Why should it matter to some poor kid if their textbooks are accurate, or if their laptop is a method to lock them in to a commercial relationship rather than a way to bootstrap local computer knowledge?
If the laptop runs Windows XP, then will the EULA prohibit the child using a debugger to explore how the operating system works ?
If the laptop runs Windows XP, then will the school need (or be told that they need) to run a Microsoft server for them to share files ?
If the school runs a Microsoft server will the EULA prohibit the child using '(reverse) engineering tools' to explore how the network protocols work ?
To me it matters a lot.
I bought an OLPC through the BuyOneGiveOne scheme because I believe introducing an open source platform into schools (anywhere, 1st world or 3rd world) is a GoodThing.
I also bought one to see if I could learn how it works and hopefully contribute something, either (open source) software or (creative commons) content, to the project.
I did not do it so that Microsoft could use the OLPC as a platform for introducing Windows (and the resulting vendor lock in) into yet more schools.
So you may be right, it probably won't matter to the child who receives one (at least at first anyway).
I think it will matter to many of those who have been supporting the project with contributions of funds, open source software and creative commons content.
I have been using Fedora on servers, desktops and laptops for several years.
A couple of weeks ago we wanted to install a small website server on a hosted VM.
What we found was that in the UK, almost all of the VM hosting companies were offering Ubuntu but not Fedora while most of the dedicated hosting was offering RHEL or CentOS.
To me this says two things.
First, yes if people want a serious production server then at the moment they go for RHEL or CentOS.
But the second part, and possibly more important for the future, is that people building quick experiments in a VM are choosing Ubuntu.
Probably not because Ubuntu server has better features or support, but because it is what they run on their laptops and desktops and they are familiar with it.
I encountered something similar in our department.
We run a lot of our web services in Xen VMs, and most of them are Ubuntu.
When I asked our sys admin why they chose Ubuntu for the server VMs he said it was because both he and our project manager were already familiar with it, having used it on their laptops.
At one point, I even heard someone say that they weren't sure how well Fedora or RedHat would be able to run in Xen.
If you know the history and the amount of work RedHat have contributed, then this will probably make you want to scream.
But the point is, most of the people who use Linux don't know the history.
In the past, most of us first encountered Linux by hacking on a command line system trying to get it to connect to the network.
Actually getting it to display a nice GUI was a major achievement.
In those days, the tech discussion groups and documentation hosted by RedHat and later Fedora were invaluable.
Now, for many people their first encounter with Linux is installing a full OpenGL capable graphics system on their laptop or desktop from a standard install DVD.
If this is their first encounter with Linux, they will become familiar with that set of tools.
The tools they encounter when learning on their laptop or desktop will have a big influence when it comes to choosing what distro to use on the server side.
The license fee covers the *broadcast* not the reception.
So in the case of iPlayer it covers the BBC's costs of putting it on the network.
If it covered reception too, then should viewers be able to claim a refund on their electricity bill for running a TV set ?
Or, in this example, it would be more like the electricity companies claiming that the BBC should contribute to the costs of the peak demand created by everyone wanting to watch popular TV programs at the same time.
I would bet that very few users go through ANY source code at all.
I do, but not usually for security reasons.
Sometimes I get stuck with something in my own code triggering a really obscure error message, and I have no idea what is causing it or why.
As a last resort I can download the source and grep for part of the error message.
Nine times out of ten I can find the code that is generating the error message within the first few hits.
Reading the code helps me to figure out what I'm doing wrong, and how to avoid the problem.
Ok, it could be argued that in an ideal world I shouldn't need to read the code to figure out what an error message means,
and I would agree with you there.... in an ideal world.
Point is that we don't live in an ideal world, and sometimes error messages can be very very obscure.
But in a closed source system, we wouldn't have the option of reading the code.
So if you are stuck on something you don't understand... you really are stuck.
Second reason for reading the source code is when I see a really cool feature in a program, and I would like to add something like it to my code.
In most cases I don't actually need to copy anything to add it.
Turns out that the really cool feature is implemented by calling a method in another open source library that I can just add to my own application.
Again, in an ideal world I shouldn't need to read source code to find a useful function or library.
But I have yet to see a search engine that can find "the library that [insert name of application] used to implement the [insert text description of feature]".
Third, and possibly most useful, is the ability to modify what is there to customize it.
Being able to jump in and add two or three lines of code to customize or extend an existing application can make all the difference between not being able to complete a project and completing on time.
In which case, they wouldn't have funded the projects in the first place.
This isn't about deciding not to fund new projects.
