Good point, and I did try to do this. I just noticed the scoring and thought that the "Interesting" rating was, if anything, more than deserved to a +5 Comment.
It's difficult to metamoderate only on the single moderation, there's particularly an interaction with "Overrated", but I do agree that the metamoderator should try to do this.
I got the chance to try MetaModeration and I really enjoyed it.
While MetaModerating I saw a +5 Comment today that I hadn't seen before. If anything, I felt that this Comment deserved an even higher rating (but I gave it a "fair" realizing that this was topped out).
It got me thinking. Perhaps you could allow people to give their points to a Comment even after it was topped out at 5. The Comment itself would stay at 5, but you could keep this surplus attached to the Comment, but not visible to readers. Then, every week or perhaps every few days, you could have a feature which would capture the top, or perhaps the top few Comments of the week based on surplus points. I would recommend never displaying the surplus points as it might lead to Moderator abuse with people trying to support some cause or another at the expense of objectivity. Perhaps these featured Comments could be displayed with some MetaComments containing the Comments that this one was in answer to or about the background context surrounding the Comment (like the background of the Author if this person is famous). I know that I would enjoy such a feature. As it is, I'm not able to keep up with very much of/. and even if I had read the featured Comment, I'm sure that I would enjoy reading these really good Comments again.
Maybe this would work go along with allowing Moderators more points to assign too, as many are requesting. In fact, it might be nice to assign Moderators points on a sliding scale. Moderators who just make the minimum criteria, like first time Moderators, could get 5 points to assign, while old hands with extremely high Karma would get 10. Such a scheme may help to improve Moderation in a number of ways.
Perhaps I'm odd, but I think that I've become more thoughtful in my posts since I'm now aware of my Karma. I would guess that others feel the same way. Tying Karma together with getting extra Moderator points, and allowing those with higher Karma to Moderate (and MetaModerate) more often might make it kind of a prestige thing. Pride before your peers is a powerful motivator.
Sure, the Linux distribution vendors are competing with each other. JoeBuck gave you that in his posting .
The question is, is this a good thing? Will they attempt to differentiate on value or try to lock you in with incompatibilities, as the Unix vendors have done?
There's been a lot of talk on/. recently about ethics. I've always thought that the practice of going out of your way to decrease the value of a product to increase revenue is unethical. Hardware vendors used to do this all the time. The fact that the first 486 SX chips actually went through an extra process step to disable the floating point processor is an example of this. Intel later developed a 486 core without the floating point processor, but doing that initially was wrong. I could list off a half-dozen less famous examples in hardware, but you get the idea.
The same thing happens in software. A company will implement unnecessary source level incompatibilities just to make porting large systems difficult. POSIX helped some, but it still happens.
Perhaps a summit of the Linux distribution vendors is in order. Maybe someone could draft a "Treaty" that all will be asked to sign. Signatories would be allowed to display some Trademark in advertising. Something like "Linux Common Compatibility Assured - Version 1", or something that captures this idea.
At a minimum, it would assure that all Linux distributions support some set of FSF compilers/libraries/headers, that some "standard" set of X Windows headers/libraries/Server be available. Maybe a "standard" Perl, Python, Tcl/Tk, GTk, etc. etc. will install and work directly on the system with a provided installation/configuration procedure.
The vendors would be free to provide newer releases of any of these things, but the distribution should work with some agreed upon set.
The vendors product would be "out of compliance" if it is shown that they are engaging in a bad faith effort to break any of the agreed upon software interfaces. It's too much to ask the vendors that all of these software interfaces work to some level of compliance. The validation would be way too expensive and lead to endless debate and problems, especially with regard to validation on different architectures.
What do people think? Would this address a problem? Or would this kind of compliance be just another check list kind of thing that didn't mean very much?
You might be able to argue that Oak was developed to run appliances, but somebody got the idea to embed it into browsers to create an IT infrastructure to challenge Microsoft. They then renamed it Java.
Oak would never have seen the light of day had it not been for this anti-Microsoft strategy on Sun's part. I'll stick by what I said before, Java exists to attack Microsoft.
Sun has a serious credibility problem if it only provides a server-side solution. Especially when their biggest software initiative, Java, is really directed at displacing Windows on the desktop.
Sun's roots are in Workstations, they still make money in Workstations and have done suprisingly well in this market. I believe you'll find that they are not losing market share there.
This will sell well into accounts where Sun already has a strong Server presence. In completes their offerings. Now, Sun can more seriously address the whole IT infrastructure.
Sun will try to make this a lever into new accounts where those with lots of Windows desktops have been concerned that there would be integration problems. This may be an uphill battle for Sun.
There could be a huge growth potential here in "green screen" applications. Windows has failed to go into a whole bunch of markets (POS, Banks, ATMs, etc.) that are still dominated by green screens because the PC/Windows TCO (think maintenance) is way too high. If Sun is able to get an attractive TCO here, then the NC could finally take off. These markets are extremely conservative, so they have not been attracted by the Java/NC hype today. If Sun can deploy a lot of working NCs they might be able to better make inroads. Once they had a significant presence in these kind of applications, a lot of typical desktops could follow.
Microsoft is trying to address the green screen market with various Windows CE initiatives. If Sun looks to be making inroads here, expect a huge investment on Microsoft's part to fight it.
It is an intolerable situation for Sun, in the long term, for MS and/or Linux to dominate the desktop in their accounts. Ultimately, Linus is right, who controls the desktop controls the industry.
The biggest seller of PCs in Britain selling machines with Linux and SO pre-installed, eh?
Well, now isn't THIS interesting.
Maybe this is yet an additional motivation for Sun to purchase Star Division?
Think about it. You work in a Solaris shop. All the technical staff are sold that Unix is the way and Windows is not to blight the desktops. Even the secretaries and non-technical management types must use Unix so as to be supportable. And, it's not just all bigotry really. For people to really work in that environment, they need solid X-Windows, NFS, SMTP/IMAP support that's not a toy, etc. etc.
Now, the computer store down the street is selling desktops with Linux and SO pre-installed for under $1,000. You've always bought $4,000-$5,000 Solaris workstations before. You've played with Solaris/X86 too, but it's quite a bit more expensive than Linux. Always requires someone to sit down and install and configure it Solaris and Star Office, too. A pre-installed Linux system sure starts to look attractive. A lot of the technical staff use it at home, and some of them have started using it at work for the odd job, so there's no fear of the unknown.
What does this do to Solaris desktop sales? And if the desktops all go to Linux, how long until they start to look at it for low-end servers and then...
The test will be if PCs with Linux/SO pre-installed will continue to be available, at the same prices, as before Sun purchased Star Division.
Seriously, the problem with this goes to the heart of why Linux and GPL are so vibrant.
Java exists to attack Microsoft. Everybody knows this. Java is a top-down marketing strategy to hit 'em where it hurts. In a way, Java is just another closed product that claims to fit needs that Microsoft has missed. Java is essentially fighting fire with fire.
People think that Linux is just Anything But Microsoft, but it's not really. It's an organic, bottom-up movement. Linux grows into what people need and want, in a direction that provides a stable, useful tool.
