Jay, I'm not utterly convinced, nor am I insane. I'm saying people *are* going to associate you with the scenario. This doesn't mean you are *the man* of the scenario, but a lot of people probably will misconstrue that in the future. do I recognize the difference? Yes. Is a lot of the internet going to? no. Does that matter? You'd be surprised.
It has nothing to do with being paid by them, although if you were it'd apparently be at a benefit to your automotive selection? It doesn't matter.
Do you really think you aren't to blame for this? Honestly? Do you think the world lives in a vacuum, my good sir?
hint: you're going to be at fault in more ways than one, even if you however unlikely, have absolutely zero association with Neon. Jay Maynard/Hercules/Neon are significantly beyond associated now.
TurboHercules SAS has not asked IBM to change its licensing terms one bit. They've only asked the IBM sell its very same license to run on the Hercules platform.
That is changing the license! It wasn't licensed for the hercules platform. Suddenly, because they say no, and say "it might infringe on our patents", that's a threat? They never even threatened to do anything. In fact, you did, and look at where we are now that you did.
Uh, what? How are donations to a website from anonymous sources magically associated to IBM? Now you're trolling. Don't think you can get by slashdotters on a computer related simple but somewhat technical issue as you're trying. As much as there are stupid slashdotters, they ar e not falling for your ideas.
man, get it through your skull. As far as mainframes go, there is no monopoly in any form right now.
Really, this is like (imaginary scenario): saying that Microsoft has a monopoly on NTFS because they aren't licensing it to hercules when hercules asked them to license it to GPLV3. But oh, they're a convicted monopolist, so they're a monopoly!
Tim99, your first two paragraphs just say what I didn't mean to dispute: Hercules users can't run z/OS on Hercules for licensing reasons, and TurboHercules asked for a solution. Then IBM turned them down and claimed an infringement of intellectual property (meaning in this case: patents).
IBM made no such legal claim. They wrote a letter and didn't do anything else. Well, thanks to you and Jim Maynard, Neon is suing them, but it's not going to get anywhere on ethics or legal ground.
This part held as much water as if I said I'm going to sue you for 2nd degree murder, conspiracy to defraud, and terrorism . Meanwhile, have I done anything in court? Is there any impact? No.
and again, they did not do anything. figuratively, You saw a big minefield, read the "beware of mines" sign, and didn't enter. This wasn't a policeman throwing you back from the sign, or arresting you, or any legal or other response.
You just flipped the hell out and said oh my god IBM is coming after me I'm scared someone hold me! I don't know where your knowledge is in the corporate world, but if IBM was legitimately concerned (instead of saying this isn't a good idea), they would have done a hell of a lot more than an email or written letter to you. Or as an idea, who knows, maybe they would ask to speak to you in person or something polite!
What you have now caused, is IBM a lot of stress, and causes Florian to attack the GPL. It also denies the fact that Hercules is easily in the wrong by asking IBM to change their license for turbohercules. How is this a good response?
Nobody modded your links informative, they modded swpat informative - and appropriately as such. It is relevant, even if not that special by itself, as stated above.
Archive.org respects copyright and other things that it shouldn't - it's up to people themselves if they want to do good archiving. To say "leave it all to archive.org" shows how useless swpat intends to remain. Swpat would be a lot more interesting if it added such a value. Hell, archive articles that appropriately should be documented, even if they're anti-software patents. You'll see a lot of support for that.
Swpat is however, not a blog of personal opinion, because there's almost nothing on your wiki for the topics linked. There is no "insider knowledge". It's honestly quite deveoid of info. Lots of your stuff is just aggregation from other sites, and doesn't even include insights. You know, the meat and potatoes of a wiki. Maybe the rest of the site is better, but it looks like a dead wiki to me.
in 2015 or 2020 (as I assumed you meant 2020), do I think everyone will remember? No. Nor does that matter. Do I think the blogs will be around? Yes. Not just Groklaw, I should add. However, Groklaw is being archived in the library of congress, after all. Don't get me wrong, redundancy is good.
Meanwhile, link aggregation doesn't mean the site has anything else useful. People can bookmark crap on their own. How about you start archiving the sites you watch if you want to be useful?
Otherwise, if the sites go down, swpat becomes nothing but an archive of broken links. Yay. That sure is useful if it lasts 20 years or whatever, supposedly.