This is about cutting funding for existing projects (and staff) because someone somewhere got the figures wrong.
How will the Affero GPL prevent migration from FreeBSD/PHP to Win2k3/ASP.NET ?
I don't know. That is why I'm asking.
Or more accurately, if one of the next 'big ideas' in web services is implemented by a start-up company using Affero GPL licensed server software - would it affect the way the big players behaved ?
It might be that none of them want to become involved, so no sale.
It might be that the big players are only paying big money not because they actually want the service, but because they don't want their competitor to have it.
In which case, Boogle might not be interested because TinySoft wouldn't be able to buy it anyway.
Or, one of the big players may decide to buy it, keep the ideas and concepts, rip up all the code and replace it with their own.
Or, just possibly, it is such a 'big idea' with so much momentum, that one of the big players decides they just have to have it, and are prepared to live with the terms of the license.
Which might make things very interesting.
I'm not looking for another heavy weight image handling application. Got quite a few of those already, and all available GPL or similar.
Flickr was cool because they published their webservice API, allowing others to create simple image uploaders or plugins for existing applications.
But for me, Flickr's main attraction was the ability to share images using a Creative Commons license.
It means I can use other peoples images as resources in my websites, which in turn encourages me to share some of my images with the community.
I haven't see an alternative that promotes Creative Commons in the same way that Flickr does.
I don't use Flickr to show off my images in a web album, I use it to share (attribution, non-commercial) my images with others who have shared their images with the community.
I'm not sure if Microsoft would understand that.
Is this kind of merger a good argument for releasing server side software under the GNUAffero GPL ?
If these services were using software licensed under something like the GNU Affero GPL, then a company like Microsoft wouldn't be able to go near them.
I know the argument against this form of license is that large players like IBM, Sun and Google would not want to use them, so the projects would find it difficult to get sponsorship.
But both Flickr and del.icio.us started as small start-up teams with a cool idea, and became valuable because of the user base they attracted.
When they started out they weren't looking to be bought out by a large company, they just wanted to try out their idea and share it with their friends.
If the next cool idea is started by a team who used tools licensed under the GNU Affero GPL, what happens when it gets discovered and attracts a huge user base ?
It would be interesting to see which of the big players would be prepared to become involved. A potentially disruptive technology.
I'll be waiting for the card that can do Crysis set to 1920x1200, all the goodies on, and 50-60fps
I recently bought a new 24" monitor (PLE2403WS) from Iiyama.
Very nice monitor, but a few problems integrating it with my current video card.
The monitor is 1920x1200 at ~60Hz.
The manual for my graphics card (GeForce PCX 5300) claims it can handle 1920x1080 and 1920x1440, but not 1920x1200:-(
Ok, I kind of expected I would need to get a new graphics card, but I am finding it difficult to find out what screen resolutions the available cards will actually handle.
Most of the online shops don't really supply any details, and the manufacturers websites seem to deliberately make it difficult to find out.
The information is almost always buried at the back of the user manual (which you normally don't get until after you have bought the card).
You have to go to the manufacturers website, select each type of card, transfer to their 'download site', select the card again, download the PDF manual wrapped as a zip file, unpack the pdf.... only to find it is the 'lite' version of the manual which doesn't actually give you details of the screen resolutions.
Am I missing something ?
Does anyone know of a resource on the net where I can find out what screen resolutions graphics cards are capable of handling.
Does anyone else have problems reading pages on the National Geographic website ?
I can see bits of the page, but most of it is obscured by a huge JavaScript driven advert that refuses to go away.
(using FireFox 2.0.0.10 on Linux)
If each individual item within a copyrighted work is copyrighted, then how would we ever legalize mash-ups and re-mixes
The composite work is legal if, and only if, the copyright holders of each component specifically allow you to use it in this way.
A technique that has been used to great effect to enable people like RedHat etc. to put together a large collection of components and release a composite work commonly called a 'Linux distribution'. Because that is how the copyright holders of the original components wanted their software to be used.
Yes - I know this isn't possible with most of the multimedia content currently available, because the copyright holders explicitly say they don't want you to use their content in this way. So don't use their content, use something else.
If the original artists/producers do want people to use their content in this way, then it is up to them to license it in a way that allows it.
Yes - I know that this isn't possible at the moment, but it could be.
Think of it this way. Mash-ups, re-mixes, reviews etc all bring the original work to attention of the public.
Fairly soon, if something isn't on the net, then people won't hear about it, and the best way to get something on the net will be to allow people to use it, share it, quote it and refer to it in these kind of ways.
