"The reason RH "conviently" provides the source code on their FTP site is because they are REQUIRED to under the term of the GPL."
Incorrect. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.
The GPL requires that at least an offer of source be made to those who receive the binaries. This does not REQUIRE Red Hat to publish the code on an FTP site where ANYONE could can download it.
the defendant in such a case will be able to marshall all kinds of evidence that the patent was at the very least, precluded by prior art and was obvious.
The problem is that the first defendant in such a case may not have the financial resources to defend their use of the technique in court. Once a court precedent is set it becomes more difficult for subsequent defendants to challenge the patent.
Why can't a majority of Democrats ever win in congress?
Because they're fricking cowards! They won't stand up to the Republicans because they know the Republicans will spin anything the Dems do that doesn't match the Bush agenda as supporting terrorists. Further, they're scared that those in the middle will buy into that crap. And they have reason to believe it, it's how Bush got re-elected in 2004.
Senator Chris Dodd plans to put a hold on the Senate FISA renewal bill because it reportedly grants retroactive immunity to telephone companies for any role they played in the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program, Election Central has learned.
Dodd will send a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this afternoon informing him of his decision. Dodd also plans to put up a page today at his campaign Web site where opponents of the immunity provision can register their opposition.
Most technology progresses slowly. As people understand the technology they figure out ways to make it better. Examples include cars, airplanes, electronics and nuclear weapons. Software is hardly unique in this regard.
One says that you are not allowed to steal other people's things, the other says that you are not allowed to create certain things if someone else created it first.
Incomplete. IP rights also says you cannot simply COPY something that someone else has created.
The problem here is that Theo and others seem to not understand that their license is one that allows relicensing.
You sure about that? I look at the license text and I see "All Rights Reserved" followed by a grant of some rights provided certain conditions are met. It seems to follow that any rights not explicitly granted (e.g. the right to relicense) are therefore reserved to the copyright holder.
The BSD license terms require that the software, source and binary, MUST BE distributed with the same list of conditions!
Afraid not. It says that the list of existing conditions must be retained. It does NOT say that additional conditions cannot be added. The difference is subtle, but important.
That won't happen as long Congress critters need lots of money to get re-elected. Thus, we need public financing of elections. In the long run, it would be MUCH less expensive.
What the authors have done is to define the "fair-use economy" so broadly that it encompasses any business with even the most tangential relationship to the free use of copyrighted materials. Here's an example of the tortured logic by which they force-fit vast, multifaceted industries into the "fair use" category: Because "recent advances in processing speed and software functionality are being used to take advantage of the richer multi-media experience now available from the web," then the entire "computer and peripheral equipment manufacturing industry" qualifies as a "fair-use industry."
If so, then explain why Linux gets so much more commercial use and support than the BSDs?
Momentum.
After all, if what you wrote just above that:
The end-user needs the ability to get bugs fixed. If the manufacturer
refuses to fix a bug, the end-user needs the source code to be able to
fix the bug. Closed source products are simply unacceptable.
If so, then why does Windows get so much more commercial use and support than Linux?;-)
I'm mildly familiar with QFS (as part of some SAM/QFS clusters).. I thought that stuff was licensed? I didn't know Sun had the rights to redistribute under a libre license.. (or is this Project Indiana stuff gratis instead?)
QFS came from StorageTek, which Sun acquired not too long ago. Thus, they now own QFS. Gotta believe Sun did some serious due diligence on StorageTek's software prior to the acquisition.
What shared/global filesystem and clustering solution will Sun be providing to compete with Linux' free and relatively-mature clustering?
Clustering:
"Sun Microsystems will contribute to the community the source code for Solaris Cluster, Sun's commercial HA Cluster product group, under the name "Open High Availability Cluster.""
Shared file system: "Sun also plans to open source additional storage code over the next several months, including:... QFS Sun's shared file system software delivers significant scalability, data management, and throughput for the most data-intensive applications. Well known today in the traditional high performance computing (HPC) arena, QFS is increasingly being used in commercial environments that require multiple host, high speed access to large data repositories."
Both have been commercial products for a long time and are quite mature.
This is offensive bull.
I don't think you intended it that way, but you should be aware of the vast number of people you just insulted.
As a manager of mine once said, sometimes people TAKE offense. They take it where none was given. Sometimes people are looking to be offended - I suspect that's true in your case.
A CANONICAL format is generally preferred for storing data (e.g. storing time in GMT and then adjusting for local time). MS picked U.S. English as the canonical format for OOXML. They could have picked Swahili, but not as many people would be able to look at the text and understand it.
