Yes, they had talent. No, that's not the same thing as being Rembrandt.
The point is it is easy(ier) to create something after studying the subject than it is to create the ideas yourself. Those artists (and I think not authentical Rembrandts that fooled art specialists are works of art) don't have the same tallent that Rembrandt had to create his pictures. The style, the perspective of the world, the original ideas... All that was copied, only the subject was changed (and some are really copies of existing pictures made by Rembrandt's students).
Mobile now? They joined with AOL to dominate the IM market. Orkut: the largest social network (or is it friendster?). GMail leads free email. Not to mention they already have the market of internet search. And Froogle, and...
Now... Put it all together. A single account that keep tracks of you preferences, your friends, what you buy, what you like, what you do. And that all the time and everywhere with mobile technology. Add a social network / semantics analises software that they will be the only organization on earth with the data to research.
And we will have the Big Brother.
I only hope they keep the "Do No Evil" after that... Maybe we'll have a good Big Brother after all.
Ooops!
I mean:...will expend more to hold it in court than they will get from the tax.
Oh... And you may also charge for creating a new software under GPL, but not for the software itself.
Just to explain: A CD is a product. Linux by itself isn't. A CD with Linux inside is a product, the same way an empty CD is (maybe a better one for some uses, like installing linux).
1) Find a different software that does something a bit different from that one and go to court. 2) Per application? Install a server side application and forget about taxes (or pay only once). 3) What would you pay for vi? Development? Text editor? 4) LOC of what? They are not trying to tax only code producers, but everyone. Taxing for LOC of the application? Use python and reduce your taxes. And that will make C applications impossible.
The problem is not that it's impossible to create a tax. It is impossible to charge it. There are so many possibilities in software, so many options, and it is so dinamic that the state will expend more to hold it in court than to
You cannot sell a copy of Linux!!! You don't have that right! From the GPL: "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee." "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License."
That means you may charge for the service of copying Linux in a CD, and you may charge for the CD, BUT NOT FOR THE PROGRAM! That is the whole point about GPL, people keep forgeting it: software is not a product but a service! That's what they are trying to say all this time.
A guy named Bill thought software was a product, and he made you believe it, so he can sell you that broken op. sys. of his company and become the richest man in the world.
Except for Open Source, then you don't own the license. I see a few great ways to create a tax avoiding strategy using OS. The more you create insane laws, the easier it is to avoid them.
I have to say I LOVED the idea! Because it is impossible to tax Open Source! You have no more rights then everybody else. You cannot even tax for the use of it, since you may change the software anytime.
No special right, no property, no taxes.
I'll love to see Micro$oft trying to sell their server with taxes! That will pay the salary of a linux specialist to provide support. I have to see the State of Tennessee trying to hold on a court of law that linux is a product and not a service.
But, unfortunately, I don't think that will ever pass. hmm... Well, politians may aprove it... Yes... Here in Brazil I read that a town has a fee for those who die there... And they are trying to fee the deads!!! And a few decades ago someone tried to bann the Law of Supply and Demand... Propose is simple, make it happen is almost impossible.
The first point I disagree is that "a customer will trust me more if I suggested a Microsoft platform". From what I've seen, selling a solution based on BSD or Linux has strong marketing points: you "look" more an expert suggesting a different alternative, you may reduce hardware costs by tunning the application exactly to what they need, you certainly keeps than free from hidden taxes in their software. For me it was just how to sell it. Saying to your clients that you will give all the documentation of your software to them, and that they are able to change to someone else in case they are not happy with your service sometimes make a huge difference. The great problem is that people don't want to see *nix systems: yhey want the desktop to be windows, because they think linux or BSD are too hard for their employers to learn. And they are right, since 99% of the work force knows how to use windows, and only a few ever tried linux (not to say BSD), they are protected from the need of trainning people to use their software. Back-ends linux solutions sell.
I don't think closed source makes sense for business in the long run. At least not if you aren't selling software, but solutions. Trying to reach the end user with OSS is almost impossible, but for back-ends it makes a lot of sense. But you need to change your job from programer to IT consultant. Sometimes you don't even need to sell software (or program anything), you need to find them the right tool to use, and since you are not making money from software, but by finding them a solution to their problem, you still make money.
Time vs money. Time is money for everyone. But how do I save more money? Using a closed source that makes them pay for updates, or a web-based development team that is working for free? Right now I'm working (only studying so far) on a solution that uses phpGroupware. By using that I know I won't have to worry with every aspect of the program, because there are others trying to improve it there. Then I may focus on what my clients need to improve in the package, and implement only that (and of course give that improvements back to the community). The biggest problem I'm finding is to reach a critical mass where my development may be payed for several customers.
