It doesn't. The cost of greater than 99.999% uptime is usually too great. Consider that 99.999% uptime means less than one hour downtime over an entire year. That's really not that much in most circumstances. Inconvenient? Sometimes. The cost would probably double to make that 99.9999% uptime. I just ain't willing to pay it.
After scanning through the claims in both patents, this is about routing scanned images onto hierarchical storage. Even back in 1997 this shouldn't have passed the obviousness test.
And so what? Microsoft played lots of games to get OOXML pushed through ISO and IBM is fighting back. It's not like Microsoft's motives are pure in this...
Evidence? Take a look at the blogs of "Bob Sutor" (IBM's VP of Standards and Open Source) and "Rob Weir" (an IBM employee who heads the ODF Technical Committee). There isn't any question that IBM has being doing this.
The real question should be: so what?
Microsoft wants OOXML made a standard entirely for business reasons (and have played hardball in trying to make it happen). IBM wants to stop that from happening for entirely business reasons. While there are certainly technical deficiencies with OOXML, if everyone were fixed IBM would still oppose making OOXML a standard.
My message to Microsoft is: you reap what you sow.
This bias however has nothing whatsoever to do with:
Actually, it does. Take the latest squabble over Trend Micro's patent infringement suit against Barracuda. In that article, PJ writes "And Trend Micro has accused ClamAV of infringing a patent it owns..." That simply is not true. It's obvious to anyone that's actually read the documents that it isn't true, but PJ wrote it anyway. I'm sure PJ read the documents, so...
I had previously said the guy couldn't do this, but it looks like he can for the most part, at least in the U.S. From U.S. 17:
In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978, otherwise than by will, is subject to termination under the following conditions:
Nothing I see in the conditions would seem to prohibit the guy from doing this, in particular:
Termination of the grant may be effected notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, including an agreement to make a will or to make any future grant.
There is an exception for derived works created prior to the revocation, but other than that...
According to US law, it is a license (and because of the lack of consideration, it couldn't possibly be a contract).
Check out McCoy v Mitsuboshi Cutlery, where the court held: 'Whether express or implied, a license is a contract "governed by ordinary principles of state contract law."'
There's an old saying among lawyers - something isn't so until a judge says it is. Well, a judge said this was so.
I don't understand the no-consideration angle. GPLing your project is a great way to get publicity and attract developers. That's got at least as much value as a Want-Ad posting. And testers aren't free.
You're not considering the legal meaning of consideration. From Wikipedia: "Consideration is what must be given up by each party when making an agreement." What has the licensee agreed to give up in the case of the GPL?
Simple answer, if you want to retain ownership of your code and protect it from the hooliganism of the leftist GPL supporters, don't go for the GPL.
The guy retains ownership of the code, he doesn't retain full control of the code because he CHOSE to give others rights via the GPL. He can't change his mind now, despite his claims to the contrary.
All your questions are answered in the GPL. Anyone who has a license can redistribute the code under the GPL. The ONLY reason for termination given in the GPL is failing to comply with the terms of the license. Thus, people who have the software can continue to use it and can continue to redistribute it to new users - as long as they continue to comply with the license.
Remember that the copyright owner owns the software and all rights to it.
Wrong, he gave rights to the software via the license. Check out section #4 of the GPL:
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
In other words, the license anticipates termination and the owner changing his mind isn't one of the reasons listed that allows for termination. The guy can claim anything he wants, that doesn't make it legally binding.
He can certainly relicense the code, but he can't revoke the license for existing code. From #4:
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't. The cost of greater than 99.999% uptime is usually too great. Consider that 99.999% uptime means less than one hour downtime over an entire year. That's really not that much in most circumstances. Inconvenient? Sometimes. The cost would probably double to make that 99.9999% uptime. I just ain't willing to pay it.
Banking provides a decent amount of money to Sessions campaign coffers, but not an overwhelming amount. See http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?CID=N00003062&cycle=2008
After scanning through the claims in both patents, this is about routing scanned images onto hierarchical storage. Even back in 1997 this shouldn't have passed the obviousness test.
The GPL is largely untested, yet developers use it all the time.
You mean like how Linux zealots are constantly bashing Windows for "being bad"?
NTFS has had that for a while now.
Suggest you check out Windows System Resource Manager
The real problem here seems to be not Windows, but your ignorance about Windows.
Linux doesn't have nasty defects like Windows. At least that's what all the Linux zealots claim.
Dude, I didn't even mention anything about "threatening." Don't post when you're drunk.
And so what? Microsoft played lots of games to get OOXML pushed through ISO and IBM is fighting back. It's not like Microsoft's motives are pure in this...
Bzzt! Incorrect. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
IBM makes services revenue by convincing customers to convert their existing Word files (in the binary formats) to ODF.
Evidence? Take a look at the blogs of "Bob Sutor" (IBM's VP of Standards and Open Source) and "Rob Weir" (an IBM employee who heads the ODF Technical Committee). There isn't any question that IBM has being doing this.
The real question should be: so what?
Microsoft wants OOXML made a standard entirely for business reasons (and have played hardball in trying to make it happen). IBM wants to stop that from happening for entirely business reasons. While there are certainly technical deficiencies with OOXML, if everyone were fixed IBM would still oppose making OOXML a standard.
My message to Microsoft is: you reap what you sow.
Actually, it does. Take the latest squabble over Trend Micro's patent infringement suit against Barracuda. In that article, PJ writes "And Trend Micro has accused ClamAV of infringing a patent it owns..." That simply is not true. It's obvious to anyone that's actually read the documents that it isn't true, but PJ wrote it anyway. I'm sure PJ read the documents, so...
Groklaw is a very biased site and thus what you find on it should be viewed with skepticism.
You don't seem to understand that the law trumps what the license says.
I had previously said the guy couldn't do this, but it looks like he can for the most part, at least in the U.S. From U.S. 17:
Nothing I see in the conditions would seem to prohibit the guy from doing this, in particular:
There is an exception for derived works created prior to the revocation, but other than that...Check out McCoy v Mitsuboshi Cutlery, where the court held: 'Whether express or implied, a license is a contract "governed by ordinary principles of state contract law."'
There's an old saying among lawyers - something isn't so until a judge says it is. Well, a judge said this was so.
You're not considering the legal meaning of consideration. From Wikipedia: "Consideration is what must be given up by each party when making an agreement." What has the licensee agreed to give up in the case of the GPL?
The guy retains ownership of the code, he doesn't retain full control of the code because he CHOSE to give others rights via the GPL. He can't change his mind now, despite his claims to the contrary.
I wouldn't let what the FSF says be the sole basis for an opinion. Some of what they claim is highly questionable, legally speaking.
Most legal folks outside of the FSF seem to believe that a license IS a contract, not withstanding the lack of consideration.
All your questions are answered in the GPL. Anyone who has a license can redistribute the code under the GPL. The ONLY reason for termination given in the GPL is failing to comply with the terms of the license. Thus, people who have the software can continue to use it and can continue to redistribute it to new users - as long as they continue to comply with the license.
Wrong, he gave rights to the software via the license. Check out section #4 of the GPL:
In other words, the license anticipates termination and the owner changing his mind isn't one of the reasons listed that allows for termination. The guy can claim anything he wants, that doesn't make it legally binding.
Actually, it probably is a contract, despite the FSF's claims to the contrary.
Afraid not. Thanks for playing, we have some nice parting gifts for you.
He can certainly relicense the code, but he can't revoke the license for existing code. From #4: