There's a great difference between our readings and our understandings of these things, though. Having read a bit around the GPL myself, my understanding is that he is taking the original idea behind copyright in the U.S. system and trying to re-instate that.
However, we're apparently going to disagree. Either way, I'm glad that we're both agreeing that the GPL is the strongest way to go with Free Software and that OSS isn't. I wholeheartedly agree that there has to be a moral foundation to demanding freedom, rather than simply arguing it is an expediency.
And Free Software relies upon copyright to remain free. I suggest you read a document about this such as this one: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html
In case you don't read it, here's a brief quote:
The simplest way to make a program free software is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software. They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.
In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we ``copyleft'' it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom.
Copyleft also provides an incentive for other programmers to add to free software.
Unfortunately, most people I know would have no idea at all how to download something like FireFox if an internet browser didn't come pre-installed. And whatever browser comes pre-installed may be seen (quite rightly in my opinion) as Microsoft simply forcing a different browser choice on you.
A nice alternative solution would be to have several browsers come on a Windows installation, all of them accessed through bookmarks in the folder so as not to make any one look better than any others.
And every time windows beats "Linux", it's all about number of reported vulnerabilities and days to fix them and nothing about reported number of severe vulnerabilities vs reported number of minor vulnerabilities.
Move along, nothing to see here.
"Our own requirement for the methodology was that it had to be very open and transparent."
"However, during their Feb. 16 presentation at the RSA Conference, Thompson and fellow researcher Richard Ford of the Florida Institute of Technology did not mention that one of the subjects of their research was the one funding the project."
Huh. As noted already, this reeks of bias. Even if the results are perfectly accurate (and the FUD surrounding the notion that "Linux" is insecure rather than a specific distro means that they aren't) suspicions are aroused irrespectively.
the more it seems that governments are starting to acknowledge that open formats are a good thing. And as governents are starting to pay attention to that, so we're getting a response from a closed-source corporation.
Look at what's happening in Europe - Microsoft is trying to retain its essential closed nature by offering outrageous license fees etc in return for its code. But the EU isn't accepting that. It's demanding full compliance with its rulings if Microsoft wants to be able to sell to the European market.
And here we have the MA locals asking for open formats and, to some extent at least, getting it.
Microsoft correctly identified in The Halloween Document that the problem is the Open Source/Free Software movement, not really the software that's coming out of it. If it can kill the movement and the method, then proprietary software is what is left. It's starting to look like the movement is making significant progress.
One last point in this ramble, the goal of the movement has never been to "kill microsoft", just to make it play fair with everyone else. We don't need their code, just a few pieces of information to make things interoperable. It looks like the political scene is starting to see this as desirable. May competition go forth and the best product for a specific job be declared the best!
Interestingly enough, it's actually not a legally acceptable credit card unless it's your signature. Simply writing in SEE ID is not enough. Without the signature, no person SHOULD accept your credit card.
It's one of those weirdnesses that I only found out because I'm a waiter and see a million credit cards every day. I was reading the terms on someone's card once and it covered that specific case.
No, I understand the article. I just couldn't resist the jab.
The fact is that GNU/Linux ought to be the best it can be in and of itself. That some distributions are screwing that up and making very poor defaults is not to be forgiven. Not at all. Especially when it isn't difficult to do better.
BS. Plain and simple. The EU said that everything had to be compatiblewith the various licenses out there; if it is only available under a CLOSED SOURCE license then various free and open source projects are stymied.
The EU, I believe, has no real interest in whether Windows is released under a proprietary license or no, it just wants other projects to be able to be compatible if they choose.
Peculiarly enough, the article posted has more insight:
"The European Commission has rejected Microsoft's proposed server interoperability licence, saying that it contained a number of serious flaws including unjustifiably high royalty fees and the exclusion of open source vendors."
So the write up was an accurate summary of the article that you haven't read.
Actually, my first thought was "Let's run the Zapruder film through this thing!"
Or we can hook it up with this and have some fun results flying across the torrents in no time.
In the end, I do not believe that it's realistic for there to be a good quality open source tax program.
If "open source" meant "automatically farmed out to a bunch of volunteers to do all the work" then, sure, I agree. But it doesn't. It means guaranteeing specific freedoms of use of the software, such as being able to burn a copy for your friend and viewing the source code.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a great difference between our readings and our understandings of these things, though. Having read a bit around the GPL myself, my understanding is that he is taking the original idea behind copyright in the U.S. system and trying to re-instate that.
