that you were for some reason or other ( like ignorance. You can't be held to terms that weren't expressed in the contract, for instance) incapable of making a valid agreement ( like you were wacked out on crack at the time. You can try to get a client drunk and then get him to sign, but it won't hold up in court if he chooses to challange it).
Which leads to two questions:
1. If I was drunk, would EULAs not apply to me?
2. Is SCO innocent of breaking all contracts (ie. the GPL by releasing Linux) because "they are smoking crack"?
How about patenting the idea of patenting...The practice of patenting an object, idea, or business process, to prevent competition in a market. Then every company would be screwed!!
Does anyone think it would be possible (or has it already been done) to patent opensource. The practice of creating a software program, released without cost or restrictions on use, producing revenue flow through service contracts. Then you could sue everyone who releases any software under any type of open license.
Crack = Steal from everyone around you just to support your habit, which, by the way is, is ultimately leading to your demise.
LSD = Happy-Go-Lucky, give all your toys away to the next "Nice" looking person. Even on a bad trip, it's usually just a matter of not trusting anyone around you, but you be stealing something (except maybe your trip-partner's soul MUHAHAHA)
I think the crack analogy is more appropriate. I suppose the paranoia factor of a bad LSD experience could correlate to this situation, but overall, crack is better... I mean acid is better, but crack is more appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
He isn't really selling the media or the content. He is selling the license/"right"/whatever to access said content.
To facilitate multiple users listening at once, an incredibly fast license "swapper" could exchange the owners back and forth, hopefully without adding any noticable pops, clicks or pauses to the audio.
You would be correct with "have eventually fallen". Although, the best model of human and societal behaviour, reality, has shown that people are just too easy to corrupt. True, the past is not enough of an indicator of future success, but it is a model. Then again, all civilizations, no matter what systems they use, fall and cycle through stages of totalitarianism.
Yeah, I never said communism is the cause of totalitarianism; it's just that they are equated because most (all?) communist experiments eventually fall to it.
If the law states that you were for some reason or other ( like ignorance. You can't be held to terms that weren't expressed in the contract, for instance) incapable of making a valid agreement ( like you were wacked out on crack at the time. You can try to get a client drunk and then get him to sign, but it won't hold up in court if he chooses to challange it).
Which leads to two questions:
1. If I was drunk, would EULAs not apply to me?
2. Is SCO innocent of breaking all contracts (ie. the GPL by releasing Linux) because "they are smoking crack"?
How about patenting the idea of patenting...The practice of patenting an object, idea, or business process, to prevent competition in a market. Then every company would be screwed!!
Does anyone think it would be possible (or has it already been done) to patent opensource. The practice of creating a software program, released without cost or restrictions on use, producing revenue flow through service contracts. Then you could sue everyone who releases any software under any type of open license.
Crack = Steal from everyone around you just to support your habit, which, by the way is, is ultimately leading to your demise. LSD = Happy-Go-Lucky, give all your toys away to the next "Nice" looking person. Even on a bad trip, it's usually just a matter of not trusting anyone around you, but you be stealing something (except maybe your trip-partner's soul MUHAHAHA) I think the crack analogy is more appropriate. I suppose the paranoia factor of a bad LSD experience could correlate to this situation, but overall, crack is better... I mean acid is better, but crack is more appropriate.