This is exactly the opposite of the direction that Microsoft products take. Microsoft products grow in a direction that increases your hunger for more Microsoft products and new releases of the old ones.
Linux and GPL in general being so completely different than the MS-wares makes people believe that it's a directed attack on MS, but it's not. Linux users generally just have work to get done and Linux does it for them. I won't deny that some Linux users ALSO enjoy the Anything But Microsoft aspect of Linux, but this isn't the raison d'etre for Linux as it is for Java. Linux is like fighting fire with water.
Linux being completely different than Microsoft products, gives Microsoft little leverage to try and defeat it. The Holloween Memos show that they don't know what to do, and the "Labor Day Memo" pokes fun at the possibility of their using their standard tactics.
It should go without saying that they never support this product, fail to mention it on most of their web pages, remove all references to it from their Knowledge Base, charge exorbitant prices for it (while also distributing it free in computer books) and include the 49.7 day bug.
The obvious problem with L++ is that there would be no community support for it. If MS didn't support it heavily (as you suggest), and the Linux community wouldn't touch it (as I would guess) then it would be stillborn. Anyone who tried to make it work would give up on it almost immediately when they found they couldn't get any support for their problems.
Then, after dividing the market, there's no way Linux could sue them.
Dividing the market just isn't a problem with Linux the way it would be with Java. Java only works at all if it works exactly the same everywhere. Something called Linux works if it works anywhere. People who were interested in getting work done with a stable platform that has rich functionality (love those MS buzzwords!) in Internet applications just use some version of Linux. It doesn't hurt Linux that there are branches. If somebody sees things from two different branches that could productively brought together into one, this can be done fairly easily.
Once you've used Linux somewhere for an application it's just dirt cheap to clone that success N times. The incremental costs are often near 0 as you can use old computers that have long since been amortized down to nothing and just happen to be laying around. As MS knows from their experience of marginalizing Netscape, you just can't compete with free.
Notice how often the "Learn Java Now, Ask me How" ad from Sun is gracing the banner position of Slashdot lately?
Star Division was purchased by Sun and Star Office is being release by Sun for many complex and overlapping reasons. Not the least of which is to increase the profile and use of Java in apps that people actually use, rather than just endlessly develop.
Remember Corel's Office project in Java? Lotus failed at it too.
One of the problem with those early attempts at Office Productivity suites was that Java was immature 2 years ago when they were trying to make it work. In addition, machines were just a little slow to make it attractive to users. Many Java implementations have improved the raw execution speed lately. In this same period, Moore's law has not only not been repealed, but things are a bit ahead of predictions. Certainly, with the pressure from "free PCs", there has been a tremendous improvement in the price/performance ratio. So, we might be looking at Java execution times anywhere from 2x to 3x what they were 2 years ago (at a lower machine cost) when people first rejected Java as being "too slow".
All the analysts are predicting a Java based future, but the reality was starting to close in. Baratz quit a little while ago saying that his job was just too hard, required too much of a commitment. Microsoft just got a Judge to rule that they will be allowed to pollute the Java waters for a little while longer. Hardly anyone is using Java applications yet. Linux is stealing all the IT press that Java once enjoyed. Things were starting to look cloudy in the once SUNny Java sky.
In one fell swoop, Sun has jump started Java in a big way. I think it was a master stroke. Now, a lot of the Linux workers' - who think this is about destroying MS - attention will be drawn to installing/porting/tweaking Star Office. Java will get a big boost in the number of highly skilled people who can program in it.
As much as I think Scott McNealy would love to stick it to Microsoft, I don't believe that he does things that aren't fundamentally good business. Another really important aspect of this move was to give Solaris credibility and mindshare as a desktop OS, especially timed right before the W2K hype machine spins up for a media blitz and it's even sweeter if MS has to come out with another delay to the W2K release date like I'm starting to hear rumors about.
As much as the Jesse Berst's of the world like to spin this as a move of spiteful jealousy on McNealy's part, I think that giving Bill Gates a migraine is just gravy.
I've come into possession of this email from Steve Ballmer to Bill Gates which lays it all out.
From: Steve Ballmer To: Bill Gates Subject: Linux Strategy Date: September 6, 1999
Bill,
I've been working out a strategy to combat Linux on the desktop and I think I have a few important key directions we can take to beat them at their own game.
As you know, we've been incredibly successful in the past few years in combatting the menace posed by the Internet, I think we can leverage that experience in combatting the Linux Threat.
First, the growth of companies like RedHat poses the biggest challenge. We need to come up with a strategy that will give us control over this burgeoning Linux market and wrest it from those pesky startups. It occurs to me that we can offer a Linux distribution (MS/Linux) of our own, price it competitively at stores, and offer it free for download over the Internet. This will allow us to cut off the air supply of companies like RedHat.
We can get the folks at Mindcraft to pre-configure the server elements to optimize this technology to assure our continued competitive advantage.
Next, we have to address the simple development environment that has made it possible for just anybody to write programs for Linux at virtually no cost and requiring no expensive IDE or 4-inch thick books like "Learn Active/DCOM/Visual Basic Internet Development in 19 days for Dummies!".
Linux supports a number of powerful development languages, but the one I'm most concerned about is C. All of the Linux Kernel was written in it and most of the free software for Linux is being developed in C with just a text editor.
What we need to do is poison the C landscape with our own version of the language that will fragment the C programming marketplace. Sure, you say "But, we've been doing this for years with VC++ Visual Studio.", but I'm thinking of something a lot more dramatic that will really spread across the industry.
In this regard, I think an utter redesign of low-level memory management facilities in the C language is in order. What we've come up with in marketing is a new set of routines with MSalloc() to replace malloc(). With our years of experience in corrupted heap management, I'm sure that our big brains down in the lab can come up with an utterly incompatible API that we'll force all of our MS/Linux code to use. We'll remove malloc() and it's cousins from all libraries on MS/Linux. Maybe we should integrate MSalloc() into all the Windows code too. I'm pretty sure that malloc() problems are at the heart of a lot of our OS instability problems. Maybe an API redesign is just what we need here.
We'll need to move quickly on this as Linux sales are shooting through the roof. With any luck, this time next year we'll be looking at RedHat and all the rest of those pretenders marginalized just like what we did to Netscape.
Thanks.
Steve
When I saw this, I couldn't help but be amazed at their thinking. Microsoft is demonstrating to me that they are certainly a company that can quickly adapt to a changing marketplace!
There is occasionally a ST:V or ST:DS9 episode that's worthwhile.
It's frustrating, because most of them are such dreck. And, how many start out interesting and develop well only to have a really cheesy ending that wraps everything up in the last 2 minutes?
All the first amendment covers is what powers Congress has to limit speech and religion. It says nothing about what Rob Malda or any other private citizen can do.
Yes, yes. We know that Rob Malda has the legal right to determine the content in a facility that he manages.