Not helpful at all, and illogical as well.
Perhaps if you had taken the chip off of your shoulder and taken a moment to understand what what was stated you would see the logic. But I doubt you're capable of that. Fortunately, most of the world is.
For example, the part about "Entered versus stored values" is certainly valid (though I wonder if that's not a problem with Excel itself, and not the format). The complaint about the date format is also on the money.
However, other things seem either wrong or have a bias towards hand editing of the files, e.g. "International, but US English first and foremost". He complains that it uses U.S. English settings. He may not like the U.S., but it's called picking a canonicalized format. Consider the alternative for implementing this in software, parsing of the values in the XML would now depend on settings also found in the XML. That would be insane.
The licenses should be rejected because there are too many open source licenses already.
Then, by your logic, OSI might as well close up shop, but only after rejecting GPLv3 and LGPLv3 - because there are too many open source licenses already.
Slashdot Mirror
"The reason RH "conviently" provides the source code on their FTP site is because they are REQUIRED to under the term of the GPL."
Incorrect. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.
The GPL requires that at least an offer of source be made to those who receive the binaries. This does not REQUIRE Red Hat to publish the code on an FTP site where ANYONE could can download it.
"Why does Red Hat tolerate CentOS?"
Because the GPL requires that they do so.
You mean like those that might be implemented in software?
Can't wait for the anti-software patent zealots to get a hold of this!
The problem is that the first defendant in such a case may not have the financial resources to defend their use of the technique in court. Once a court precedent is set it becomes more difficult for subsequent defendants to challenge the patent.
Because they're fricking cowards! They won't stand up to the Republicans because they know the Republicans will spin anything the Dems do that doesn't match the Bush agenda as supporting terrorists. Further, they're scared that those in the middle will buy into that crap. And they have reason to believe it, it's how Bush got re-elected in 2004.
gets away with repeatedly lying to Congress, you can't really blame Yahoo for thinking they could get away with it too!
Yeah, you make a new car by replacing the engine and leaving the chassis, transmission, steering, etc. all intact.
Real big difference...</sarcasm>
Most technology progresses slowly. As people understand the technology they figure out ways to make it better. Examples include cars, airplanes, electronics and nuclear weapons. Software is hardly unique in this regard.
Having used both EDGE and 3G (I'm posting this over an EDGE connection), I can say with great certainty that 3G beats the crap out of EDGE.
Altering is one thing. ADDING to it is something else...
Afraid not. It says that the list of existing conditions must be retained. It does NOT say that additional conditions cannot be added. The difference is subtle, but important.
Momentum.
After all, if what you wrote just above that:
If so, then why does Windows get so much more commercial use and support than Linux? ;-)
QFS came from StorageTek, which Sun acquired not too long ago. Thus, they now own QFS. Gotta believe Sun did some serious due diligence on StorageTek's software prior to the acquisition.
I'm sure the Solaris community will miss you!
But it just may be slowing it down:
Apparently you have. Java became the most popular language for projects on SourceForge back in 2005.
Clustering: "Sun Microsystems will contribute to the community the source code for Solaris Cluster, Sun's commercial HA Cluster product group, under the name "Open High Availability Cluster.""
Shared file system: "Sun also plans to open source additional storage code over the next several months, including: ... QFS Sun's shared file system software delivers significant scalability, data management, and throughput for the most data-intensive applications. Well known today in the traditional high performance computing (HPC) arena, QFS is increasingly being used in commercial environments that require multiple host, high speed access to large data repositories."
Both have been commercial products for a long time and are quite mature.
As a manager of mine once said, sometimes people TAKE offense. They take it where none was given. Sometimes people are looking to be offended - I suspect that's true in your case.
A CANONICAL format is generally preferred for storing data (e.g. storing time in GMT and then adjusting for local time). MS picked U.S. English as the canonical format for OOXML. They could have picked Swahili, but not as many people would be able to look at the text and understand it.
Perhaps if you had taken the chip off of your shoulder and taken a moment to understand what what was stated you would see the logic. But I doubt you're capable of that. Fortunately, most of the world is.
For example, the part about "Entered versus stored values" is certainly valid (though I wonder if that's not a problem with Excel itself, and not the format). The complaint about the date format is also on the money.
However, other things seem either wrong or have a bias towards hand editing of the files, e.g. "International, but US English first and foremost". He complains that it uses U.S. English settings. He may not like the U.S., but it's called picking a canonicalized format. Consider the alternative for implementing this in software, parsing of the values in the XML would now depend on settings also found in the XML. That would be insane.