Actually, you're only violating regs if you keep the CVV2 number (three digit number on the back) - PCI DSS says you dump that as soon as you verify it, but you do not have to with the credit card number (otherwise how do you expect PayPal et. al. to work?)
They already have given a "we CAN not sue" to them - the.NET CLR is licensed under the MS-Pl license, which is similar to a BSD license (even with the evil attribution clause). It also includes patent and copyright protection in the form of a clause stating that all contributors (MS in this case) issue a worldwide, perpetual, royalty free license to any and all patents and copyrights pertaining to the code. They also include a clause (I've heard it's similar to a GPLv3 clause, but I don't know for sure) that states that your license to any and all patents included in the code is revoked should you litigate against someone with regards to those patents.
That said, the core of.NET *IS* open source. The closed source stuff is the stuff in the MS namespaces.
And here's that text again, WITH LINE BREAKS (dammit Slashdot, HTML formatted is the WORST feature ever):
2. Grant of Rights
(A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its contribution, and distribute its contribution or any derivative works that you create.
(B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in the software or derivative works of the contribution in the software. Top of pageTop of page 3. Conditions and Limitations
(A) No Trademark License- This license does not grant you rights to use any contributors' name, logo, or trademarks.
(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.
(C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are present in the software.
(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.
(E) The software is licensed "as-is." You bear the risk of using it. The contributors give no express warranties, guarantees or conditions. You may have additional consumer rights under your local laws which this license cannot change. To the extent permitted under your local laws, the contributors exclude the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement.
I just read the license, and you are completely wrong. Here is the whole text:
2. Grant of Rights
(A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its contribution, and distribute its contribution or any derivative works that you create.
(B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in the software or derivative works of the contribution in the software.
3. Conditions and Limitations
(A) No Trademark License- This license does not grant you rights to use any contributors' name, logo, or trademarks.
(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.
(C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are present in the software.
(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.
(E) The software is licensed "as-is." You bear the risk of using it. The contributors give no express warranties, guarantees or conditions. You may have additional consumer rights under your local laws which this license cannot change. To the extent permitted under your local laws, the contributors exclude the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement. So, basically it says that you may make and sell the software or derivitive works of the software at no charge - due to the non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty free patent and copyright grant - provided you leave attributions in place. NOWHERE does it say you may not improve it. You are just spreading crap to further your own agenda.
I don't see how that's relevant to Visual Studio, which doesn't honestly care what web server you use. Visual Studio doesn't know what MIME type you will be serving your content as, nor will it actually ever deal with MIME types for your content at all. And even then, if it's ASP.NET you have the ability to set "Response.ContentType = 'application/xhtml+xml'" which would work. Though, annoyingly enough, you need to prefix that with "if ( Request.Browser.Browser != 'IE' )"
Perhaps the iPhone is NOT certain to be the most popular up and coming device? Out of all the people I know, noone wants an iPhone. It's just too expensive - pretty much not worth the price tag
Parent is wrong. The Shared Source license linked to there ONLY applies to those with Windows Source Code access. The licenses you really want to look at are http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/li censingbasics/sharedsourcelicenses.mspx - which in two of the three flavours allow modification and redistribution for both commercial and non-commercial use. The Ms-Pl is like a BSD license - essentially "do whatever, we don't care. We also grant you royalty free non-exclusive perpetual rights to each and every patent or copyright covered by this code". The Ms-Cl has some GPL aspects in that if you use any of this type of code, any file it is used in is automatically forced to abide by this license - including the source distribution clause (so you must redistribute your modifications). The Ms-RL basically is "don't. Leave it. Read it all you like but don't even TRY changing it".
There are bizarre secondary permutations of the first two licenses in that you can use the Ms-LCl or Ms-LPl to limit use of the code for Windows based apps only, but I've never seen anything from MS - or anyone else - that uses this license. Windows source code is another kettle of fish with the vicious license parent mentioned.
Overgeneralises? Hardly. Although I do throw "zealot" around too much. I like the word, so what. Anyway, back on topic...