The way I see OS is that people who wants something pays someone to take a project to that direction. And that's what I'm trying to do for my clients: develop what they need to be included in software that is already being developed by the community; and (hopefuly) make those take a life of their own where others will continue my development, to the direction my clients want.
MS is not helping a monopoly, they are selling a illusion. They are selling nothing and calling it a product -- not that their development is nothing (it's excelent in some cases), but they are not selling you the development, but only a right to use their product. That's stealing from their customers. Once you sell something, your customer should adquire it, not a part of it. What's the agregated value to the world of selling millions of copies of the same software? NOTHING! All the value is on the first copy. After that they are not creating value.
Tumbnail of my huge post: -Close source locks the client to the developer, open source lets them choose. -Selling software creates more software (usefull? I don't know). Selling solutions creates money (to your client (and to you)). -The OSS developer may save time by counting on the community to develop the non-critical parts of the system (non-critical to you). -It is the OSS Solution Saler dutty to promote the developments that will help your clients. -Selling software copies doesn't help the world (doesn't create value). Selling solutions do.
I think you missed the point about Free Software. You may sell it! Specially if you are a programmer hired to create a software. You just have to sell all of it, not a license to use it but not look into it.
What they made is a trap! You learn Visual Studio and after that, you will have to pay for the real thing. Hail the all-mighty monopoly! They are good at it... Unfortunately they are very good at it.:-(
At least here in Brazil that contract is 100% void. And I don't mean only that clause, something like that could let you trash the contract. No contract can reduce a right given to you by a law. And we have our Consumers Protection Code stating we have the right to compare and comment any product.
One interesting thing about the net is that usualy the most libertarian legislation applies. If something is not allowed in a country, someone will do it where it is allowed. Just host the site somewhere else. Just look what PirateBay is doing (and telling the layers).
Hello, MySQL, want to move to Brazil? I could tell you a lot of ISPs that would love hosting you and enjoying the international attention.:-)
(I know it isn't only the site, the whole company needs to be here!)
When? When it became clear that if you have a majority of the users, web designers will follow the standaards instead of being worry about the major company product not showing it properly. I had a web designing studio, and my clients were woried not about technical aspects, but if people would be able to see their site. So I had to break the standards several times just to look nice in Internet Explorer. Unfortunately, that's the true.
Good products NEED advertisements! That's how people becomes aware of them. Linux isn't what it is today only because of its virtues, but because people knew GNU/Linux. That gave us the leverage to develop new software. And I think BSD isn't better because nobody (outside the geek world) knows what it is.
I will ever be against a OSS predating another OSS, because it doesn't help anyone. But I'm favorable to fight monopoly. To enforce standards you need power, and that, in the case of browsers, means users.
Legal where? Contract legislation is different in different nations. That's one of the hardests things if you work with international sales... One thing you have to understand is that, at least in most nations, you cannot include something in a contract that is against the law, and to forbid someone to discuss with others about the performance of a public sold software is ilegal in many nations. You cannot forbid people from commenting if the product they bought is good or bad, and a benchmark is just that: a comparision between products.
At least that's how it works in most european and south america nations. I don't work with US, so I'm not familiar with US freedom of speach. But since the North American freedom of speach is famous, I think you won't be able to enforce something that prevents the users from comparing products.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, they had talent. No, that's not the same thing as being Rembrandt.
The point is it is easy(ier) to create something after studying the subject than it is to create the ideas yourself. Those artists (and I think not authentical Rembrandts that fooled art specialists are works of art) don't have the same tallent that Rembrandt had to create his pictures. The style, the perspective of the world, the original ideas... All that was copied, only the subject was changed (and some are really copies of existing pictures made by Rembrandt's students).
Mobile now? They joined with AOL to dominate the IM market. Orkut: the largest social network (or is it friendster?). GMail leads free email. Not to mention they already have the market of internet search. And Froogle, and...
Now... Put it all together. A single account that keep tracks of you preferences, your friends, what you buy, what you like, what you do. And that all the time and everywhere with mobile technology. Add a social network / semantics analises software that they will be the only organization on earth with the data to research.
And we will have the Big Brother.
I only hope they keep the "Do No Evil" after that... Maybe we'll have a good Big Brother after all.
Ooops! I mean: ...will expend more to hold it in court than they will get from the tax.
Oh... And you may also charge for creating a new software under GPL, but not for the software itself.