It's actual analysis and detailed information that is more valuable, and guess what? It's something swpat *doesn't*, have. So don't think for a second I think swpat is anything useful or giving it a positive or negative nod, I'm just saying it has links. Like, you know, the rest of the web.
Why do you even bother linking swpat? This isn't about patents, and thus the site is irrelevant for the overall picture. You can harp all day about how software and patents need to be separated but that has nothing to do with IBM and LGPL vs Turbohercules/Neon.
Even though swpat is from Florian, I'm astounded they are willingly associated with a situation that is decidedly anti-open source.
All you're doing is tooting your own horn the same way Florian does. In fact, the language seems so similar I'd not consider it a stretch to consider you either a: associated or b: one and the same.
see, as much as I could say negative things about the man, he does honestly mean well. It's quite misguided and perhaps questionable at times, but he really is anti software patents.
However, this is like people who totally twist an issue and assume it's still valid, and so he thinks he is supporting anti-patent actions, but in reality he's pulling down open source with it. You are 100% correct.
It's like the people who take one line from the bible as the meaning or explanation or rationale of their entire life while citing the bible. Florian is not as extreme as that, but he represents the same kind of misunderstanding.This is well known as mission creep.
Florian's old work was more clearly opined, but something changed, and we all know that. I don't remember the specifics but if I recall correctly some of the MySQL stuff he did was actually meaningful and positive. Someone please correct me if I am wrong here.
Florian, I think you might want to look at what you are doing. Honestly, ask yourself - if GPL is taken down, will that be good for open source? That is something I would strongly advise you consider for the turbohercules scenario. Also, ask yourself - why the defensive patent license as opposed to OIN? This has been debated up and down but I fail to see why the DPL is better than OIN. I also fail to see how the average person is going to understand the scenario as it's highly confusing to all, and yet you're trying to promote DPL?
There was no bullying. They never even sent a Cease and Desist! So what did they do, exactly? Our Turbohercules guy asked for clarification and got it, and flipped out.
Again, linking to your own blog with your own opinions is disingenuous and the kind of spin that you are frankly, known for, Florian. Tit for tat sir, if you want to play LMGTFY, then I'm going to call you on the fact that you're a known for misleading comments and redirecting debates.
So lets go onward to things that you also fail to understand, shall we? I don't have all day, after all. IBM *does* have copyright on their code, and if you read their license, you would understand that their control of the copyright defines the scenario. Why? Well lets take a look at the IBM license. Do you know what it is? LGPL. Maybe you should look up what the LGPL does, as it is about copyright, and not software patents.
So you're saying that the fault here is IBM, which indirectly blames LGPL. This is why and how you are detrimental to the F/OSS community. Please leave it and go back to lobbying or work for MS or something. If IBM gets screwed here, the GPL would be weakened accordingly. Way to go! That surely must be good for open source, right?
Is this related to MS? No. Don't bring it up and waste my time, buddy. I know your games. You've been around too long to bring down a community that is way too established for you to go to. Guess which community that is? The F/OSS one.
And with that said, I have to get back to actual real work, as opposed to verbal sparring.
IBM hasn't really done anything, but everyone has taken it as aggression. IBM said "be careful" and people went "oh, shit, we're gonna get sued!" and panicked, not unlike the gif for shut down everything. It'd be like you asking Microsoft if it's possible that your software might infringe and they say yes (even before knowing what it is) just due to safety. It's not a threat.
Don't get me wrong, IBM isn't some magically innocent pure company, - but there is a lot more spin than fact here, and in fact turbohercules has now provided the aggression via NEON. It's quite surprising actually. Considering that IBM could, in the worst case, send a C&D first, where Neon just went out and sued (and we have no indication that they talked to IBM at all - I doubt they did). This is basically a politically fueled lawsuit.
swpat, while interesting, doesn't have much more than aggregations of links from other sites.
This isn't about political credibility or any IBM credo.
Where do you come up with this? Anything open source licensed can be reimplemented with or without IBM's blessing. What's an example? How about the product in question!
Quit spinning things like this is an IBM intent. They don't have to license to everyone.
If I said you should pay me for my implementation of your product, would you say yes? No, you wouldn't.
HAHAHAHAHAHA Florian! The man represents himself. Color me surprised.
This is not about patents, and you are 100% incorrect.
I know you mean well, but everything you do causes problems for open source. Please go away. Do you have any idea how much you're negatively impacting open source? You are seriously a bane on free software.
Secondly, citing your own blog is not fact. It's completely insubstantiated. Come back with something that actually makes sense and isn't spin, Florian.
