Quite a lot actually. There's the summer of code, there's their code hosting service, there's what they contribute to various open source projects. Hell, they finance over 90% of the Mozilla Foundation, so most of the advances in Firefox are some attributable to Google.
Now, DiBona is still wrong on this - he's using the OSI license approval process to make a political statement. But, Google's done a lot for open source.
Sun may be taking this chance to drop out of the server markett
Not likely! In a recent blog entry, Sun was crowing about sales of their CoolThreads servers: "$550 Million in sales and a 225% growth rate - year over year." While that's only about 4% of their revenue, that growth rate is going to be hard to walk away from.
If you want something that cannot be deleted then you require a hardware solution. Any software "solution" will in some manner or form permit change and deletion. Now, you can come up with a software only solution to detect changes (that's actually not that hard), but that's not the same as preventing changes.
A Minnesota appeals court has ruled that the presence of encryption software on a computer may be viewed as evidence of criminal intent.
So, according to the morons on that court, even if you haven't actually encrypted any data, the fact that you had the tools to encrypt data was enough to judge criminal intent, sort of like possession of burglary tools. The problem, of course, is that encryption software has legitimate uses.
I wonder if any of those judges had Microsoft Office on their computers - if they did then they possessed encryption software and could be viewed as having criminal intent.
Geez, they took several things that have already been done and put them together in a straightforward manner. What the hell is innovative about that? It damn sure doesn't deserve patent protection.
Unlike many other Slashdotters, I do believe that software should be patentable. But only truly INNOVATIVE things. This doesn't qualify.
Notice how he says Linux and open source software? He doesn't make a claim on how many Linux itself infringes - and that is most certainly intentional. He's still painting with a VERY broad brush. Yes, it's quite possible that a bunch of projects nobody's ever heard of and nobody uses infringes on MS patents. BFD.
Until Stevie gets very specific about alleged infringement his claims CANNOT be taken seriously.
How the *fuck* does this apply to corporate sales disclosure? (Phone records are records of sales).
Simple, they are in essence claiming that any law (e.g. the Store Communications Act) which prohibits them from disclosing records they wish to disclose is unconstitutional because it violates their right to free speech.
It's an interesting argument that could fly with the current SCOTUS.
News flash: The first amendment does not restrict free speech to human beings. Here's the text to help you refresh your memory: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Further, Verizon isn't a person, so I'm not sure that it would qualify as an entity capable of weilding first amendment rights.
You might want to read up on natural persons and juristic persons. In particular, you might find this quote on juristic persons helpful: "In part as a matter of interpretation of the word 'person' in the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to legal entities."
What makes you think that what's legal and common sense have anything to do with one another?
Should Verizon being doing this? No.
Does that mean what they may have done is illegal? No.
(Well, technically - if they did turn over customer records without a warrant that would violate the Store Communications Act, but the SCA may not be Constitutional.)
Crashing is damn sure a way to provide a DoS. The Computerworld guy is absolutely right - just display an error dialog. Geesh, can't these guys admit a mistake?
Using tabs for separate windows in an app pre-dates FF's use of them. Using them in a browser is hardly innovative. Sounds to me like the Mozilla patent is just another BAD patent.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, DiBona is still wrong on this - he's using the OSI license approval process to make a political statement. But, Google's done a lot for open source.
If you want something that cannot be deleted then you require a hardware solution. Any software "solution" will in some manner or form permit change and deletion. Now, you can come up with a software only solution to detect changes (that's actually not that hard), but that's not the same as preventing changes.
If so, this law would put them right out of business!
Laws like this are SO wrong.
So, according to the morons on that court, even if you haven't actually encrypted any data, the fact that you had the tools to encrypt data was enough to judge criminal intent, sort of like possession of burglary tools. The problem, of course, is that encryption software has legitimate uses.
I wonder if any of those judges had Microsoft Office on their computers - if they did then they possessed encryption software and could be viewed as having criminal intent.
That problem certainly exists here. The survey was of self-selected participants.
It's archaic. It's like using HTML 1.0.
- The Year of the Linux Desktop! (2007)
- 2006: The year of desktop Linux?
- 2005 will be the year of the Linux Desktop
- Linux breaks desktop barrier in 2004: Torvalds
- I am convinced that 2003 is going to be the breakout year for Desktop Linux.
Try this instead: Year of the Linux desktop? Who cares!Unlike many other Slashdotters, I do believe that software should be patentable. But only truly INNOVATIVE things. This doesn't qualify.
Did Apple use ZFS under CDDL or did they negotiate a custom license with Sun, i.e. is Apple's ZFS implementation open source or not?
And wasn't very impressed. A few interesting historical tidbits, but nothing terribly useful.
Notice how he says Linux and open source software? He doesn't make a claim on how many Linux itself infringes - and that is most certainly intentional. He's still painting with a VERY broad brush. Yes, it's quite possible that a bunch of projects nobody's ever heard of and nobody uses infringes on MS patents. BFD.
Until Stevie gets very specific about alleged infringement his claims CANNOT be taken seriously.
It's an interesting argument that could fly with the current SCOTUS.
I've posted to this thread, so I can't really mod you up for that - so consider this a virtual mod up.
News flash: The first amendment does not restrict free speech to human beings. Here's the text to help you refresh your memory: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
What makes you think that what's legal and common sense have anything to do with one another?
Should Verizon being doing this? No.
Does that mean what they may have done is illegal? No.
(Well, technically - if they did turn over customer records without a warrant that would violate the Store Communications Act, but the SCA may not be Constitutional.)
Otherwise he's going to get dizzy and fall down.
Crashing is damn sure a way to provide a DoS. The Computerworld guy is absolutely right - just display an error dialog. Geesh, can't these guys admit a mistake?
Hope the person who wrote this isn't a programmer, I sure wouldn't want to use any software (s)he worked on.
The idea that the GPLv3 is likely safe from litigation because one case against GPLv2 was laughed out of court is itself laughable.
Microsoft provides a free virtual desktop manager as a part of PowerToys that works pretty well.
There was a great presentation at ETech about this. For more information on this kind of thing check out the RepRap Project.
Using tabs for separate windows in an app pre-dates FF's use of them. Using them in a browser is hardly innovative. Sounds to me like the Mozilla patent is just another BAD patent.
I think Google is quite right. DCMA seems to protect GooTube.
As I posted in a previous thread on the this general subject, Viacom's fight is not with GooTube - it's with Congress.