You say most government grant funded software should be public domain. How exactly do you decide what fits into the "most" and what fits into the "no" categories? Should that be your decision? In these cases, governments should be weighing the pros and cons of release of information. In the case of the software that manages your medical records, there are no pros to releasing that - even if there isn't a hell of a lot of cons either.
Then, there is the mistake you are making of looking at the government as representative of the public. The reality is that this isn't the case. Once elected, the government does not care about the public. A more appropriate way of looking at this is that if you, say, leased email service from Google, should the source code of the Gmail engine be given to you? After all, it's development is paid for by you.
I work for a government department, and unsurprisingly there is a clause in my contract stating that all code developed for the department becomes the exclusive property of the company. Note that I said company, as the government department is a legitimate, registered, taxpaying company. Crown agency or not, we're treated like a contracted company with a bigger oversight committee.
Indeed. But then, can we even say that such a process does not occur? There may well be something like what you describe, after all "Peer Review" does not necessarily entail outside peer review - nor even by your definition does "open peer review" entail outside organisation - but we just don't know what they do internally.
Yes, but the EULA on all software says "If you do not agree to the End User License Agreement, you may return this product to the place of purchase for a full refund" providing you the option after purchasing the product to invalidate your implicit agreement at no loss to yourself, other than needing to get another product.
But if they do see a vulnerability or bug, they are certainly free to report it. This equates it with something akin to a peer review process, as people trying to build an application see a flaw in an area they actually understand are able to say "hey guys, there's a problem here with xxxx, where yyyy could happen if zzzz happens". Availability of code under these conditions is comparable to a peer review process. Note that I didn't say open. Unlike the typical OSS zealots, I don't believe all software should be open.
Why isn't the software that manages your medical history public domain, given that the public healthcare system funded it.
True. That should be too. No. It shouldn't. The potential damage that could occur with random Joe Q Public having access to the entire methodology behind the storage of people's most private data, without even the legal protection of an NDA is just... astronomical. I think the poster of the root of this particular thread is just another of those anti-copyright zealots who think that every single thing developed should be public domain.
That said, I'll address somne of your other points as well, since I do agree with some. With the drug patents, they certainly should not be allowed to be stonewalled into a proprietry drug and never seen again. Arguably, I think drug patents in general are ridiculous - a better approach would be for a government agency to own ALL drug patents, and fund companies in research toward new ones. From there, the companies would be permitted, say, 2 years of exclusivity, but with a maximum fixed price for the sale of the product (drug companies should NOT be making billions upon billions of dollars, while relatively poor people have no access to medication). I know, nasty communist idea. Addressing the topic at hand, projects which are publically funded should be free to sell out to commercial enterprises, provided their charity's board unanimously agrees, and at least one representative of government interests should be on this board.
No, because usage of email and phone for private usage is also allowed by government departments. What's that I hear? Lawyers salivating over the violation of privacy lawsuits?
What are you talking about? Other companies than Microsoft DO have access to Windows source code. Most governments, as an example. Just because YOU can't get at the code, you can't claim that it can't be peer reviewed. With that attitude, the Windows users should feel fortunate that you don't have access to their source code.
Actually, Windows XP x64, and it's Vista successor, are quite good. They put the 32-bit versions of themselves to shame in terms of performance (with native mode applications, i.e. 64-bit compiled) and security (don't ask how, I don't know. But Windows does leverage the processor's built in anti-buffer overrun protection).
You, clearly, are an idiot.
Obligatory mention: Linux, BSD and Unix have all been 64-bit for some time as well, and I believe most would pick Linux or BSD over Solaris.
Why isn't the software that manages your medical history public domain, given that the public healthcare system funded it. That said, why isn't that medical history itself public domain? While we're on that, why am I not able to walk into a public library and read your driver's license, birth records, marriage records, medical history, criminal records, and so forth? Oh, that's right, because being funded by public money does NOT automatically entail public ownership.
You mean the same as removing the "execute" bit from the NTFS permissions on the VLC.exe program on Windows? Yup. Using an OS where one can have simple control over execute permissions is great.