There is no abuse of rights. IBM has a copyright and if they choose to exert it they can. Are you going to tell me that if I copyright something I shouldn't be able to exert that copyright? What world do you live in?
I love how you fail to read the groklaw article where it shows that this has nothing to do with IBM's patents. Hercules is asking IBM to license something to a non-GPL compatible license. Since when is that IBM's responsibility to allow, when it would modify their own license? I hate MS for example, but you wouldn't expect them to license something under GPLv3 when it would modify or restrict their own license, would you?
this is about copyright, not IP rights, and not antitrust. Get your laws right. It's not anticompetitive, either. Anyone can still go out and make their own implementation, and guess what? Hercules has already done so.
I'm sure they mean accelerated aging tests, but I have no idea if they really are applicable for real world scenarios or just good for research. Maybe someone with a bit better scientific background can comment on such.
yes - companies can do more than one thing at once - however, business units are always in contention with eachother.
everyone's issues are the most prominent/most profitable/biggest money savers and thus should deserve immediate attention. that's how every business unit feels.
it's never safe to assume that there is a "good enough" ceiling of bandwidth, for personal or enterprise use.
I know you specifically went for "end users", but honestly? this stuff is also geared at corporate. Think about it. Do you really need a SC/ST when you can replace it with ethernet? Eventually as things get higher in speeds along with better storage it enables more people to host servers themselves. what is enterprise now becomes home user. Easy examples: home theatre pc's, p2p/bittorrent, more complex gaming, all things that weren't possible 10-15 years ago.
100gb ethernet cuts a lot of hardware costs out right away, and leaves the only reason to use fiber internally for security. Also it's not new, as others posted - this has been in development for a long time coming.
Slashdot Mirror
Jay, I'm not utterly convinced, nor am I insane. I'm saying people *are* going to associate you with the scenario. This doesn't mean you are *the man* of the scenario, but a lot of people probably will misconstrue that in the future. do I recognize the difference? Yes. Is a lot of the internet going to? no. Does that matter? You'd be surprised.
It has nothing to do with being paid by them, although if you were it'd apparently be at a benefit to your automotive selection? It doesn't matter.
Do you really think you aren't to blame for this? Honestly? Do you think the world lives in a vacuum, my good sir?
hint: you're going to be at fault in more ways than one, even if you however unlikely, have absolutely zero association with Neon. Jay Maynard/Hercules/Neon are significantly beyond associated now.
That is changing the license! It wasn't licensed for the hercules platform. Suddenly, because they say no, and say "it might infringe on our patents", that's a threat? They never even threatened to do anything. In fact, you did, and look at where we are now that you did.
are you kidding? This whole thing, including ibm's "threat", was never even confirmed by lawyers!
this is the issue. A whole lot of nothing.
I wonder how far they had to stretch to assume this was a good idea?
It's going to put them out of business.
"hey, we can embrace our fans, or sue our customers". I guess we knew which one of those sounded more appealing.
Lets copy from Groklaw. I'll do this one for PJ, even if she might not want it. Lets skip pleasantries, shall we?
There are legal requirements to disclose who is funding you in the US. As Groklaw has confirmed, there is no funding from IBM.
So, how about you tell us Florian - Who is funding you? Who pays your bills to lobby?
Uh, what? How are donations to a website from anonymous sources magically associated to IBM? Now you're trolling. Don't think you can get by slashdotters on a computer related simple but somewhat technical issue as you're trying. As much as there are stupid slashdotters, they ar e not falling for your ideas.
What pie in the sky is this again?
man, get it through your skull. As far as mainframes go, there is no monopoly in any form right now.
Really, this is like (imaginary scenario): saying that Microsoft has a monopoly on NTFS because they aren't licensing it to hercules when hercules asked them to license it to GPLV3. But oh, they're a convicted monopolist, so they're a monopoly!
You are stretching things even beyond logic.
IBM made no such legal claim. They wrote a letter and didn't do anything else. Well, thanks to you and Jim Maynard, Neon is suing them, but it's not going to get anywhere on ethics or legal ground.
This part held as much water as if I said I'm going to sue you for 2nd degree murder, conspiracy to defraud, and terrorism . Meanwhile, have I done anything in court? Is there any impact? No.
and again, they did not do anything. figuratively, You saw a big minefield, read the "beware of mines" sign, and didn't enter.