The issue is whether there should be any limitations and if there are limitations where they should be./. encourages free and open speech, even at the risk of noise and unpopular opinions for the same basic reason that the US Constitution prohibits the Government from limiting free and open speech.
When we limit speech we may be making it more difficult for important alternate views to be heard. It seems to me that/. is all about alternate views.
It's not a legal issue, it's an issue of right and wrong. Issues of right and wrong are only difficult to those with morals. I'm glad to see that the/. community as a whole and the administrators of/. are struggling with this.
Not true, they have free beer all the time, but they always ask for it back and due to the ethics you are required to follow if you work there, you have to give it to them.
A counter-example can disprove a universal generalization. I didn't see as I made any universal generalizations, except that I said that I didn't know of any commercial interests who were "forced" to open their code because the code no longer had any value to them. You didn't present any counter-examples to disprove this assertion.
With the GPL we don't have to trust in the benevolence of those who might develop closed branches to a development that we started. I gave the specific example of BSDI where this happened.
Has Caldera commited to publishing all Wine modifications and placing them in the public domain? If so, how nice of them. The next corporate interest may not be so charitable.
I still point at what has happened with BSD vs. Linux. BSD advocates claim that the BSD kernel is technically superior. I have no reason to doubt them. Why is it that Linux attracts and maintains a larger development and support infrastructure? I would say it's due to the GPL.
Even corporate interests freely release improvements to the GPL'd code because they want the modifications for their own goals and publishing them only puts them on an even footing with potential competitors. If the code is BSD style licensed, there is motivation to keep the modifications proprietary as to maintain an advantage over potential competitors.
If we, as consumers of source code, want the largest possible library to build on, it seems that publishing under GPL is one thing that should be seriously considered.
If we want our code to be proprietary, why not just publish under our own copyright and grant licenses as we see fit? Publishing under BSD style licenses can lead to derivative being made proprietary, after all. As authors, it seems we might have some interest in what becomes of our works. If someone else is going to build upon our work and make it "their own" by making the derivative proprietary, we might as well beat them to it and get our own restrictive copyright on the original so that we can have some say in this.
While I can see why someone might feel that a proprietary copyright might bring them some advantage, what specific advantage is there to a BSD style license vs. GPL? Is it that you believe, as others seem to, that the GPL is designed to "destroy the software industry"?
When I feel really paranoid I sometime entertain thoughts about the powers that be and how we may manipulated.
Now, I think the Internet is a wonderful thing. I think that it allows people to communicate much more easily without the gatekeeper institutionalized filters like the press being involved. Access to more information, even if the quality of it is questionable, is a Good Thing in my opinion.
Having said this, I'm not sure I understand the attraction of the Internet Economy. eCommerce is only marginally better than the JC Penny catalog and the phone or (oh no!) The Home Shopping Network. Sure, eShopping via web sites has some advantages, but they seem to be rather marginal ones that wouldn't directly impact most consumers.
Where's the huge win with on-line brokers? With cable TV and a phone you can just about have the same kind of access to financial markets.
Having news delivered by the Internet is only marginally better than CNN, really.
We're rushing headlong into a new Internet with many times the bandwidth of what it is today. Why, someday soon, it's promised that we'll be able to do everything we do with TV and Radio over the Internet!
Of course, I don't want TV and Radio over the Internet. I like this public discourse using written language. It allows us to be reflective, to have a record of what is said and to digest it in it's time, not in real-time, not in sound bites. If I wanted TV and Radio, well, I know where to find them.
Sometimes, I wonder if the Internet economy really isn't being pushed down our throats in an effort to centralize many institutions that are currently handled in a patch-work fashion. This will accelerate the ability of the big mega-corporations to take over these functions (news, commerce, libraries, credit, etc. etc.) and gain greater control over our lives. I just heard a report yesterday on the Radio that local merchants are concerned that they will increasingly be losing customers to eBusiness.
And it's not just the mega-corporations either. If, in some future where all of our information and communication is over the Internet, evil forces in the Government could declare a state of emergency (say, by denotating a nuclear weapon in a populated area, or looking the other way as some terrorist does this) and easily lock down all of our institutions by just gaining control over the big Internet pipes. They could make encryption instantly illegal and jack-booted thugs (who actually believe that those who encrypt are most likely child molesters and/or nuclear terrorists) would break down your door and haul you off if you dared to communicate where they couldn't listen in. News would be carefully managed and controlled. Commerce (food, water, etc.) would be allowed for those who cooperated.
Now, Internet voting is being explored.
sigh... Somehow, I just don't feel good about this. I don't care what kind of technology is backing this up, if the computers are run by sinister forces, they could just tell us who won and we really wouldn't be able to question it. It's not like we can get a court order to lock down the ballot boxes and count the slips ourselves.
Oh, wait a minute, this can't happen, everyone in the Government is benevolent, mega-corporations only have consumer interests at heart. I'm really sorry I brought up these ramblings. Really.
Companies using X: SGI, Sun Microsystems, IBM, Compaq, SCO, and everyone else who sells X Windows. Remember, X wasn't created for Linux. X has been an industry standard for 15+ years and *EVERYONE* has their hands in it.
You make a good point here. Part of the success of X was that a large group, the X-Consortium of companies, agreed to support this development and contribute improvements to the community at large. Very much GPL like. Since the demise of the X-Consortium very little has been done to improve X.
Companies using BSD: SGI (Irix), Sun Microsystems (SunOS, Solaris), IBM (AIX, the recently acquired Whistle), Compaq (DEC UNIX), Microsoft (Win95 and NT).
I was wrong about the license on Apache, it's true, now it's your turn. What people usually call Solaris, as opposed to SunOS, is based on Sys V, not BSD. DEC UNIX (now called Compaq Tru64 UNIX) came out of OSF/1, which is not based on BSD. AIX is based on AT&T Sys 5. Sure, a lot of these companies included BSD utilities or code here and there, no doubt. They also distributed a lot of FSF utilities with those systems.
But, it's a quibble anyway. I never argued that what you call "truly free" software didn't create value. I argued that GPL'd software has the potential to create much more value. Imagine if the work of all of the above companies were available to all to adapt and customize? Much more value would ultimately be created.
I guess we'll see what happens in the next decade. SGI, IBM, Compaq and Sun are all marketing systems which will feature Linux based OS's. We'll see if this promotes innovation and progress. The early indications seem to be that it is based on the explosive growth of Linux.
The biggest growth has been in Microsoft and in Intel. Do not kid yourself.
The biggest growth segment today, hands down, is in Linux.
Additionally, the combined value companies that have based their products on truly free software (BSD and X) far outweighs the collective value of those companies basing their enterprises on GPL'd works (primarily Linux).
Well, first off, BSD owes almost all of it's growth to GPL'd GCC and X owes much of it's growth to BSD and Linux. So, this statement actually supports my contention that GPL'd software has led to a big growth industry.
Secondly, I'd like to see proof that the value in the BSD and X companies, is greater than those in the Linux companies. On the BSD/X side you have BSDI and a few small companies that sell X (note that a lot of the companies that sell X also make a lot of money off of other technologies, like NFS, Telnet servers, etc.). On the Linux side you have RedHat, Cygnus, Caldera, Mandrake,... and you have substantial new investments from none other than IBM, Compaq, Dell, SGI, etc.
