They don't actually need to release the source code to the Sorenson. Xanim already supports a number of binary-only codec modules.
Since they already give away the Quicktime viewer for Windows and the Mac, I don't see what they have to lose, other than the threat that Linux will overtake MacOS in popularity. By some accounts, it already has.
NH is the only state that DOES NOT have a seatbelt law, EXCEPT for children under 12. The sign probably read something like "Children under 12 must have seatbelts fastened" followed by "Common sense for all". I live a mile from the NH border and have seen such signs
If route is pronounced the same as root, then how would a word that was to be pronounced as r-OW!t-er be spelled? ROWTER? That looks like an abomination.
The vowels OU in conjunction can be pronounced either way. Examples: "You"
However, I think ou more often gives the "ow" sound:
sour (not correctly pronounced "sewer", I hope;-) ) out (I think they say "oot" in parts of Canada, but I KNOW the British say OWT!) loud (not lewd!)
This war has died since Troll Tech created an Open-source license for QT. I still sense that there is alot of animosity and distrust in the GNOME camp though.
I don't think most Linux users would reject something just because it's binary only. Since Red Hat is the distro of the newbie, I could see the scenario above taking place.
This is the same guy who gave that tear-jerking/barf-inducing speech at the '96 Democratic convention about how the evil tobacco industry killed his sister. Yet he was raised as a tobacco farmer, and he bragged about this fact in campaign speeches to tobacco farmers years after his sister died.
I knew he would do that sooner or later, with him talking about the "Information Superhighway" Just before most Americans became aware of the Internet.
This is from the GNU Manifesto. Your only supposed to make as much as a sales clerk, apparently.
Excerpt:
"Won't programmers starve?"
I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something else.
But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's implicit assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers cannot possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing.
The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as now.
Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. It is the most common basis because it brings in the most money. If it were prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would move to other bases of organization which are now used less often. There are always numerous ways to organize any kind of business.
Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it is now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not considered an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they now do. If programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice either.
BTW, I do believe in free software, but not the GNU model, because of stuff like this
So what if my competitor gets my code free and I paid for it? It isn't the programs you run that make your business... it your people and your data. I had the vision and made the software happen. I got the lead time on working it out. I got the experience. I got the data.
It depends on your business. I worked for an Insurance provider that created a complex system that was the lifeblood of the company (If the system fails, the company fails). They made a large investment in it, and if competitors got the code, they would have an easier time entering the market than my company did, and that would allow them to offer the same service for a significantly decreased price.
Under GPL, you can provide the source to just the client, but the client can do whatever he/she wants with it, including giving it away to others or post it on the net, and you don't have the right to stop them.
The GPL proponents say you can charge for your services, but the problem is what one firm paid thousands of dollars for, another can get for nothing, unless you and your clients do the "EVIL" deed of protecting the source code.
The GPL people think we should all hold hands and "share", but the world doesn't work that way.
America has more lawyers per-capita than any other country. The lawyers need work, so they come up with new and interesting ways to interpret the law, and take a case to court. They find a "open-minded", "progressive" judge. (who used to be a lawyer him/herself), and the case goes forward. If they win the case (by appealing emotionally to 12 people who weren't smart to get out of Jury duty) the open the doors for more lawyers to try similar cases (and reap the benefits).
Law remains lucrative, and guarantees that in the future there will be even more lawyers than there are today.
Oh, and if you try to change any of this, you will be accused of attempting to take away the rights of all Americans to have fair access to the Judicial system (IE the poor will get screwed).
They have close ties with Caldera, since Caldera was started by former Novell employees, and is funded by Ray Noorda. This has made it possible for Caldera to produce "Netware for Linux". I don't know if Novell is actually invested in them, although you would think Novell would choose Caldera over RedHat.
Novell is invested in SCO, a company that is being slaughtered by Linux.
I've been noticing more and more of a trend away from Word format, and more and more documents published in HTML, so that they can easily be placed on the company Intranet and/or Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't actually need to release the source code to the Sorenson. Xanim already supports a number of binary-only codec modules.
Since they already give away the Quicktime viewer for Windows and the Mac, I don't see what they have to lose, other than the threat that Linux will overtake MacOS in popularity. By some accounts, it already has.
I assume you are referring to the hard stuff.
NH allows beer and wine to be sold in grocery stores, which is a rare site in the Northeast.
NH is the only state that DOES NOT have a seatbelt law, EXCEPT for children under 12. The sign probably read something like "Children under 12 must have seatbelts fastened" followed by "Common sense for all". I live a mile from the NH border and have seen such signs
I saw it in the theaters in 1978, when it made it's second-run round. I was about 7.