This wasn't a policeman throwing you back from the sign, or arresting you, or any legal or other response.
You just flipped the hell out and said oh my god IBM is coming after me I'm scared someone hold me! I don't know where your knowledge is in the corporate world, but if IBM was legitimately concerned (instead of saying this isn't a good idea), they would have done a hell of a lot more than an email or written letter to you. Or as an idea, who knows, maybe they would ask to speak to you in person or something polite!
What you have now caused, is IBM a lot of stress, and causes Florian to attack the GPL. It also denies the fact that Hercules is easily in the wrong by asking IBM to change their license for turbohercules. How is this a good response?
Way to go, Jay.
The low end of the market isn't even going to need a mainframe, Jay. What's your point? This isn't even accurate.
The groups that can afford and see use for a mainframe purchase one. surprise?
Nobody modded your links informative, they modded swpat informative - and appropriately as such. It is relevant, even if not that special by itself, as stated above.
Archive.org respects copyright and other things that it shouldn't - it's up to people themselves if they want to do good archiving. To say "leave it all to archive.org" shows how useless swpat intends to remain. Swpat would be a lot more interesting if it added such a value. Hell, archive articles that appropriately should be documented, even if they're anti-software patents. You'll see a lot of support for that.
Swpat is however, not a blog of personal opinion, because there's almost nothing on your wiki for the topics linked. There is no "insider knowledge". It's honestly quite deveoid of info. Lots of your stuff is just aggregation from other sites, and doesn't even include insights. You know, the meat and potatoes of a wiki. Maybe the rest of the site is better, but it looks like a dead wiki to me.
in 2015 or 2020 (as I assumed you meant 2020), do I think everyone will remember? No. Nor does that matter. Do I think the blogs will be around? Yes. Not just Groklaw, I should add. However, Groklaw is being archived in the library of congress, after all. Don't get me wrong, redundancy is good.
Meanwhile, link aggregation doesn't mean the site has anything else useful. People can bookmark crap on their own. How about you start archiving the sites you watch if you want to be useful?
Otherwise, if the sites go down, swpat becomes nothing but an archive of broken links. Yay. That sure is useful if it lasts 20 years or whatever, supposedly.
It's actual analysis and detailed information that is more valuable, and guess what? It's something swpat *doesn't*, have. So don't think for a second I think swpat is anything useful or giving it a positive or negative nod, I'm just saying it has links. Like, you know, the rest of the web.
Why do you even bother linking swpat? This isn't about patents, and thus the site is irrelevant for the overall picture. You can harp all day about how software and patents need to be separated but that has nothing to do with IBM and LGPL vs Turbohercules/Neon.
Even though swpat is from Florian, I'm astounded they are willingly associated with a situation that is decidedly anti-open source.
All you're doing is tooting your own horn the same way Florian does. In fact, the language seems so similar I'd not consider it a stretch to consider you either a: associated or b: one and the same.
see, as much as I could say negative things about the man, he does honestly mean well. It's quite misguided and perhaps questionable at times, but he really is anti software patents.
However, this is like people who totally twist an issue and assume it's still valid, and so he thinks he is supporting anti-patent actions, but in reality he's pulling down open source with it. You are 100% correct.
It's like the people who take one line from the bible as the meaning or explanation or rationale of their entire life while citing the bible. Florian is not as extreme as that, but he represents the same kind of misunderstanding.This is well known as mission creep.
Florian's old work was more clearly opined, but something changed, and we all know that. I don't remember the specifics but if I recall correctly some of the MySQL stuff he did was actually meaningful and positive. Someone please correct me if I am wrong here.
Florian, I think you might want to look at what you are doing. Honestly, ask yourself - if GPL is taken down, will that be good for open source? That is something I would strongly advise you consider for the turbohercules scenario. Also, ask yourself - why the defensive patent license as opposed to OIN? This has been debated up and down but I fail to see why the DPL is better than OIN. I also fail to see how the average person is going to understand the scenario as it's highly confusing to all, and yet you're trying to promote DPL?
IBM did nothing.
There was no bullying. They never even sent a Cease and Desist! So what did they do, exactly? Our Turbohercules guy asked for clarification and got it, and flipped out.
Again, linking to your own blog with your own opinions is disingenuous and the kind of spin that you are frankly, known for, Florian. Tit for tat sir, if you want to play LMGTFY, then I'm going to call you on the fact that you're a known for misleading comments and redirecting debates.