Last, I wasn't really thinking of company value, as indicated by market capitalization, when I made my claim, I was thinking of the value created in the economy. This is hard to measure, but people are using Linux for productive work and that's creating value. This is where there's tremendous growth. People are using Linux more and more in Servers, for Apache, etc. etc. How much value has been created in Apache servers based on Linux alone? One could argue that 1/2 of the new Internet economy is Linux with Apache, mSQL, PHP, all GPL'd software.
Truly free software builds wealth at a greater rate than GPL'd software.
I don't agree, and neither would RedHat, Cygnus, et al. However, I was talking about value, not wealth.
Wealth is the accumulation of value in the hands of a few. GPL has spread the value out to the users and those who would adapt systems for productive use. This, I feel, is where the focus should be. There's little value in initial creation of software. V1 software is almost always too buggy and limited for productive use. The real value comes with the revision cycles, the customization and the integration of software into already existing systems. I feel that the growth of GPL'd software will bring about a software industry that rewards these activities.
The purpose of GPL is to destroy the software industry.
Ironic how the biggest growth segment in the software industry is Linux related goods and services.
Go read the the documents here and in particular The GNU Manifesto. There you will see that a new "software industry" is envisioned.
As it stands today, most people in the "Information Technology" industry do not make money by creating or selling proprietary software, but rather by being paid to create software for a specific need or to support software or systems already created.
I, for one, see the beginnings of a vibrant industry where we are paid to adapt, integrate and modify software. I've been in the "software industry" for nearly 20 years and the vast majority of the work I have done has been in the modification, support and integration of software that already existed.
Perhaps you think that Richard Stallman was intent on destroying the software industry and that the documents I mentioned above are deceptions. A lot of things can be said about Richard Stallman, but one thing I think is clear about him is that he is a man without guile (except for that Scheme dialect:-)) or subtletly. If Richard Stallman's intent was to destroy the software industry, he would have said it and he would have said it clearly.
But if you don't believe in IP, but continue to use the GPL, understand that many people will see you as inconsistant and maybe even hypocritical.
I can't speak for everyone who questions Intellectual Property, of course, but here's my take.
It's my belief that Intellectual Property is the most artificial of all Property rights.
In the US system of government, Intellectual Property is granted to you by the government in the hope that it will encourage innovation and productivity.
In the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8 it states
The Congress shall have power... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Here there is not a recognition of a 'natural' property right, but only one insofar as it "promotes the progress of science and the useful arts...". There is also a clause that these rights are "for limited times". After the time limit is up, the right reverts to The People who granted it in the first place.
It's my belief that the FSF & Linux is demonstrating that, in the realm of software, that if the largest body of Intellectual Property remains in the hands of The People (from which it originates) that the most progress ensues.
If I were to say that I don't believe in Intellectual Property in some specific context, what I would mean by saying this is that I don't believe that Intellectual Property should be granted to entities (individuals or corporations) for their exclusive use, rather that this Property Right should remain with The People from which it originates.
I'm not now in favor of abolishing this granting of Intellectual Property rights to entities for their exclusive use. For example, I believe that it does promote "progress" in the arts to grant copyrights. I would, however, be in favor of abolishing all Software Patents and possibly copyrights to software. I'm certain that I would like to see the copyright period greatly reduced for Software Copyrights. The lifetime of the author + 50 years is an absurdly long time in software and does not serve to promote progress.
If copyrights on software and software patents were eliminated, there would be no need for the GPL. All software would remain in the public domain, even derivative works created by corporations based on other public domain software. This elimination of copyrights and patents on software I might refer to as the "elimination of Intellectual Property rights in regard to software", but what I would really be saying is that it is the "elimination of granting entities Intellectual Property rights for their exclusive use in regard to software".
I'm not in the least concerned that by not granting these rights to entities that I would be discouraging the creation of new software. It has been demonstrated to my satisfaction that the most progress is made when everyone can build upon software that has been already created.
Those that would create programs, but not distribute the source code would have to contend with reverse engineering and the extraction from these programs of their essential elements. It would ultimately benefit everyone in such an environment to distribute source code for a nominal distribution charge (just as the GPL provides for), but anyone who didn't would just be placing themselves at a disadvantage to entities that did, or to those who had reverse engineered the source out of their product and distributed it.
I don't feel there is anything contradictory about supporting GPL and also supporting the abolition of Intellectual Property rights if you define the "abolition of Intellectual Property rights" as I have above.
Imagine for one moment in a parallel universe, where Linux had been developed without copyright, the absurd notion that Microsoft would fork the entire Linux codetree and make some proprietary changes and then try to sell it. doh. There would shurely be a lot of buyers... not!
A parallel universe is not required. You only need to look at the popularity of *BSD vs. Linux. In this universe, BSDI took the BSD code, closed it, marketed it and fiercly guard it.
BSDI has had some success with this business model, although certainly they are no Microsoft. BSDI has probably benefitted from the Free/Open/NetBSD efforts, but not the other way around. Unfortunately, it's the BSD product itself that has suffered.
The license doesn't matter much.
I strongly disagree. The GPL has made sure that noone capitalizes on the work of others without also benefitting those who performed the original work. I feel this is a Good Thing and is is what has motivated so many to work so hard to improve Linux and GCC. If the BSD folks find it's in their best interest to improve GCC, then Linux users benefit. If BSD folks improve their kernel, only BSD users benefit. This means that the Linux/GPL software base accumulates the best from anyone who might work on it. A lot of the best work on BSD has been done in commercial ventures that have closed their improvements off to the community at large. You see, public domain efforts tend to fork into backwaters.
Ultimately, the GPL snowball effect is the only way to build up a product base to challenge such software behemoths as Microsoft. A similar thing could not happen with BSD. If someone tried to build up a critical mass of BSD (or any similarly licensed) software to challenge Microsoft, Bill Gates could just offer a closed alternative, with all of the benefits of the BSD system, that used the public domain code and attract many of the best BSD resources (not just programmers, but companies like Compaq, Dell, etc.) to support MS/BSD.
In fact, didn't MS use the BSD TCP/IP code in NT? This universe is starting to look more and more like your parallel universe all the time!
It's no wonder that GPL & Linux often get confused as an Anything But Microsoft movement. It's really the Anything But Closed Software movement and Microsoft just happens to be the poster child for Closed Software.
Finally, your contention that
Most people would still develop for the main branch and the proprietary branches would soon be forced to become folded back into the main tree or they would perrish because of lack of support/interrest.
is difficult to support. I know of no examples of proprietary code that has been "forced" to be opened up just because those proprietary code are no longer supported. Commercial interests don't free their proprietary works even when it's of no value to them because of the possibility that it may benefit their competitors. Only under the GPL have you seen a great freeing of once-proprietary software (SGI for example) because the commercial interests know that their competitors cannot possibly benefit more they can. In fact, the SGIs (and the like) are banking on the fact that theirs will be the preferred and mature implementation of this code and that they will be in the best position to support it.
hmmm... should have posted this as an AC, but then, all the ACs are really Microsoft Employees, ya' know... In fact, they are all Bill Gates. It's true!