If you ever visit Google (which even the mythological "mom and pop" you refer to will do at some point), Google displays a message saying to change your default search to Google, and offers a handy link to automatically do so.
They can only seize domains via WIPO that are similar to their own trademarks. If they shut down a cybersquatter, any domains that aren't similar to MS IP would be released back into the available pool, presumably.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, you're only violating regs if you keep the CVV2 number (three digit number on the back) - PCI DSS says you dump that as soon as you verify it, but you do not have to with the credit card number (otherwise how do you expect PayPal et. al. to work?)
But Google Book Search allows publishers to contact them to opt out. This service does not. Correlation failed.
They already have given a "we CAN not sue" to them - the .NET CLR is licensed under the MS-Pl license, which is similar to a BSD license (even with the evil attribution clause). It also includes patent and copyright protection in the form of a clause stating that all contributors (MS in this case) issue a worldwide, perpetual, royalty free license to any and all patents and copyrights pertaining to the code. They also include a clause (I've heard it's similar to a GPLv3 clause, but I don't know for sure) that states that your license to any and all patents included in the code is revoked should you litigate against someone with regards to those patents.
.NET *IS* open source. The closed source stuff is the stuff in the MS namespaces.
That said, the core of
Sorry, there's already a precendent for that, just not in America.
And here's that text again, WITH LINE BREAKS (dammit Slashdot, HTML formatted is the WORST feature ever):
2. Grant of Rights
(A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its contribution, and distribute its contribution or any derivative works that you create.
(B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its licensed patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in the software or derivative works of the contribution in the software.
Top of pageTop of page
3. Conditions and Limitations
(A) No Trademark License- This license does not grant you rights to use any contributors' name, logo, or trademarks.
(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically.
(C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are present in the software.
(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form, you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under a license that complies with this license.
(E) The software is licensed "as-is." You bear the risk of using it. The contributors give no express warranties, guarantees or conditions. You may have additional consumer rights under your local laws which this license cannot change. To the extent permitted under your local laws, the contributors exclude the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement.
I don't see how that's relevant to Visual Studio, which doesn't honestly care what web server you use. Visual Studio doesn't know what MIME type you will be serving your content as, nor will it actually ever deal with MIME types for your content at all. And even then, if it's ASP.NET you have the ability to set "Response.ContentType = 'application/xhtml+xml'" which would work. Though, annoyingly enough, you need to prefix that with "if ( Request.Browser.Browser != 'IE' )"
Perhaps the iPhone is NOT certain to be the most popular up and coming device? Out of all the people I know, noone wants an iPhone. It's just too expensive - pretty much not worth the price tag
Indeed, UK English is the same. The GP still makes no sense.
Parent is wrong. The Shared Source license linked to there ONLY applies to those with Windows Source Code access. The licenses you really want to look at are http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/li censingbasics/sharedsourcelicenses.mspx - which in two of the three flavours allow modification and redistribution for both commercial and non-commercial use. The Ms-Pl is like a BSD license - essentially "do whatever, we don't care. We also grant you royalty free non-exclusive perpetual rights to each and every patent or copyright covered by this code". The Ms-Cl has some GPL aspects in that if you use any of this type of code, any file it is used in is automatically forced to abide by this license - including the source distribution clause (so you must redistribute your modifications). The Ms-RL basically is "don't. Leave it. Read it all you like but don't even TRY changing it".
There are bizarre secondary permutations of the first two licenses in that you can use the Ms-LCl or Ms-LPl to limit use of the code for Windows based apps only, but I've never seen anything from MS - or anyone else - that uses this license. Windows source code is another kettle of fish with the vicious license parent mentioned.
Aye. Depends on your country though. Isn't, here.
Overgeneralises? Hardly. Although I do throw "zealot" around too much. I like the word, so what. Anyway, back on topic...
You say most government grant funded software should be public domain. How exactly do you decide what fits into the "most" and what fits into the "no" categories? Should that be your decision? In these cases, governments should be weighing the pros and cons of release of information. In the case of the software that manages your medical records, there are no pros to releasing that - even if there isn't a hell of a lot of cons either.