So lets go onward to things that you also fail to understand, shall we? I don't have all day, after all. IBM *does* have copyright on their code, and if you read their license, you would understand that their control of the copyright defines the scenario. Why? Well lets take a look at the IBM license. Do you know what it is? LGPL. Maybe you should look up what the LGPL does, as it is about copyright, and not software patents.
So you're saying that the fault here is IBM, which indirectly blames LGPL. This is why and how you are detrimental to the F/OSS community. Please leave it and go back to lobbying or work for MS or something. If IBM gets screwed here, the GPL would be weakened accordingly. Way to go! That surely must be good for open source, right?
Is this related to MS? No. Don't bring it up and waste my time, buddy. I know your games. You've been around too long to bring down a community that is way too established for you to go to. Guess which community that is? The F/OSS one.
And with that said, I have to get back to actual real work, as opposed to verbal sparring.
IBM hasn't really done anything, but everyone has taken it as aggression. IBM said "be careful" and people went "oh, shit, we're gonna get sued!" and panicked, not unlike the gif for shut down everything. It'd be like you asking Microsoft if it's possible that your software might infringe and they say yes (even before knowing what it is) just due to safety. It's not a threat.
Don't get me wrong, IBM isn't some magically innocent pure company, - but there is a lot more spin than fact here, and in fact turbohercules has now provided the aggression via NEON. It's quite surprising actually. Considering that IBM could, in the worst case, send a C&D first, where Neon just went out and sued (and we have no indication that they talked to IBM at all - I doubt they did). This is basically a politically fueled lawsuit.
swpat, while interesting, doesn't have much more than aggregations of links from other sites.
This isn't about political credibility or any IBM credo.
Where do you come up with this? Anything open source licensed can be reimplemented with or without IBM's blessing. What's an example? How about the product in question!
Quit spinning things like this is an IBM intent. They don't have to license to everyone.
If I said you should pay me for my implementation of your product, would you say yes? No, you wouldn't.
HAHAHAHAHAHA Florian! The man represents himself. Color me surprised.
This is not about patents, and you are 100% incorrect.
I know you mean well, but everything you do causes problems for open source. Please go away. Do you have any idea how much you're negatively impacting open source? You are seriously a bane on free software.
Secondly, citing your own blog is not fact. It's completely insubstantiated. Come back with something that actually makes sense and isn't spin, Florian.
There is no abuse of rights. IBM has a copyright and if they choose to exert it they can. Are you going to tell me that if I copyright something I shouldn't be able to exert that copyright? What world do you live in?
I love how you fail to read the groklaw article where it shows that this has nothing to do with IBM's patents. Hercules is asking IBM to license something to a non-GPL compatible license. Since when is that IBM's responsibility to allow, when it would modify their own license? I hate MS for example, but you wouldn't expect them to license something under GPLv3 when it would modify or restrict their own license, would you?
this is about copyright, not IP rights, and not antitrust. Get your laws right. It's not anticompetitive, either. Anyone can still go out and make their own implementation, and guess what? Hercules has already done so.
well? it's worth a shot. I figured maybe someone would see this and reply. Or some armchair scientists with opinions.
can we not go through this again? it's been debunked thoroughly.
This is the fault of Hercules trying to get IBM to license the way Hercules wants, not anything that is IBM's fault.
I'm sure they mean accelerated aging tests, but I have no idea if they really are applicable for real world scenarios or just good for research. Maybe someone with a bit better scientific background can comment on such.
yes - companies can do more than one thing at once - however, business units are always in contention with eachother.
everyone's issues are the most prominent/most profitable/biggest money savers and thus should deserve immediate attention. that's how every business unit feels.
it's never safe to assume that there is a "good enough" ceiling of bandwidth, for personal or enterprise use.
I know you specifically went for "end users", but honestly? this stuff is also geared at corporate. Think about it. Do you really need a SC/ST when you can replace it with ethernet? Eventually as things get higher in speeds along with better storage it enables more people to host servers themselves. what is enterprise now becomes home user. Easy examples: home theatre pc's, p2p/bittorrent, more complex gaming, all things that weren't possible 10-15 years ago.
100gb ethernet cuts a lot of hardware costs out right away, and leaves the only reason to use fiber internally for security. Also it's not new, as others posted - this has been in development for a long time coming.
bingo. calling 99c isn't a micropayment, it's well above that.
Umm, isn't this to benefit .net, specifically ASP and involves creep via Mono?
how is that a gain for open source?