I didn't see it when it first came out, but remember that all my friends were deeply into it, and made me want to see it.
I was a little disappointed in it, but I liked Empire and Jedi much more.
Yeah, but you Canadians often give the "oo" sound to "ou".
For instance, I have often heard Canadians pronounce "about" the same as "A boot"
If route is pronounced the same as root, then how would a word that was to be pronounced as r-OW!t-er be spelled? ROWTER? That looks like an abomination.
;-) )
The vowels OU in conjunction can be pronounced either way. Examples: "You"
However, I think ou more often gives the "ow" sound:
sour (not correctly pronounced "sewer", I hope
out (I think they say "oot" in parts of Canada, but I KNOW the British say OWT!)
loud (not lewd!)
This war has died since Troll Tech created an Open-source license for QT. I still sense that there is alot of animosity and distrust in the GNOME camp though.
I don't think most Linux users would reject something just because it's binary only. Since Red Hat is the distro of the newbie, I could see the scenario above taking place.
see www.whitehouse.com ;-)
see www.whitehouse.com
This is the same guy who gave that tear-jerking/barf-inducing speech at the '96 Democratic convention about how the evil tobacco industry killed his sister. Yet he was raised as a tobacco farmer, and he bragged about this fact in campaign speeches to tobacco farmers years after his sister died.
So he's a typical Pol.
I knew he would do that sooner or later, with him talking about the "Information Superhighway" Just before most Americans became aware of the Internet.
You would probably want a MPL/QPL type license.
The problem with the GPL as I see it is that it takes ownership of the code away from it's creator.
This is from the GNU Manifesto. Your only supposed to make as much as a sales clerk, apparently.
Excerpt:"Won't programmers starve?"
I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something else.
But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's implicit assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers cannot possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing.
The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as now.
Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. It is the most common basis because it brings in the most money. If it were prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would move to other bases of organization which are now used less often. There are always numerous ways to organize any kind of business.
Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it is now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not considered an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they now do. If programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice either.
BTW, I do believe in free software, but not the GNU model, because of stuff like this
It depends on your business. I worked for an Insurance provider that created a complex system that was the lifeblood of the company (If the system fails, the company fails). They made a large investment in it, and if competitors got the code, they would have an easier time entering the market than my company did, and that would allow them to offer the same service for a significantly decreased price.
Under GPL, you can provide the source to just the client, but the client can do whatever he/she wants with it, including giving it away to others or post it on the net, and you don't have the right to stop them.
Congratulations! You see the flaw.
The GPL proponents say you can charge for your services, but the problem is what one firm paid thousands of dollars for, another can get for nothing, unless you and your clients do the "EVIL" deed of protecting the source code.
The GPL people think we should all hold hands and "share", but the world doesn't work that way.
America has more lawyers per-capita than any other country. The lawyers need work, so they come up with new and interesting ways to interpret the law, and take a case to court. They find a "open-minded", "progressive" judge. (who used to be a lawyer him/herself), and the case goes forward. If they win the case (by appealing emotionally to 12 people who weren't smart to get out of Jury duty) the open the doors for more lawyers to try similar cases (and reap the benefits).
Law remains lucrative, and guarantees that in the future there will be even more lawyers than there are today.
Oh, and if you try to change any of this, you will be accused of attempting to take away the rights of all Americans to have fair access to the Judicial system (IE the poor will get screwed).
If IBM invented most of what was surrounding PCs, then we'd be using the MCA bus. Most specific PC technogy was developed by Intel.
Or are you referring to the technology in general? In which case you may have a point.
IBM's problem was they had the Microsoft mentality in the old days. They wanted to do things IBM's way, even though the rest of the industry didn't.
Examples: EBCDIC, Token Ring, 3970/3980 tape cartridges (as opposed to DLTs)
They have close ties with Caldera, since Caldera was started by former Novell employees, and is funded by Ray Noorda. This has made it possible for Caldera to produce "Netware for Linux". I don't know if Novell is actually invested in them, although you would think Novell would choose Caldera over RedHat.
Novell is invested in SCO, a company that is being slaughtered by Linux.
You've slandered the GNU/Linux^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Lignux^H^H^H^H^H^H er, Linux name. Tux is not happy with you and is speaking with his lawyer.
I wouldn't ban them.
It would be interesting to list the browser and OS in the comment header, just to see who is using what.
The disclaimer has been in place for a long time, see the FINE PRINT at both ends of the comments
That reads too much like Microsoft-style strategy.
"If we can get away with forcing people to do things our way, we should do so (GPL), otherwise we should support the more open alternative (LGPL)"
I've been noticing more and more of a trend away from Word format, and more and more documents published in HTML, so that they can easily be placed on the company Intranet and/or Internet.