A few years ago, almost all the commercial software producers were hostile to open source software.
Now they are falling over each other to be open and sharing, because it is what their customers want,
and people are seriously beginning to ask how the closed source software companies are going to make money in a few years time.
I don't think it needs a change in the law, I think it needs a change in the mindset of the users and artists/producers.
Already some artists are starting to question the role of the large record companies, and choosing to release their work under their own terms.
If people like mash-ups and re-mixes, then songs released under mash-up and re-mix friendly terms will get more exposure, more publicity and more sales.
You might want access to a specific piece of content, but you have to respect the wishes of the original creator (even if the original artist chose to sign over the copyright to a large corporation, they made the choice and we have to stick with that).
Saying "No - I don't want to use any of the music already available under the creative commons or similar licenses, I must have access to that (restrictive licensed) piece of music." isn't going to help.
Imagine what would happen if a film studio released the trailer for a new film under the Creative Common license. Everyone would be putting bits of it up on their blog and posting copies of it to YouTube - generating a huge amount of publicity for the film.
A huge amount of music is available from sites like LastFM, because the artists or record labels have chosen to share the music in this way. And it works too, I have discovered quite a few new artists by listening to them on LastFM and gone on to buy their albums.
In a few years time, if it isn't available in a mash-up remix friendly way, then kids won't put it on their myspace sites, and if it isn't on myspace (or whatever the latest networking site is) then kids won't hear about it. Artists and record labels who don't license their content in a friendly way will just get left behind.
If I copy a popluar song, add 5 seconds of silence at the end and call it "added value", can I then sell it under my own name?
No.
If [commercial software company] takes the source code from a GPL licensed project, adds a few lines of their own, can they call it "added value" and sell it under a (closed source) commercial license ?
The initial code base from which to create this project is from the commercial product called IBM Cloudscape. The history of this product is that it was developed at Cloudscape Inc. starting in 1996. The Cloudscape product was purchased along with the Cloudscape company by Informix Software in 1999. In 2001, IBM purchased the database assets of Informix Software, including the Cloudscape product.
IBM plans to contribute the Derby code base, test cases, build files, and documentation to the ASF under the terms specified in the ASF Corporate Contributor License. Once at Apache, the project will be licensed under the ASF license.
Slashdot Mirror
My apologies.
If the laptop runs Windows XP, then will the EULA prohibit the child using a debugger to explore how the operating system works ?
If the laptop runs Windows XP, then will the school need (or be told that they need) to run a Microsoft server for them to share files ?
If the school runs a Microsoft server will the EULA prohibit the child using '(reverse) engineering tools' to explore how the network protocols work ?
To me it matters a lot. I bought an OLPC through the BuyOneGiveOne scheme because I believe introducing an open source platform into schools (anywhere, 1st world or 3rd world) is a GoodThing. I also bought one to see if I could learn how it works and hopefully contribute something, either (open source) software or (creative commons) content, to the project.
I did not do it so that Microsoft could use the OLPC as a platform for introducing Windows (and the resulting vendor lock in) into yet more schools.
So you may be right, it probably won't matter to the child who receives one (at least at first anyway). I think it will matter to many of those who have been supporting the project with contributions of funds, open source software and creative commons content.
I have been using Fedora on servers, desktops and laptops for several years.
A couple of weeks ago we wanted to install a small website server on a hosted VM. What we found was that in the UK, almost all of the VM hosting companies were offering Ubuntu but not Fedora while most of the dedicated hosting was offering RHEL or CentOS.
To me this says two things. First, yes if people want a serious production server then at the moment they go for RHEL or CentOS. But the second part, and possibly more important for the future, is that people building quick experiments in a VM are choosing Ubuntu. Probably not because Ubuntu server has better features or support, but because it is what they run on their laptops and desktops and they are familiar with it.
I encountered something similar in our department. We run a lot of our web services in Xen VMs, and most of them are Ubuntu. When I asked our sys admin why they chose Ubuntu for the server VMs he said it was because both he and our project manager were already familiar with it, having used it on their laptops. At one point, I even heard someone say that they weren't sure how well Fedora or RedHat would be able to run in Xen.
If you know the history and the amount of work RedHat have contributed, then this will probably make you want to scream. But the point is, most of the people who use Linux don't know the history.
In the past, most of us first encountered Linux by hacking on a command line system trying to get it to connect to the network. Actually getting it to display a nice GUI was a major achievement. In those days, the tech discussion groups and documentation hosted by RedHat and later Fedora were invaluable.