I don't know why I'm bothering with this, they will never let this be posted, or something will just happen to/. and this posting won't be there anymore.
If you see this, do yourself a favor and don't send me any mail. It's the only way you'll be safe in the long run. Bill Gates reads all my mail.
The reason that self publishing is looked down upon in literary circles is that these people can't convince some gatekeeper book publisher that her or his ideas are of any value, therefore, it is assumed, they must be valueless.
This has led to a lot of good works being completely ignored. Ever hear of John Kennedy O'Toole? He committed suicide when his book, A Confederacy of Dunces, wouldn't get a second look by publishers. This book later went on to receive a National Book Award when it was published after his death.
I expect that for some time to come, most people will pretty much discount the intellectual content of anything that you might find on the Web. Those people are elitists and snobs.
The Web allows there to be more publishers and more reviewers.
The situation will be much like it is now. You'll trust the opinion of your friends, reviewers with a good track record, the current 'buzz', etc. You surely don't believe now that just because it's published it's any good do you? So, a quality filter based on whether it's been published is not really effecting your opinion today.
With the Web, you don't have to own a printing press and have expensive distribution deals with mega book chains, or deal with a publisher who has all of this, to get your work out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point, and I did try to do this. I just noticed the scoring and thought that the "Interesting" rating was, if anything, more than deserved to a +5 Comment.
It's difficult to metamoderate only on the single moderation, there's particularly an interaction with "Overrated", but I do agree that the metamoderator should try to do this.
I got the chance to try MetaModeration and I really enjoyed it.
While MetaModerating I saw a +5 Comment today that I hadn't seen before. If anything, I felt that this Comment deserved an even higher rating (but I gave it a "fair" realizing that this was topped out).
It got me thinking. Perhaps you could allow people to give their points to a Comment even after it was topped out at 5. The Comment itself would stay at 5, but you could keep this surplus attached to the Comment, but not visible to readers. Then, every week or perhaps every few days, you could have a feature which would capture the top, or perhaps the top few Comments of the week based on surplus points. I would recommend never displaying the surplus points as it might lead to Moderator abuse with people trying to support some cause or another at the expense of objectivity. Perhaps these featured Comments could be displayed with some MetaComments containing the Comments that this one was in answer to or about the background context surrounding the Comment (like the background of the Author if this person is famous). I know that I would enjoy such a feature. As it is, I'm not able to keep up with very much of /. and even if I had read the featured Comment, I'm sure that I would enjoy reading these really good Comments again.
Maybe this would work go along with allowing Moderators more points to assign too, as many are requesting. In fact, it might be nice to assign Moderators points on a sliding scale. Moderators who just make the minimum criteria, like first time Moderators, could get 5 points to assign, while old hands with extremely high Karma would get 10. Such a scheme may help to improve Moderation in a number of ways.
Perhaps I'm odd, but I think that I've become more thoughtful in my posts since I'm now aware of my Karma. I would guess that others feel the same way. Tying Karma together with getting extra Moderator points, and allowing those with higher Karma to Moderate (and MetaModerate) more often might make it kind of a prestige thing. Pride before your peers is a powerful motivator.
Sure, the Linux distribution vendors are competing with each other. JoeBuck gave you that in his posting .
The question is, is this a good thing? Will they attempt to differentiate on value or try to lock you in with incompatibilities, as the Unix vendors have done?
There's been a lot of talk on /. recently about ethics. I've always thought that the practice of going out of your way to decrease the value of a product to increase revenue is unethical. Hardware vendors used to do this all the time. The fact that the first 486 SX chips actually went through an extra process step to disable the floating point processor is an example of this. Intel later developed a 486 core without the floating point processor, but doing that initially was wrong. I could list off a half-dozen less famous examples in hardware, but you get the idea.
The same thing happens in software. A company will implement unnecessary source level incompatibilities just to make porting large systems difficult. POSIX helped some, but it still happens.
Perhaps a summit of the Linux distribution vendors is in order. Maybe someone could draft a "Treaty" that all will be asked to sign. Signatories would be allowed to display some Trademark in advertising. Something like "Linux Common Compatibility Assured - Version 1", or something that captures this idea.
At a minimum, it would assure that all Linux distributions support some set of FSF compilers/libraries/headers, that some "standard" set of X Windows headers/libraries/Server be available. Maybe a "standard" Perl, Python, Tcl/Tk, GTk, etc. etc. will install and work directly on the system with a provided installation/configuration procedure.
The vendors would be free to provide newer releases of any of these things, but the distribution should work with some agreed upon set.
The vendors product would be "out of compliance" if it is shown that they are engaging in a bad faith effort to break any of the agreed upon software interfaces. It's too much to ask the vendors that all of these software interfaces work to some level of compliance. The validation would be way too expensive and lead to endless debate and problems, especially with regard to validation on different architectures.
What do people think? Would this address a problem? Or would this kind of compliance be just another check list kind of thing that didn't mean very much?
You might be able to argue that Oak was developed to run appliances, but somebody got the idea to embed it into browsers to create an IT infrastructure to challenge Microsoft. They then renamed it Java.
Oak would never have seen the light of day had it not been for this anti-Microsoft strategy on Sun's part. I'll stick by what I said before, Java exists to attack Microsoft.
Sun has a serious credibility problem if it only provides a server-side solution. Especially when their biggest software initiative, Java, is really directed at displacing Windows on the desktop.
Sun's roots are in Workstations, they still make money in Workstations and have done suprisingly well in this market. I believe you'll find that they are not losing market share there.
This will sell well into accounts where Sun already has a strong Server presence. In completes their offerings. Now, Sun can more seriously address the whole IT infrastructure.
Sun will try to make this a lever into new accounts where those with lots of Windows desktops have been concerned that there would be integration problems. This may be an uphill battle for Sun.
There could be a huge growth potential here in "green screen" applications. Windows has failed to go into a whole bunch of markets (POS, Banks, ATMs, etc.) that are still dominated by green screens because the PC/Windows TCO (think maintenance) is way too high. If Sun is able to get an attractive TCO here, then the NC could finally take off. These markets are extremely conservative, so they have not been attracted by the Java/NC hype today. If Sun can deploy a lot of working NCs they might be able to better make inroads. Once they had a significant presence in these kind of applications, a lot of typical desktops could follow.
Microsoft is trying to address the green screen market with various Windows CE initiatives. If Sun looks to be making inroads here, expect a huge investment on Microsoft's part to fight it.
It is an intolerable situation for Sun, in the long term, for MS and/or Linux to dominate the desktop in their accounts. Ultimately, Linus is right, who controls the desktop controls the industry.
The biggest seller of PCs in Britain selling machines with Linux and SO pre-installed, eh?
Well, now isn't THIS interesting.
Maybe this is yet an additional motivation for Sun to purchase Star Division?
