Is Red Hat's promise to 'refrain from enforcing the infringed patent' against open source a reliable contract
It isn't "open source". It's just a few select licenses, and popular licenses such as MIT, BSD and Apache are NOT on the list. Would Red Hat go after software licensed under one of these licenses? Who knows?
Most modern Windows viruses, including the fake-anti-malware malware that seems to be going around lately, don't require any user interaction whatsoever to get infected.
Then they likely aren't viruses, but other things such as worms.
It does make it easier to hack when the source code is available (though saying it can be done "with ease" is certainly hyperbole). However, it also makes it easier for good guys to find and fix security issues as well.
But in the end they're advocating "security through obscurity." There are numerous references available about why security through obscurity doesn't really work.
given that only days ago President Obama asked Scott McNealy, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems, to lead his open source charge and conduct a study and report back regarding the feasibility of the US government forgoing proprietary software and moving toward open source software solutions.
It certainly wasn't Obama, but SOMEONE in the administration that asked McNealy to write a paper on open source in government. That is not the same as leading a "charge."
Interestingly, Symantec reports earnings today. Gotta believe at least one of the analysts will ask about the reports (and be given a long winded "no comment."
I cannot believe someone is seriously asking this question. If Microsoft is going to worry about Linux vendor, it's going to be Red Hat, not Canonical.
There just aren't any good long term options today for either consumers or businesses. Yes, CDs and DVDs can fail, but there's another problem - in twenty years are there going to be working devices that can reliably read that media? Maybe, maybe not. Earlier this year, the Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA) started up a Long Term Data Retention group to address this very problem. Perhaps they'll be able to come up with something.
Until then the only "solution" is to migrate data from medium to medium every few years.
What's the biggest value to an average end user of most open source? It's not the source code. It's not that open source is more innovative or more secure (which is questionable and certainly not consistent across the majority of projects). It's the lower cost of open source. Whenever a company, any company, primarily competes on cost it's product is going to be commoditized. When that company's product is open source it's natural that open source equivalents to the company's proprietary extensions will be created unless the technology is just too complicated.
Of course, this general problem certainly isn't limited to open source or even software. Any company is going to be attacked from below (see the Innovator's Dilemma). Your company needs to find a way to constantly climb the value chain. If it doesn't it'll go out of business.
Obama was new and had to be vetted, thus of course there were more articles about him. Of course, there was more positive coverage of him vs McCain as McCain's campaign often lied and distorted things about Obama.
If Apple only says that the information provided is under NDA when you receive the rejection is that enforceable? I'm thinking it isn't because the person didn't agree to it beforehand.
I'm no lawyer, but I think they would have to put language in the submission form that says any replies may be under NDA and that when you submit your application you agree to this restriction.
That a patent is about HOW to do something, not the end result. So, just because Safari and Firefox have a similar feature doesn't mean that Microsoft is out in left field applying for a patent in the same area.
Between 43% and 47% of Americans have agreed during this 26-year time period with the creationist view that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.
Slashdot Mirror
Is Red Hat's promise to 'refrain from enforcing the infringed patent' against open source a reliable contract
It isn't "open source". It's just a few select licenses, and popular licenses such as MIT, BSD and Apache are NOT on the list. Would Red Hat go after software licensed under one of these licenses? Who knows?
Then they likely aren't viruses, but other things such as worms.
Who cares what Perens thinks anymore? He's just not relevant anymore.
It does make it easier to hack when the source code is available (though saying it can be done "with ease" is certainly hyperbole). However, it also makes it easier for good guys to find and fix security issues as well. But in the end they're advocating "security through obscurity." There are numerous references available about why security through obscurity doesn't really work.
LOL!
Dude, seriously. They restrict access to the public because of security reasons. Try accessing the site: you get a 403 Forbidden error.
Yes
That's a big assumption, and why would one assume that?
Both IPv4 and IPv6 headers have fields for the priority of the associated data...
It certainly wasn't Obama, but SOMEONE in the administration that asked McNealy to write a paper on open source in government. That is not the same as leading a "charge."
Interestingly, Symantec reports earnings today. Gotta believe at least one of the analysts will ask about the reports (and be given a long winded "no comment."
We already have Asianux, will there now be a Euronux?
LOL!
I cannot believe someone is seriously asking this question. If Microsoft is going to worry about Linux vendor, it's going to be Red Hat, not Canonical.
It's obviously unconstitutional.
That everyone else is driving Volvos too. What they describe won't protect from side or rear-end collisions.
Objection overruled.
There was a time when Jackson was relevant.
Is Bruce Perens even relevant anymore?
He seems like the Jessie Jackson of FOSS...
I don't think so...
There just aren't any good long term options today for either consumers or businesses. Yes, CDs and DVDs can fail, but there's another problem - in twenty years are there going to be working devices that can reliably read that media? Maybe, maybe not. Earlier this year, the Storage Networking Industry Association (SNIA) started up a Long Term Data Retention group to address this very problem. Perhaps they'll be able to come up with something.
Until then the only "solution" is to migrate data from medium to medium every few years.
What's the biggest value to an average end user of most open source? It's not the source code. It's not that open source is more innovative or more secure (which is questionable and certainly not consistent across the majority of projects). It's the lower cost of open source. Whenever a company, any company, primarily competes on cost it's product is going to be commoditized. When that company's product is open source it's natural that open source equivalents to the company's proprietary extensions will be created unless the technology is just too complicated.
Of course, this general problem certainly isn't limited to open source or even software. Any company is going to be attacked from below (see the Innovator's Dilemma). Your company needs to find a way to constantly climb the value chain. If it doesn't it'll go out of business.
Obama was new and had to be vetted, thus of course there were more articles about him. Of course, there was more positive coverage of him vs McCain as McCain's campaign often lied and distorted things about Obama.
Fair does not mean equal.
When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.
--- Humpty Dumpty
If Apple only says that the information provided is under NDA when you receive the rejection is that enforceable? I'm thinking it isn't because the person didn't agree to it beforehand.
I'm no lawyer, but I think they would have to put language in the submission form that says any replies may be under NDA and that when you submit your application you agree to this restriction.
You may not be serious, but without new laws legally speaking that's how this will likely be viewed
I don't know, that's why you look at the actual applications AND THEN make a judgement.
That a patent is about HOW to do something, not the end result. So, just because Safari and Firefox have a similar feature doesn't mean that Microsoft is out in left field applying for a patent in the same area.
Between 43% and 47% of Americans have agreed during this 26-year time period with the creationist view that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx
So, obviously not enough Americans understand science.