Now, for many people their first encounter with Linux is installing a full OpenGL capable graphics system on their laptop or desktop from a standard install DVD. If this is their first encounter with Linux, they will become familiar with that set of tools.
The tools they encounter when learning on their laptop or desktop will have a big influence when it comes to choosing what distro to use on the server side.
The license fee covers the *broadcast* not the reception. So in the case of iPlayer it covers the BBC's costs of putting it on the network.
If it covered reception too, then should viewers be able to claim a refund on their electricity bill for running a TV set ?
Or, in this example, it would be more like the electricity companies claiming that the BBC should contribute to the costs of the peak demand created by everyone wanting to watch popular TV programs at the same time.
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks
Would this have implications for young kids who got an OLPC for Christmas through the BuyOneGiveOne campaign.
When you switch it on, the OLPC tries to build a mesh network out of any wireless access points it can find.
Yep. I agree.
If Sequoia have nothing to hide ... what are they afraid of ?
I do, but not usually for security reasons.
Sometimes I get stuck with something in my own code triggering a really obscure error message, and I have no idea what is causing it or why. As a last resort I can download the source and grep for part of the error message. Nine times out of ten I can find the code that is generating the error message within the first few hits. Reading the code helps me to figure out what I'm doing wrong, and how to avoid the problem.
Ok, it could be argued that in an ideal world I shouldn't need to read the code to figure out what an error message means, and I would agree with you there .... in an ideal world.
... you really are stuck.
Point is that we don't live in an ideal world, and sometimes error messages can be very very obscure. But in a closed source system, we wouldn't have the option of reading the code. So if you are stuck on something you don't understand
Second reason for reading the source code is when I see a really cool feature in a program, and I would like to add something like it to my code. In most cases I don't actually need to copy anything to add it. Turns out that the really cool feature is implemented by calling a method in another open source library that I can just add to my own application.
Again, in an ideal world I shouldn't need to read source code to find a useful function or library. But I have yet to see a search engine that can find "the library that [insert name of application] used to implement the [insert text description of feature]".
Third, and possibly most useful, is the ability to modify what is there to customize it. Being able to jump in and add two or three lines of code to customize or extend an existing application can make all the difference between not being able to complete a project and completing on time.
In which case, they wouldn't have funded the projects in the first place.
This isn't about deciding not to fund new projects. This is about cutting funding for existing projects (and staff) because someone somewhere got the figures wrong.
This is not just about Jodrell. The funding for a lot of UK astronomy projects is being cut.
At the moment, no one really seems to know why .
Disclaimer: I work for one of the projects under threat, so I might be a bit biased.
Demon Home 8000
8Mbit download, £17.99 a month inc VAT, no limits
Demon HomeOffice 8000
8Mbit download, fixed IP address, £22.99 a month inc VAT, no limits
I use Fedora on all my machines, servers, desktops and laptops, and like it a lot.
Glad to make your acquaintance, now you know at least one person who uses Fedora because they like it.
I write code too, like you it is my job, and (most of the time) I enjoy what I do.
I also enjoy being able to tell people "yes", as in "yes, I can give you tools that will help you".
I kind of liked the article, each to their own I guess.
Who is JPM ?
I don't know. That is why I'm asking.
Or more accurately, if one of the next 'big ideas' in web services is implemented by a start-up company using Affero GPL licensed server software - would it affect the way the big players behaved ?
It might be that none of them want to become involved, so no sale.
It might be that the big players are only paying big money not because they actually want the service, but because they don't want their competitor to have it. In which case, Boogle might not be interested because TinySoft wouldn't be able to buy it anyway.
Or, one of the big players may decide to buy it, keep the ideas and concepts, rip up all the code and replace it with their own.
Or, just possibly, it is such a 'big idea' with so much momentum, that one of the big players decides they just have to have it, and are prepared to live with the terms of the license. Which might make things very interesting.
I'm not looking for another heavy weight image handling application. Got quite a few of those already, and all available GPL or similar. Flickr was cool because they published their webservice API, allowing others to create simple image uploaders or plugins for existing applications.
But for me, Flickr's main attraction was the ability to share images using a Creative Commons license. It means I can use other peoples images as resources in my websites, which in turn encourages me to share some of my images with the community. I haven't see an alternative that promotes Creative Commons in the same way that Flickr does.
I don't use Flickr to show off my images in a web album, I use it to share (attribution, non-commercial) my images with others who have shared their images with the community.
I'm not sure if Microsoft would understand that.