Think about it. You work in a Solaris shop. All the technical staff are sold that Unix is the way and Windows is not to blight the desktops. Even the secretaries and non-technical management types must use Unix so as to be supportable. And, it's not just all bigotry really. For people to really work in that environment, they need solid X-Windows, NFS, SMTP/IMAP support that's not a toy, etc. etc.
Now, the computer store down the street is selling desktops with Linux and SO pre-installed for under $1,000. You've always bought $4,000-$5,000 Solaris workstations before. You've played with Solaris/X86 too, but it's quite a bit more expensive than Linux. Always requires someone to sit down and install and configure it Solaris and Star Office, too. A pre-installed Linux system sure starts to look attractive. A lot of the technical staff use it at home, and some of them have started using it at work for the odd job, so there's no fear of the unknown.
What does this do to Solaris desktop sales? And if the desktops all go to Linux, how long until they start to look at it for low-end servers and then...
The test will be if PCs with Linux/SO pre-installed will continue to be available, at the same prices, as before Sun purchased Star Division.
Java exists to attack Microsoft. Everybody knows this. Java is a top-down marketing strategy to hit 'em where it hurts. In a way, Java is just another closed product that claims to fit needs that Microsoft has missed. Java is essentially fighting fire with fire.
People think that Linux is just Anything But Microsoft, but it's not really. It's an organic, bottom-up movement. Linux grows into what people need and want, in a direction that provides a stable, useful tool.
This is exactly the opposite of the direction that Microsoft products take. Microsoft products grow in a direction that increases your hunger for more Microsoft products and new releases of the old ones.
Linux and GPL in general being so completely different than the MS-wares makes people believe that it's a directed attack on MS, but it's not. Linux users generally just have work to get done and Linux does it for them. I won't deny that some Linux users ALSO enjoy the Anything But Microsoft aspect of Linux, but this isn't the raison d'etre for Linux as it is for Java. Linux is like fighting fire with water.
Linux being completely different than Microsoft products, gives Microsoft little leverage to try and defeat it. The Holloween Memos show that they don't know what to do, and the "Labor Day Memo" pokes fun at the possibility of their using their standard tactics.
It should go without saying that they never support this product, fail to mention it on most of their web pages, remove all references to it from their Knowledge Base, charge exorbitant prices for it (while also distributing it free in computer books) and include the 49.7 day bug.
The obvious problem with L++ is that there would be no community support for it. If MS didn't support it heavily (as you suggest), and the Linux community wouldn't touch it (as I would guess) then it would be stillborn. Anyone who tried to make it work would give up on it almost immediately when they found they couldn't get any support for their problems.
Then, after dividing the market, there's no way Linux could sue them.
Dividing the market just isn't a problem with Linux the way it would be with Java. Java only works at all if it works exactly the same everywhere. Something called Linux works if it works anywhere. People who were interested in getting work done with a stable platform that has rich functionality (love those MS buzzwords!) in Internet applications just use some version of Linux. It doesn't hurt Linux that there are branches. If somebody sees things from two different branches that could productively brought together into one, this can be done fairly easily.
Once you've used Linux somewhere for an application it's just dirt cheap to clone that success N times. The incremental costs are often near 0 as you can use old computers that have long since been amortized down to nothing and just happen to be laying around. As MS knows from their experience of marginalizing Netscape, you just can't compete with free.
Check out the smoking-gun "Labor Day Memo" I posted on Slashdot just yesterday.
They've done it before, they'll try it again.
Uncanny! This was Ballmer's thought exactly!
Notice how often the "Learn Java Now, Ask me How" ad from Sun is gracing the banner position of Slashdot lately?
Star Division was purchased by Sun and Star Office is being release by Sun for many complex and overlapping reasons. Not the least of which is to increase the profile and use of Java in apps that people actually use, rather than just endlessly develop.
Remember Corel's Office project in Java? Lotus failed at it too.
One of the problem with those early attempts at Office Productivity suites was that Java was immature 2 years ago when they were trying to make it work. In addition, machines were just a little slow to make it attractive to users. Many Java implementations have improved the raw execution speed lately. In this same period, Moore's law has not only not been repealed, but things are a bit ahead of predictions. Certainly, with the pressure from "free PCs", there has been a tremendous improvement in the price/performance ratio. So, we might be looking at Java execution times anywhere from 2x to 3x what they were 2 years ago (at a lower machine cost) when people first rejected Java as being "too slow".
All the analysts are predicting a Java based future, but the reality was starting to close in. Baratz quit a little while ago saying that his job was just too hard, required too much of a commitment. Microsoft just got a Judge to rule that they will be allowed to pollute the Java waters for a little while longer. Hardly anyone is using Java applications yet. Linux is stealing all the IT press that Java once enjoyed. Things were starting to look cloudy in the once SUNny Java sky.
In one fell swoop, Sun has jump started Java in a big way. I think it was a master stroke. Now, a lot of the Linux workers' - who think this is about destroying MS - attention will be drawn to installing/porting/tweaking Star Office. Java will get a big boost in the number of highly skilled people who can program in it.
As much as I think Scott McNealy would love to stick it to Microsoft, I don't believe that he does things that aren't fundamentally good business. Another really important aspect of this move was to give Solaris credibility and mindshare as a desktop OS, especially timed right before the W2K hype machine spins up for a media blitz and it's even sweeter if MS has to come out with another delay to the W2K release date like I'm starting to hear rumors about.
As much as the Jesse Berst's of the world like to spin this as a move of spiteful jealousy on McNealy's part, I think that giving Bill Gates a migraine is just gravy.
Hoax or trial balloon?
I've come into possession of this email from Steve Ballmer to Bill Gates which lays it all out.
When I saw this, I couldn't help but be amazed at their thinking. Microsoft is demonstrating to me that they are certainly a company that can quickly adapt to a changing marketplace!
I was thinking Dreck Trek would be more appropriate.
It's frustrating, because most of them are such dreck. And, how many start out interesting and develop well only to have a really cheesy ending that wraps everything up in the last 2 minutes?
It's getting to be not worth it anymore.
Yes, yes. We know that Rob Malda has the legal right to determine the content in a facility that he manages.
The issue is whether there should be any limitations and if there are limitations where they should be. /. encourages free and open speech, even at the risk of noise and unpopular opinions for the same basic reason that the US Constitution prohibits the Government from limiting free and open speech.
When we limit speech we may be making it more difficult for important alternate views to be heard. It seems to me that /. is all about alternate views.
It's not a legal issue, it's an issue of right and wrong. Issues of right and wrong are only difficult to those with morals. I'm glad to see that the /. community as a whole and the administrators of /. are struggling with this.
Yeah, but it's not free.
Not true, they have free beer all the time, but they always ask for it back and due to the ethics you are required to follow if you work there, you have to give it to them.
A counter-example can disprove a universal generalization. I didn't see as I made any universal generalizations, except that I said that I didn't know of any commercial interests who were "forced" to open their code because the code no longer had any value to them. You didn't present any counter-examples to disprove this assertion.
