Err, not necessarily. In most legal systems you can renounce a series of rights granted you by law thanks to a contract. That is definetely the case for liabillity rules. However, the extent to which you can waive your right to sue for liability varies from legal system to legal system and depending on the liability's subject matter. In Europe, most producter's liability for defective products can't be waived. I'm not sure how things go in the US regarding that matter.
Not sure if the status quo could be maintained. It might be the case in huge projects where the free software patent portfolio could be quite large (think linux kernel), but in smaller projects, the free software portfolio, being largely inferior to that of the commercial software company's, would not be an effective deterrent. The problem would be like this:
Proprietary company: ok, I have 10 patents on your software. Pay me 10.
Free software project: Yeah, but I have two patents on your software.
Proprietary company: ok then, pay me 8.
Free software project: But I only have 4.
Proprietary company: oh, so I'm driving you out of business am I? Oh well, life is tough.
The problem is thus that we are unsure that a "patent war chest" for FLOSS would be a good enough deterrent. It wouldn't hurt I suppose, but I fear it wouldn't be enough.
My experience is that office does about as good of a job as opening old office documents as openoffice does.
Quite true. Nevertheless, version foo of Word opens documents made by version foo of Word perfectly (and mostly versions foo -1 too), whereas OO.org has problems even with the current version. So OO.org remains a bit weaker when reading Word documents, which shouldn't be surprising.
Obviously, I agree with you that open standards are the way to go to solve all this. Btw, isn't RTF a workable solution for migrations? Just asking...
Well, the problem is, patenting takes up both time and money. Supposing all free software developers wanted to patent the inventions contained in their software (not likely), only a small fraction would have the means to obtain and enforce a patent.
And then there is of course the cross-licensing problem: suppose free software developer foo patents the inventions in his software and wants to enforce his patents against proprietary developer bar. When he comes to bar saying "you're infinging my patents A and B", Bar will just answer "yeah, well, you're infringing my patents C, D, E and F, so whatcha gonna do boy?".
That's the big problem with patents. The big guy wins, end of story.
Bill Gates is smart enough not to think any marketshare is unsurmountable. He remembers the day when people thought IBM's marketshare was insurmountable.
And honestly, why would MS be all out against GNU/Linux if they didn't think they were at risk?
Well, ok, let's say it's mission critical for you. That doesn't make it mission critical for everyone, or even for most people. GDB is mission critical for plenty of developers, but totally irrelevant for most people. It's availability has nothing to do with the maturity or relevance of a desktop.
Same goes for desktop search. Most people find their documents quite easily enough thanks to classifying their documents in relevant folders, and mails in relevant mailboxes. A quick search on those is easily performed.Then there are the geeks who master find, locate and all that. It leaves few people who actually *need* a desktop search by the likes of google desktop search or Beagle. Sure, it's a nice feature, but hardly critical.
And btw, last time I checked, Google desktop search wasn't a standard part of the windows desktop environment:-p
The fact that the over-hyped desktop search is perhaps missing in Gnome does not make it "not mature". Desktop search is a useful but highly uncritical feature that's been getting lots of press recently, but it hardly stands as a criterion on deciding whether a desktop is mature or not. By that criterion, few desktops were mature a few months ago, and few even are currently by default.
Plus, I agree that anyone considering that desktop search is needed for a desktop to be mature should take a look at locate, find...
If I start a service (and am stupid enough not to think about it) on a Unix or Linux system I know what I'm getting.
Just to be fair, you have to remember that by default, a lot of distros launch a hell of a lot of unnedded services (Fedora does this), so you don't need to "start" a service, it's already mischievously running. You have to positively act out to stop those useless services.
I believe OpenBSD is the best in this area since I think it has a "not running by default" policy. Even though I'm an Ubuntu/Debian person myself.
GPL restricts you from redistributing under another license. That serves your freedom, and ensures you will always keep that freedom, but it is still a restriction. It is a restriction for the best, but a restriction nonethless. A BSD license does not make you less free. It is less restricted. But in the long run, your freedom is more fragile in a BSD license. Think of the GPL restriction as smart trade-off.
if you're a Linux User whose responsibility is for getting a Linux box running
Funny, lot's of linux users don't give a damn about LFS and get their box running fine. I know I do.
What's so hard about getting a linux box running these days?
oh great, so you're one of those types who makes laws for a living, then. great. thanks for gunking up civilization, yo!
Yep, I'm one of those lawyer types who pushes for free software adoption in a series of articles and who conferences about the advantages of free software. What have you done for the community? Stop making unsubstantiated claims. You clearly don't have a clue, nor know more than basic propaganda about law. Like to tell Eben Moglen or Lawrence Lessig they're gunking up civilization? Twat.
