For reasons stated by most of the replies, the analogy is just plain dumb.
Software is intangible, it does not require constant resupply.
The stupid analogy made slightly less stupid should be: Did your grocery ever offer you free bread and milk, but then asked for it back because he thought you were planning to start selling bread and milk in your own store too?
Still... though IANAL, I wonder about "illegal". Breach of contract, sure. Illegal though? My layman's distinction is the "Call the cops? Or don't call the cops?" sort. I may be way off.
If the developer was doing this on his own time though... then wouldn't he have been the licensee? In other words, shouldn't BitMover's beef be with him personally, as opposed to an OSDL, an organisation their "bad guy" is tangentally involved with?
And anyways... is there any proof of this reverse-engineering? Or is it all in Larry's head? (To be clear, this last item I mention not in response to what you said; but as a reminder that we are dealing with unsubstantiated allegations of reverse-engineering until some evidence comes forward--which, I suspect will not happen, as Larry already solved the problem his way.)
Of course, some even dispute that any reverse-engineering has taken place. It has been suggested that Larry thinks "feature-matching" = "reverse-engineering".
Though I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced. Larry seemed to do a lot of subtle blame-shifting... and the whole OSDL/reverse-engineering thing is kind of odd.
OSDL is being penalised because some unrelated project they fund has some guy working on it who is also "reverse engineering" (some dispute whether the reverse engineering is not simply feature-matching) bitkeeper. (And yes, I understand the technicalities--I don't dispute that Larry is legally and contractually in the right.)
If Larry is a nice guy--and admittedly Linus, whose opinion should carry some weight here, seems to think so--he needs some people with PR skills far better than his own.
The OSDL is funding an unrelated project that employs some guy who also works on a project (not funded by OSDL) unrelated to the aforementioned one that seeks to reverse engineer BitKeeper.
Yes, I am utterly outraged too! Yes, Linus should go stand in the corner--at least until the new pope is chosen!!
Sure, this may be a violation of the license--but it's one hell of a slimy license.
Are OSDL employees allowed to call the ambulance if they see this guy bleeding to death on the street, or is that forbidden too (on account of aiding/facilitating further reverse engineering of BitKeeper)?
Larry McVoy always seems to say the politically correct thing... and yet despite (or perhaps because of) that, reading the article, he seems a character of subtle manipulativeness and businessy slime.
On a slightly different topic, I find it amusing that things turned out as they did. I vaguely recall reading Larry on the kernel mailing list semi-regularly tell Stallman to get off his ass and write something better.
Yeah, I know... reverse engineering, copy-cat, et cetera. Still... I feel this has a rather delicious irony to it.
I don't know why it doesn't work. But I hypothesize that "Save for Web" is a (more or less) "standalone" program that uses some Windows API that is as yet unimplemented in Wine.
Of course, Save for Web, offers no features that cannot be otherwise used.
And it was in anticipation of such an example being brought up that I chose my words carefully.
You are absolutely right. Works to avoid does not mean avoids--but, usually, it does so.
Of course, on the down side, because it is presumed that there will be no fragmentation, defragmentation tools are far less common for such file-systems.
In my experience SuSE and Debian are both considerably more "RTFM Distros" than Gentoo.
forums.gentoo.org is where I go if I am having trouble that cannot be solved by a preliminary web search. My questions are usually answered either within the hour or within a couple of days; and my problem is generally solved just as quickly.
If you're happy with your distro X, you need not be concerned with distros A-W, Y, and Z.
If you are not happy with your distro X, go to DistroWatch.com and find out about some other ones. They have a nice big list on the right, and short descriptions on each distro pages with links to reviews and homepages.
Slashdot Mirror
For reasons stated by most of the replies, the analogy is just plain dumb.
Software is intangible, it does not require constant resupply.
The stupid analogy made slightly less stupid should be: Did your grocery ever offer you free bread and milk, but then asked for it back because he thought you were planning to start selling bread and milk in your own store too?
That sounds plausible.
Still... though IANAL, I wonder about "illegal". Breach of contract, sure. Illegal though? My layman's distinction is the "Call the cops? Or don't call the cops?" sort. I may be way off.
If the developer was doing this on his own time though... then wouldn't he have been the licensee? In other words, shouldn't BitMover's beef be with him personally, as opposed to an OSDL, an organisation their "bad guy" is tangentally involved with?
And anyways... is there any proof of this reverse-engineering? Or is it all in Larry's head? (To be clear, this last item I mention not in response to what you said; but as a reminder that we are dealing with unsubstantiated allegations of reverse-engineering until some evidence comes forward--which, I suspect will not happen, as Larry already solved the problem his way.)
Obvious does not always equal right.
;)"
"PS. Don't bother telling me about subversion. If you must, start reading up on "monotone". That seems to be the most viable alternative, but don't pester the developers so much that they don't get any work done. They are already aware of my problems
Nobody stole. Reverse-engineering is legal.
Of course, some even dispute that any reverse-engineering has taken place. It has been suggested that Larry thinks "feature-matching" = "reverse-engineering".
And anyways: Reverse-engineering is legal.
Yes, I read Linus' post.
Though I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced. Larry seemed to do a lot of subtle blame-shifting... and the whole OSDL/reverse-engineering thing is kind of odd.
OSDL is being penalised because some unrelated project they fund has some guy working on it who is also "reverse engineering" (some dispute whether the reverse engineering is not simply feature-matching) bitkeeper. (And yes, I understand the technicalities--I don't dispute that Larry is legally and contractually in the right.)
If Larry is a nice guy--and admittedly Linus, whose opinion should carry some weight here, seems to think so--he needs some people with PR skills far better than his own.
The OSDL is funding an unrelated project that employs some guy who also works on a project (not funded by OSDL) unrelated to the aforementioned one that seeks to reverse engineer BitKeeper.
Yes, I am utterly outraged too! Yes, Linus should go stand in the corner--at least until the new pope is chosen!!
Sure, this may be a violation of the license--but it's one hell of a slimy license.
Are OSDL employees allowed to call the ambulance if they see this guy bleeding to death on the street, or is that forbidden too (on account of aiding/facilitating further reverse engineering of BitKeeper)?
Larry McVoy always seems to say the politically correct thing... and yet despite (or perhaps because of) that, reading the article, he seems a character of subtle manipulativeness and businessy slime.
On a slightly different topic, I find it amusing that things turned out as they did. I vaguely recall reading Larry on the kernel mailing list semi-regularly tell Stallman to get off his ass and write something better.
Yeah, I know... reverse engineering, copy-cat, et cetera. Still... I feel this has a rather delicious irony to it.
I don't know why it doesn't work. But I hypothesize that "Save for Web" is a (more or less) "standalone" program that uses some Windows API that is as yet unimplemented in Wine. Of course, Save for Web, offers no features that cannot be otherwise used.
And it was in anticipation of such an example being brought up that I chose my words carefully.
You are absolutely right. Works to avoid does not mean avoids--but, usually, it does so.
Of course, on the down side, because it is presumed that there will be no fragmentation, defragmentation tools are far less common for such file-systems.
Perhaps instead one ought look toward using linux with a modern filesystem that works to prevent fragmentation in the first place, like ReiserFS.
A wild guess:
Are you thinking of Argentina?
I'm sure they'd love to have their products run on Linux
They should be ecstatic then! Photoshop 7.0 runs perfectly on Linux under a basic unmodified Wine installation, sans its Save-for-Web feature.
In my experience SuSE and Debian are both considerably more "RTFM Distros" than Gentoo.
forums.gentoo.org is where I go if I am having trouble that cannot be solved by a preliminary web search. My questions are usually answered either within the hour or within a couple of days; and my problem is generally solved just as quickly.
One of the biggest things about NLD 10 is that it will have the desktop search engine Beagle as a feature.
Microsoft does not stand a chance!!
HEY!!
I *treasure* that week! %)
What exactly is the problem?
If you're happy with your distro X, you need not be concerned with distros A-W, Y, and Z.
If you are not happy with your distro X, go to DistroWatch.com and find out about some other ones. They have a nice big list on the right, and short descriptions on each distro pages with links to reviews and homepages.
DotGNU Homepage:
http://www.dotgnu.org/
DotGNU FAQ:
http://www.southern-storm.com.au/pnet_faq.html
How about Mono vs DotGNU?
Seems like that would be a pertinent comparison:
http://www.dotgnu.org/