Is this kind of merger a good argument for releasing server side software under the GNU Affero GPL ? If these services were using software licensed under something like the GNU Affero GPL, then a company like Microsoft wouldn't be able to go near them.
I know the argument against this form of license is that large players like IBM, Sun and Google would not want to use them, so the projects would find it difficult to get sponsorship. But both Flickr and del.icio.us started as small start-up teams with a cool idea, and became valuable because of the user base they attracted. When they started out they weren't looking to be bought out by a large company, they just wanted to try out their idea and share it with their friends.
If the next cool idea is started by a team who used tools licensed under the GNU Affero GPL, what happens when it gets discovered and attracts a huge user base ? It would be interesting to see which of the big players would be prepared to become involved. A potentially disruptive technology.
All my bookmarks are in del.icio.us :-(
All my images are in Flickr :-(
If I knew they were going to hand over all my data to Microsoft I wouldn't have signed up.
*sigh* time to start looking for alternative services.
I recently bought a new 24" monitor (PLE2403WS) from Iiyama. Very nice monitor, but a few problems integrating it with my current video card.
The monitor is 1920x1200 at ~60Hz. The manual for my graphics card (GeForce PCX 5300) claims it can handle 1920x1080 and 1920x1440, but not 1920x1200 :-(
Ok, I kind of expected I would need to get a new graphics card, but I am finding it difficult to find out what screen resolutions the available cards will actually handle. Most of the online shops don't really supply any details, and the manufacturers websites seem to deliberately make it difficult to find out.
The information is almost always buried at the back of the user manual (which you normally don't get until after you have bought the card). You have to go to the manufacturers website, select each type of card, transfer to their 'download site', select the card again, download the PDF manual wrapped as a zip file, unpack the pdf .... only to find it is the 'lite' version of the manual which doesn't actually give you details of the screen resolutions.
Am I missing something ? Does anyone know of a resource on the net where I can find out what screen resolutions graphics cards are capable of handling.
(using FireFox 2.0.0.10 on Linux)
The composite work is legal if, and only if, the copyright holders of each component specifically allow you to use it in this way. A technique that has been used to great effect to enable people like RedHat etc. to put together a large collection of components and release a composite work commonly called a 'Linux distribution'. Because that is how the copyright holders of the original components wanted their software to be used.
Yes - I know this isn't possible with most of the multimedia content currently available, because the copyright holders explicitly say they don't want you to use their content in this way. So don't use their content, use something else. If the original artists/producers do want people to use their content in this way, then it is up to them to license it in a way that allows it. Yes - I know that this isn't possible at the moment, but it could be.
Think of it this way. Mash-ups, re-mixes, reviews etc all bring the original work to attention of the public. Fairly soon, if something isn't on the net, then people won't hear about it, and the best way to get something on the net will be to allow people to use it, share it, quote it and refer to it in these kind of ways.
A few years ago, almost all the commercial software producers were hostile to open source software. Now they are falling over each other to be open and sharing, because it is what their customers want, and people are seriously beginning to ask how the closed source software companies are going to make money in a few years time.
I don't think it needs a change in the law, I think it needs a change in the mindset of the users and artists/producers. Already some artists are starting to question the role of the large record companies, and choosing to release their work under their own terms. If people like mash-ups and re-mixes, then songs released under mash-up and re-mix friendly terms will get more exposure, more publicity and more sales.
You might want access to a specific piece of content, but you have to respect the wishes of the original creator (even if the original artist chose to sign over the copyright to a large corporation, they made the choice and we have to stick with that). Saying "No - I don't want to use any of the music already available under the creative commons or similar licenses, I must have access to that (restrictive licensed) piece of music." isn't going to help.
Imagine what would happen if a film studio released the trailer for a new film under the Creative Common license. Everyone would be putting bits of it up on their blog and posting copies of it to YouTube - generating a huge amount of publicity for the film.
A huge amount of music is available from sites like LastFM, because the artists or record labels have chosen to share the music in this way. And it works too, I have discovered quite a few new artists by listening to them on LastFM and gone on to buy their albums.
In a few years time, if it isn't available in a mash-up remix friendly way, then kids won't put it on their myspace sites, and if it isn't on myspace (or whatever the latest networking site is) then kids won't hear about it. Artists and record labels who don't license their content in a friendly way will just get left behind.
No.
If [commercial software company] takes the source code from a GPL licensed project, adds a few lines of their own, can they call it "added value" and sell it under a (closed source) commercial license ?
Nope, can't do that either.
Sun don't own Derby. It used to be owned by IBM, and they gave it to the Apache foundation to look after.
From the Apache Derby website :