I'd be quite happy to do that. know anyone who can educate me?
Apart from the possible exception of the last one, it's called university. You're welcome.
oh, wait.. you're a lawyer. lawyers have a vested interest in keeping people ignorant, so i see where you're coming from. for me to 'change your mind' about this issue would be to fundamentally ruin your livelihood...
Indeed, you do seem to need educating. Any specialist (and that goes for computer specialists) does what I just described. Clients don't pay for education, but for useful information. The keyword is "useful". And by the way, I work in an academic context. My "clients" are usually public institutions seeking advice on the best type of legislation to pass. When I'm not helping them, I'm teaching. But yeah, you're right I want to keep people ignorant... You might want to live without stereotypes.
Doing an LFS insallation will give you -plenty- of details about whats useful for your job, if your job is to keep Linux burning...
[sarcasm]oh, wait... you're a linux geek? Linux geeks are long-haired bearded smelly nerds living in their mom's basements, and have a vested interst in being communists.[/sarcasm]
Did you ever assume that that was not most people's job and looking down on those who could care less was plain silly?
Then why not go the whole way, learn how to make chips, boards, melt metal... Learn the basis of electronics. Then of course, go down to physics and chemistry. And understand how matter formed. And, obviously, down to metaphysics to understand how and why we're here.
Communication only enhanced human civilization because of specialization: only relevant information is communicated. When I (a lawyer) give information to a client, I summarize what he needs to know, and give him just that. Of course, he would understand things better if I went back to the basics, but he doesn't need that. In the same manner, technical knowledge specializes itself more and more. Programming languages get to be more and more high-level. Application programmers can trust OS (or kernel or whatever) programmers to take away a part of the complexity of memory management away from them, and get on with what they specialize in. Not having to know all the details helps them be more productive and make bigger breakthroughs. So while you'll be learning how to make a microchip, others will be progressing in their field, while ignoring all about microchip management.
It has nothing to do with "ignoring what's hard", but everything to do with "knowing what's useful for my job". Pleasure of knowledge is of course something completely different altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
"law trumps contract and overrules the EULA"
Err, not necessarily. In most legal systems you can renounce a series of rights granted you by law thanks to a contract. That is definetely the case for liabillity rules. However, the extent to which you can waive your right to sue for liability varies from legal system to legal system and depending on the liability's subject matter. In Europe, most producter's liability for defective products can't be waived. I'm not sure how things go in the US regarding that matter.
Not sure if the status quo could be maintained. It might be the case in huge projects where the free software patent portfolio could be quite large (think linux kernel), but in smaller projects, the free software portfolio, being largely inferior to that of the commercial software company's, would not be an effective deterrent. The problem would be like this:
Proprietary company: ok, I have 10 patents on your software. Pay me 10.
Free software project: Yeah, but I have two patents on your software.
Proprietary company: ok then, pay me 8.
Free software project: But I only have 4.
Proprietary company: oh, so I'm driving you out of business am I? Oh well, life is tough.
The problem is thus that we are unsure that a "patent war chest" for FLOSS would be a good enough deterrent. It wouldn't hurt I suppose, but I fear it wouldn't be enough.
My experience is that office does about as good of a job as opening old office documents as openoffice does.
Quite true. Nevertheless, version foo of Word opens documents made by version foo of Word perfectly (and mostly versions foo -1 too), whereas OO.org has problems even with the current version. So OO.org remains a bit weaker when reading Word documents, which shouldn't be surprising.
Obviously, I agree with you that open standards are the way to go to solve all this. Btw, isn't RTF a workable solution for migrations? Just asking...
Well, the problem is, patenting takes up both time and money. Supposing all free software developers wanted to patent the inventions contained in their software (not likely), only a small fraction would have the means to obtain and enforce a patent.
And then there is of course the cross-licensing problem: suppose free software developer foo patents the inventions in his software and wants to enforce his patents against proprietary developer bar. When he comes to bar saying "you're infinging my patents A and B", Bar will just answer "yeah, well, you're infringing my patents C, D, E and F, so whatcha gonna do boy?".
That's the big problem with patents. The big guy wins, end of story.
Bill Gates is smart enough not to think any marketshare is unsurmountable. He remembers the day when people thought IBM's marketshare was insurmountable.
And honestly, why would MS be all out against GNU/Linux if they didn't think they were at risk?
Get a grip. It was humour.
Well, ok, let's say it's mission critical for you. That doesn't make it mission critical for everyone, or even for most people. GDB is mission critical for plenty of developers, but totally irrelevant for most people. It's availability has nothing to do with the maturity or relevance of a desktop.