With the GPL we don't have to trust in the benevolence of those who might develop closed branches to a development that we started. I gave the specific example of BSDI where this happened.
Has Caldera commited to publishing all Wine modifications and placing them in the public domain? If so, how nice of them. The next corporate interest may not be so charitable.
I still point at what has happened with BSD vs. Linux. BSD advocates claim that the BSD kernel is technically superior. I have no reason to doubt them. Why is it that Linux attracts and maintains a larger development and support infrastructure? I would say it's due to the GPL.
Even corporate interests freely release improvements to the GPL'd code because they want the modifications for their own goals and publishing them only puts them on an even footing with potential competitors. If the code is BSD style licensed, there is motivation to keep the modifications proprietary as to maintain an advantage over potential competitors.
If we, as consumers of source code, want the largest possible library to build on, it seems that publishing under GPL is one thing that should be seriously considered.
If we want our code to be proprietary, why not just publish under our own copyright and grant licenses as we see fit? Publishing under BSD style licenses can lead to derivative being made proprietary, after all. As authors, it seems we might have some interest in what becomes of our works. If someone else is going to build upon our work and make it "their own" by making the derivative proprietary, we might as well beat them to it and get our own restrictive copyright on the original so that we can have some say in this.
While I can see why someone might feel that a proprietary copyright might bring them some advantage, what specific advantage is there to a BSD style license vs. GPL? Is it that you believe, as others seem to, that the GPL is designed to "destroy the software industry"?
When I feel really paranoid I sometime entertain thoughts about the powers that be and how we may manipulated.
Now, I think the Internet is a wonderful thing. I think that it allows people to communicate much more easily without the gatekeeper institutionalized filters like the press being involved. Access to more information, even if the quality of it is questionable, is a Good Thing in my opinion.
Having said this, I'm not sure I understand the attraction of the Internet Economy. eCommerce is only marginally better than the JC Penny catalog and the phone or (oh no!) The Home Shopping Network. Sure, eShopping via web sites has some advantages, but they seem to be rather marginal ones that wouldn't directly impact most consumers.
Where's the huge win with on-line brokers? With cable TV and a phone you can just about have the same kind of access to financial markets.
Having news delivered by the Internet is only marginally better than CNN, really.
We're rushing headlong into a new Internet with many times the bandwidth of what it is today. Why, someday soon, it's promised that we'll be able to do everything we do with TV and Radio over the Internet!
Of course, I don't want TV and Radio over the Internet. I like this public discourse using written language. It allows us to be reflective, to have a record of what is said and to digest it in it's time, not in real-time, not in sound bites. If I wanted TV and Radio, well, I know where to find them.
Sometimes, I wonder if the Internet economy really isn't being pushed down our throats in an effort to centralize many institutions that are currently handled in a patch-work fashion. This will accelerate the ability of the big mega-corporations to take over these functions (news, commerce, libraries, credit, etc. etc.) and gain greater control over our lives. I just heard a report yesterday on the Radio that local merchants are concerned that they will increasingly be losing customers to eBusiness.
And it's not just the mega-corporations either. If, in some future where all of our information and communication is over the Internet, evil forces in the Government could declare a state of emergency (say, by denotating a nuclear weapon in a populated area, or looking the other way as some terrorist does this) and easily lock down all of our institutions by just gaining control over the big Internet pipes. They could make encryption instantly illegal and jack-booted thugs (who actually believe that those who encrypt are most likely child molesters and/or nuclear terrorists) would break down your door and haul you off if you dared to communicate where they couldn't listen in. News would be carefully managed and controlled. Commerce (food, water, etc.) would be allowed for those who cooperated.
Now, Internet voting is being explored.
sigh... Somehow, I just don't feel good about this. I don't care what kind of technology is backing this up, if the computers are run by sinister forces, they could just tell us who won and we really wouldn't be able to question it. It's not like we can get a court order to lock down the ballot boxes and count the slips ourselves.
Oh, wait a minute, this can't happen, everyone in the Government is benevolent, mega-corporations only have consumer interests at heart. I'm really sorry I brought up these ramblings. Really.
I don't know what I was thinking.
You make a good point here. Part of the success of X was that a large group, the X-Consortium of companies, agreed to support this development and contribute improvements to the community at large. Very much GPL like. Since the demise of the X-Consortium very little has been done to improve X.
Companies using BSD: SGI (Irix), Sun Microsystems (SunOS, Solaris), IBM (AIX, the recently acquired Whistle), Compaq (DEC UNIX), Microsoft (Win95 and NT).
I was wrong about the license on Apache, it's true, now it's your turn. What people usually call Solaris, as opposed to SunOS, is based on Sys V, not BSD. DEC UNIX (now called Compaq Tru64 UNIX) came out of OSF/1, which is not based on BSD. AIX is based on AT&T Sys 5. Sure, a lot of these companies included BSD utilities or code here and there, no doubt. They also distributed a lot of FSF utilities with those systems.
But, it's a quibble anyway. I never argued that what you call "truly free" software didn't create value. I argued that GPL'd software has the potential to create much more value. Imagine if the work of all of the above companies were available to all to adapt and customize? Much more value would ultimately be created.
I guess we'll see what happens in the next decade. SGI, IBM, Compaq and Sun are all marketing systems which will feature Linux based OS's. We'll see if this promotes innovation and progress. The early indications seem to be that it is based on the explosive growth of Linux.
The biggest growth segment today, hands down, is in Linux.
Additionally, the combined value companies that have based their products on truly free software (BSD and X) far outweighs the collective value of those companies basing their enterprises on GPL'd works (primarily Linux).
Well, first off, BSD owes almost all of it's growth to GPL'd GCC and X owes much of it's growth to BSD and Linux. So, this statement actually supports my contention that GPL'd software has led to a big growth industry.
Secondly, I'd like to see proof that the value in the BSD and X companies, is greater than those in the Linux companies. On the BSD/X side you have BSDI and a few small companies that sell X (note that a lot of the companies that sell X also make a lot of money off of other technologies, like NFS, Telnet servers, etc.). On the Linux side you have RedHat, Cygnus, Caldera, Mandrake, ... and you have substantial new investments from none other than IBM, Compaq, Dell, SGI, etc.
Last, I wasn't really thinking of company value, as indicated by market capitalization, when I made my claim, I was thinking of the value created in the economy. This is hard to measure, but people are using Linux for productive work and that's creating value. This is where there's tremendous growth. People are using Linux more and more in Servers, for Apache, etc. etc. How much value has been created in Apache servers based on Linux alone? One could argue that 1/2 of the new Internet economy is Linux with Apache, mSQL, PHP, all GPL'd software.
Truly free software builds wealth at a greater rate than GPL'd software.
I don't agree, and neither would RedHat, Cygnus, et al. However, I was talking about value, not wealth.
Wealth is the accumulation of value in the hands of a few. GPL has spread the value out to the users and those who would adapt systems for productive use. This, I feel, is where the focus should be. There's little value in initial creation of software. V1 software is almost always too buggy and limited for productive use. The real value comes with the revision cycles, the customization and the integration of software into already existing systems. I feel that the growth of GPL'd software will bring about a software industry that rewards these activities.