However, we're apparently going to disagree. Either way, I'm glad that we're both agreeing that the GPL is the strongest way to go with Free Software and that OSS isn't. I wholeheartedly agree that there has to be a moral foundation to demanding freedom, rather than simply arguing it is an expediency.
Seems to me that the Animatrix made a small fortune, so a television series for Star Wars seems like a good idea to.
Wonder if they'll rework some of the comics scripts.
I for one welcome our new Lazier and Less Attentive parental overlords.
And Free Software relies upon copyright to remain free. I suggest you read a document about this such as this one: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html In case you don't read it, here's a brief quote: The simplest way to make a program free software is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software. They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away. In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute and change GNU software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of putting GNU software in the public domain, we ``copyleft'' it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom. Copyleft also provides an incentive for other programmers to add to free software.
Unfortunately, most people I know would have no idea at all how to download something like FireFox if an internet browser didn't come pre-installed. And whatever browser comes pre-installed may be seen (quite rightly in my opinion) as Microsoft simply forcing a different browser choice on you. A nice alternative solution would be to have several browsers come on a Windows installation, all of them accessed through bookmarks in the folder so as not to make any one look better than any others.
And every time windows beats "Linux", it's all about number of reported vulnerabilities and days to fix them and nothing about reported number of severe vulnerabilities vs reported number of minor vulnerabilities. Move along, nothing to see here.
"Our own requirement for the methodology was that it had to be very open and transparent." "However, during their Feb. 16 presentation at the RSA Conference, Thompson and fellow researcher Richard Ford of the Florida Institute of Technology did not mention that one of the subjects of their research was the one funding the project." Huh. As noted already, this reeks of bias. Even if the results are perfectly accurate (and the FUD surrounding the notion that "Linux" is insecure rather than a specific distro means that they aren't) suspicions are aroused irrespectively.
the more it seems that governments are starting to acknowledge that open formats are a good thing. And as governents are starting to pay attention to that, so we're getting a response from a closed-source corporation.
Look at what's happening in Europe - Microsoft is trying to retain its essential closed nature by offering outrageous license fees etc in return for its code. But the EU isn't accepting that. It's demanding full compliance with its rulings if Microsoft wants to be able to sell to the European market.
And here we have the MA locals asking for open formats and, to some extent at least, getting it.
Microsoft correctly identified in The Halloween Document that the problem is the Open Source/Free Software movement, not really the software that's coming out of it. If it can kill the movement and the method, then proprietary software is what is left. It's starting to look like the movement is making significant progress.
One last point in this ramble, the goal of the movement has never been to "kill microsoft", just to make it play fair with everyone else. We don't need their code, just a few pieces of information to make things interoperable. It looks like the political scene is starting to see this as desirable. May competition go forth and the best product for a specific job be declared the best!
You missed "I for one will welcome our new alarm clock overlords".
Interestingly enough, it's actually not a legally acceptable credit card unless it's your signature. Simply writing in SEE ID is not enough. Without the signature, no person SHOULD accept your credit card.
It's one of those weirdnesses that I only found out because I'm a waiter and see a million credit cards every day. I was reading the terms on someone's card once and it covered that specific case.
No, I understand the article. I just couldn't resist the jab. The fact is that GNU/Linux ought to be the best it can be in and of itself. That some distributions are screwing that up and making very poor defaults is not to be forgiven. Not at all. Especially when it isn't difficult to do better.
BS. Plain and simple. The EU said that everything had to be compatiblewith the various licenses out there; if it is only available under a CLOSED SOURCE license then various free and open source projects are stymied. The EU, I believe, has no real interest in whether Windows is released under a proprietary license or no, it just wants other projects to be able to be compatible if they choose.
every windows distro found insecure by default AND after patching.
Peculiarly enough, the article posted has more insight: "The European Commission has rejected Microsoft's proposed server interoperability licence, saying that it contained a number of serious flaws including unjustifiably high royalty fees and the exclusion of open source vendors." So the write up was an accurate summary of the article that you haven't read.
free software is not the same as Open Source. Maybe it's something to do with their logo, "Where technology means business." Minor point, but still.
You may refer me to any definition you wish, however the humour of my pun remains.
It was just without charge.
Actually, my first thought was "Let's run the Zapruder film through this thing!" Or we can hook it up with this and have some fun results flying across the torrents in no time.
In the end, I do not believe that it's realistic for there to be a good quality open source tax program.
If "open source" meant "automatically farmed out to a bunch of volunteers to do all the work" then, sure, I agree. But it doesn't. It means guaranteeing specific freedoms of use of the software, such as being able to burn a copy for your friend and viewing the source code.