Then, there is the mistake you are making of looking at the government as representative of the public. The reality is that this isn't the case. Once elected, the government does not care about the public. A more appropriate way of looking at this is that if you, say, leased email service from Google, should the source code of the Gmail engine be given to you? After all, it's development is paid for by you.
I work for a government department, and unsurprisingly there is a clause in my contract stating that all code developed for the department becomes the exclusive property of the company. Note that I said company, as the government department is a legitimate, registered, taxpaying company. Crown agency or not, we're treated like a contracted company with a bigger oversight committee.
Indeed. But then, can we even say that such a process does not occur? There may well be something like what you describe, after all "Peer Review" does not necessarily entail outside peer review - nor even by your definition does "open peer review" entail outside organisation - but we just don't know what they do internally.
Yes, but the EULA on all software says "If you do not agree to the End User License Agreement, you may return this product to the place of purchase for a full refund" providing you the option after purchasing the product to invalidate your implicit agreement at no loss to yourself, other than needing to get another product.
I wouldn't consider the non-profit organisation Internet Archive "deep pockets".
But if they do see a vulnerability or bug, they are certainly free to report it. This equates it with something akin to a peer review process, as people trying to build an application see a flaw in an area they actually understand are able to say "hey guys, there's a problem here with xxxx, where yyyy could happen if zzzz happens". Availability of code under these conditions is comparable to a peer review process. Note that I didn't say open. Unlike the typical OSS zealots, I don't believe all software should be open.
True. That should be too. No. It shouldn't. The potential damage that could occur with random Joe Q Public having access to the entire methodology behind the storage of people's most private data, without even the legal protection of an NDA is just... astronomical. I think the poster of the root of this particular thread is just another of those anti-copyright zealots who think that every single thing developed should be public domain.
That said, I'll address somne of your other points as well, since I do agree with some. With the drug patents, they certainly should not be allowed to be stonewalled into a proprietry drug and never seen again. Arguably, I think drug patents in general are ridiculous - a better approach would be for a government agency to own ALL drug patents, and fund companies in research toward new ones. From there, the companies would be permitted, say, 2 years of exclusivity, but with a maximum fixed price for the sale of the product (drug companies should NOT be making billions upon billions of dollars, while relatively poor people have no access to medication). I know, nasty communist idea. Addressing the topic at hand, projects which are publically funded should be free to sell out to commercial enterprises, provided their charity's board unanimously agrees, and at least one representative of government interests should be on this board.
No, because usage of email and phone for private usage is also allowed by government departments. What's that I hear? Lawyers salivating over the violation of privacy lawsuits?
I think ex-spouses comes under suspects.
What are you talking about? Other companies than Microsoft DO have access to Windows source code. Most governments, as an example. Just because YOU can't get at the code, you can't claim that it can't be peer reviewed. With that attitude, the Windows users should feel fortunate that you don't have access to their source code.
Actually, Windows XP x64, and it's Vista successor, are quite good. They put the 32-bit versions of themselves to shame in terms of performance (with native mode applications, i.e. 64-bit compiled) and security (don't ask how, I don't know. But Windows does leverage the processor's built in anti-buffer overrun protection).
You, clearly, are an idiot.
Obligatory mention: Linux, BSD and Unix have all been 64-bit for some time as well, and I believe most would pick Linux or BSD over Solaris.
Why isn't the software that manages your medical history public domain, given that the public healthcare system funded it. That said, why isn't that medical history itself public domain? While we're on that, why am I not able to walk into a public library and read your driver's license, birth records, marriage records, medical history, criminal records, and so forth? Oh, that's right, because being funded by public money does NOT automatically entail public ownership.
You mean the same as removing the "execute" bit from the NTFS permissions on the VLC.exe program on Windows? Yup. Using an OS where one can have simple control over execute permissions is great.
If you ever visit Google (which even the mythological "mom and pop" you refer to will do at some point), Google displays a message saying to change your default search to Google, and offers a handy link to automatically do so.
They can only seize domains via WIPO that are similar to their own trademarks. If they shut down a cybersquatter, any domains that aren't similar to MS IP would be released back into the available pool, presumably.