:-p
Same goes for desktop search. Most people find their documents quite easily enough thanks to classifying their documents in relevant folders, and mails in relevant mailboxes. A quick search on those is easily performed.Then there are the geeks who master find, locate and all that. It leaves few people who actually *need* a desktop search by the likes of google desktop search or Beagle. Sure, it's a nice feature, but hardly critical.
And btw, last time I checked, Google desktop search wasn't a standard part of the windows desktop environment
The fact that the over-hyped desktop search is perhaps missing in Gnome does not make it "not mature". Desktop search is a useful but highly uncritical feature that's been getting lots of press recently, but it hardly stands as a criterion on deciding whether a desktop is mature or not. By that criterion, few desktops were mature a few months ago, and few even are currently by default. Plus, I agree that anyone considering that desktop search is needed for a desktop to be mature should take a look at locate, find...
If I start a service (and am stupid enough not to think about it) on a Unix or Linux system I know what I'm getting.
Just to be fair, you have to remember that by default, a lot of distros launch a hell of a lot of unnedded services (Fedora does this), so you don't need to "start" a service, it's already mischievously running. You have to positively act out to stop those useless services.
I believe OpenBSD is the best in this area since I think it has a "not running by default" policy. Even though I'm an Ubuntu/Debian person myself.
You can very much use it within a company, modify it, and not release anything publicly. That is a commonly understood legal fact, stated by the GPL Faq. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCIntern alDistribution
GPL restricts you from redistributing under another license. That serves your freedom, and ensures you will always keep that freedom, but it is still a restriction. It is a restriction for the best, but a restriction nonethless. A BSD license does not make you less free. It is less restricted. But in the long run, your freedom is more fragile in a BSD license. Think of the GPL restriction as smart trade-off.
The way I took it was like "jentoo", as in "Generation two". At least, that's what I always figured.
if you're a Linux User whose responsibility is for getting a Linux box running
Funny, lot's of linux users don't give a damn about LFS and get their box running fine. I know I do. What's so hard about getting a linux box running these days?
oh great, so you're one of those types who makes laws for a living, then. great. thanks for gunking up civilization, yo!
Yep, I'm one of those lawyer types who pushes for free software adoption in a series of articles and who conferences about the advantages of free software. What have you done for the community? Stop making unsubstantiated claims. You clearly don't have a clue, nor know more than basic propaganda about law. Like to tell Eben Moglen or Lawrence Lessig they're gunking up civilization? Twat.
I'd be quite happy to do that. know anyone who can educate me?
.. you're a lawyer. lawyers have a vested interest in keeping people ignorant, so i see where you're coming from. for me to 'change your mind' about this issue would be to fundamentally ruin your livelihood...
Apart from the possible exception of the last one, it's called university. You're welcome.
oh, wait
Indeed, you do seem to need educating. Any specialist (and that goes for computer specialists) does what I just described. Clients don't pay for education, but for useful information. The keyword is "useful". And by the way, I work in an academic context. My "clients" are usually public institutions seeking advice on the best type of legislation to pass. When I'm not helping them, I'm teaching. But yeah, you're right I want to keep people ignorant... You might want to live without stereotypes.
Doing an LFS insallation will give you -plenty- of details about whats useful for your job, if your job is to keep Linux burning...
[sarcasm]oh, wait... you're a linux geek? Linux geeks are long-haired bearded smelly nerds living in their mom's basements, and have a vested interst in being communists.[/sarcasm]
Did you ever assume that that was not most people's job and looking down on those who could care less was plain silly?
Then why not go the whole way, learn how to make chips, boards, melt metal... Learn the basis of electronics. Then of course, go down to physics and chemistry. And understand how matter formed. And, obviously, down to metaphysics to understand how and why we're here.
Communication only enhanced human civilization because of specialization: only relevant information is communicated. When I (a lawyer) give information to a client, I summarize what he needs to know, and give him just that. Of course, he would understand things better if I went back to the basics, but he doesn't need that. In the same manner, technical knowledge specializes itself more and more. Programming languages get to be more and more high-level. Application programmers can trust OS (or kernel or whatever) programmers to take away a part of the complexity of memory management away from them, and get on with what they specialize in. Not having to know all the details helps them be more productive and make bigger breakthroughs. So while you'll be learning how to make a microchip, others will be progressing in their field, while ignoring all about microchip management.
It has nothing to do with "ignoring what's hard", but everything to do with "knowing what's useful for my job". Pleasure of knowledge is of course something completely different altogether.
That's smart. Let's give the community a better image.