Ironic how the biggest growth segment in the software industry is Linux related goods and services.
Go read the the documents here and in particular The GNU Manifesto. There you will see that a new "software industry" is envisioned.
As it stands today, most people in the "Information Technology" industry do not make money by creating or selling proprietary software, but rather by being paid to create software for a specific need or to support software or systems already created.
I, for one, see the beginnings of a vibrant industry where we are paid to adapt, integrate and modify software. I've been in the "software industry" for nearly 20 years and the vast majority of the work I have done has been in the modification, support and integration of software that already existed.
Perhaps you think that Richard Stallman was intent on destroying the software industry and that the documents I mentioned above are deceptions. A lot of things can be said about Richard Stallman, but one thing I think is clear about him is that he is a man without guile (except for that Scheme dialect :-)) or subtletly. If Richard Stallman's intent was to destroy the software industry, he would have said it and he would have said it clearly.
I can't speak for everyone who questions Intellectual Property, of course, but here's my take.
It's my belief that Intellectual Property is the most artificial of all Property rights.
In the US system of government, Intellectual Property is granted to you by the government in the hope that it will encourage innovation and productivity.
In the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8 it states
Here there is not a recognition of a 'natural' property right, but only one insofar as it "promotes the progress of science and the useful arts...". There is also a clause that these rights are "for limited times". After the time limit is up, the right reverts to The People who granted it in the first place.
It's my belief that the FSF & Linux is demonstrating that, in the realm of software, that if the largest body of Intellectual Property remains in the hands of The People (from which it originates) that the most progress ensues.
If I were to say that I don't believe in Intellectual Property in some specific context, what I would mean by saying this is that I don't believe that Intellectual Property should be granted to entities (individuals or corporations) for their exclusive use, rather that this Property Right should remain with The People from which it originates.
I'm not now in favor of abolishing this granting of Intellectual Property rights to entities for their exclusive use. For example, I believe that it does promote "progress" in the arts to grant copyrights. I would, however, be in favor of abolishing all Software Patents and possibly copyrights to software. I'm certain that I would like to see the copyright period greatly reduced for Software Copyrights. The lifetime of the author + 50 years is an absurdly long time in software and does not serve to promote progress.
If copyrights on software and software patents were eliminated, there would be no need for the GPL. All software would remain in the public domain, even derivative works created by corporations based on other public domain software. This elimination of copyrights and patents on software I might refer to as the "elimination of Intellectual Property rights in regard to software", but what I would really be saying is that it is the "elimination of granting entities Intellectual Property rights for their exclusive use in regard to software".
I'm not in the least concerned that by not granting these rights to entities that I would be discouraging the creation of new software. It has been demonstrated to my satisfaction that the most progress is made when everyone can build upon software that has been already created.
Those that would create programs, but not distribute the source code would have to contend with reverse engineering and the extraction from these programs of their essential elements. It would ultimately benefit everyone in such an environment to distribute source code for a nominal distribution charge (just as the GPL provides for), but anyone who didn't would just be placing themselves at a disadvantage to entities that did, or to those who had reverse engineered the source out of their product and distributed it.
I don't feel there is anything contradictory about supporting GPL and also supporting the abolition of Intellectual Property rights if you define the "abolition of Intellectual Property rights" as I have above.
A parallel universe is not required. You only need to look at the popularity of *BSD vs. Linux. In this universe, BSDI took the BSD code, closed it, marketed it and fiercly guard it.
BSDI has had some success with this business model, although certainly they are no Microsoft. BSDI has probably benefitted from the Free/Open/NetBSD efforts, but not the other way around. Unfortunately, it's the BSD product itself that has suffered.
The license doesn't matter much.
I strongly disagree. The GPL has made sure that noone capitalizes on the work of others without also benefitting those who performed the original work. I feel this is a Good Thing and is is what has motivated so many to work so hard to improve Linux and GCC. If the BSD folks find it's in their best interest to improve GCC, then Linux users benefit. If BSD folks improve their kernel, only BSD users benefit. This means that the Linux/GPL software base accumulates the best from anyone who might work on it. A lot of the best work on BSD has been done in commercial ventures that have closed their improvements off to the community at large. You see, public domain efforts tend to fork into backwaters.
Ultimately, the GPL snowball effect is the only way to build up a product base to challenge such software behemoths as Microsoft. A similar thing could not happen with BSD. If someone tried to build up a critical mass of BSD (or any similarly licensed) software to challenge Microsoft, Bill Gates could just offer a closed alternative, with all of the benefits of the BSD system, that used the public domain code and attract many of the best BSD resources (not just programmers, but companies like Compaq, Dell, etc.) to support MS/BSD.
In fact, didn't MS use the BSD TCP/IP code in NT? This universe is starting to look more and more like your parallel universe all the time!
It's no wonder that GPL & Linux often get confused as an Anything But Microsoft movement. It's really the Anything But Closed Software movement and Microsoft just happens to be the poster child for Closed Software.
Finally, your contention that
Most people would still develop for the main branch and the proprietary branches would soon be forced to become folded back into the main tree or they would perrish because of lack of support/interrest.
is difficult to support. I know of no examples of proprietary code that has been "forced" to be opened up just because those proprietary code are no longer supported. Commercial interests don't free their proprietary works even when it's of no value to them because of the possibility that it may benefit their competitors. Only under the GPL have you seen a great freeing of once-proprietary software (SGI for example) because the commercial interests know that their competitors cannot possibly benefit more they can. In fact, the SGIs (and the like) are banking on the fact that theirs will be the preferred and mature implementation of this code and that they will be in the best position to support it.
Check out OpenVMS Galaxies. An integration of clustering and SMP that allows you to take advantage of the best of both!
OpenVMS also has the same superior language compilers as Tru64.
hmmm... should have posted this as an AC, but then, all the ACs are really Microsoft Employees, ya' know... In fact, they are all Bill Gates. It's true!
I don't know why I'm bothering with this, they will never let this be posted, or something will just happen to /. and this posting won't be there anymore.
If you see this, do yourself a favor and don't send me any mail. It's the only way you'll be safe in the long run. Bill Gates reads all my mail.
This has led to a lot of good works being completely ignored. Ever hear of John Kennedy O'Toole? He committed suicide when his book, A Confederacy of Dunces, wouldn't get a second look by publishers. This book later went on to receive a National Book Award when it was published after his death.
I expect that for some time to come, most people will pretty much discount the intellectual content of anything that you might find on the Web. Those people are elitists and snobs.
The Web allows there to be more publishers and more reviewers.
The situation will be much like it is now. You'll trust the opinion of your friends, reviewers with a good track record, the current 'buzz', etc. You surely don't believe now that just because it's published it's any good do you? So, a quality filter based on whether it's been published is not really effecting your opinion today.
With the Web, you don't have to own a printing press and have expensive distribution deals with mega book chains, or deal with a publisher who has all of this, to get your work out there.