Just to explain: A CD is a product. Linux by itself isn't. A CD with Linux inside is a product, the same way an empty CD is (maybe a better one for some uses, like installing linux).
1) Find a different software that does something a bit different from that one and go to court.
2) Per application? Install a server side application and forget about taxes (or pay only once).
3) What would you pay for vi? Development? Text editor?
4) LOC of what? They are not trying to tax only code producers, but everyone. Taxing for LOC of the application? Use python and reduce your taxes. And that will make C applications impossible.
The problem is not that it's impossible to create a tax. It is impossible to charge it. There are so many possibilities in software, so many options, and it is so dinamic that the state will expend more to hold it in court than to
You cannot sell a copy of Linux!!! You don't have that right! From the GPL:
"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."
"You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License."
That means you may charge for the service of copying Linux in a CD, and you may charge for the CD, BUT NOT FOR THE PROGRAM! That is the whole point about GPL, people keep forgeting it: software is not a product but a service! That's what they are trying to say all this time.
A guy named Bill thought software was a product, and he made you believe it, so he can sell you that broken op. sys. of his company and become the richest man in the world.
Except for Open Source, then you don't own the license. I see a few great ways to create a tax avoiding strategy using OS. The more you create insane laws, the easier it is to avoid them.
I have to say I LOVED the idea! Because it is impossible to tax Open Source! You have no more rights then everybody else. You cannot even tax for the use of it, since you may change the software anytime.
No special right, no property, no taxes.
I'll love to see Micro$oft trying to sell their server with taxes! That will pay the salary of a linux specialist to provide support. I have to see the State of Tennessee trying to hold on a court of law that linux is a product and not a service.
But, unfortunately, I don't think that will ever pass. hmm... Well, politians may aprove it... Yes... Here in Brazil I read that a town has a fee for those who die there... And they are trying to fee the deads!!! And a few decades ago someone tried to bann the Law of Supply and Demand... Propose is simple, make it happen is almost impossible.
The first point I disagree is that "a customer will trust me more if I suggested a Microsoft platform". From what I've seen, selling a solution based on BSD or Linux has strong marketing points: you "look" more an expert suggesting a different alternative, you may reduce hardware costs by tunning the application exactly to what they need, you certainly keeps than free from hidden taxes in their software. For me it was just how to sell it. Saying to your clients that you will give all the documentation of your software to them, and that they are able to change to someone else in case they are not happy with your service sometimes make a huge difference. The great problem is that people don't want to see *nix systems: yhey want the desktop to be windows, because they think linux or BSD are too hard for their employers to learn. And they are right, since 99% of the work force knows how to use windows, and only a few ever tried linux (not to say BSD), they are protected from the need of trainning people to use their software. Back-ends linux solutions sell.
I don't think closed source makes sense for business in the long run. At least not if you aren't selling software, but solutions. Trying to reach the end user with OSS is almost impossible, but for back-ends it makes a lot of sense. But you need to change your job from programer to IT consultant. Sometimes you don't even need to sell software (or program anything), you need to find them the right tool to use, and since you are not making money from software, but by finding them a solution to their problem, you still make money.
Time vs money. Time is money for everyone. But how do I save more money? Using a closed source that makes them pay for updates, or a web-based development team that is working for free? Right now I'm working (only studying so far) on a solution that uses phpGroupware. By using that I know I won't have to worry with every aspect of the program, because there are others trying to improve it there. Then I may focus on what my clients need to improve in the package, and implement only that (and of course give that improvements back to the community). The biggest problem I'm finding is to reach a critical mass where my development may be payed for several customers.
The way I see OS is that people who wants something pays someone to take a project to that direction. And that's what I'm trying to do for my clients: develop what they need to be included in software that is already being developed by the community; and (hopefuly) make those take a life of their own where others will continue my development, to the direction my clients want.
MS is not helping a monopoly, they are selling a illusion. They are selling nothing and calling it a product -- not that their development is nothing (it's excelent in some cases), but they are not selling you the development, but only a right to use their product. That's stealing from their customers. Once you sell something, your customer should adquire it, not a part of it. What's the agregated value to the world of selling millions of copies of the same software? NOTHING! All the value is on the first copy. After that they are not creating value.
Tumbnail of my huge post:
-Close source locks the client to the developer, open source lets them choose.
-Selling software creates more software (usefull? I don't know). Selling solutions creates money (to your client (and to you)).
-The OSS developer may save time by counting on the community to develop the non-critical parts of the system (non-critical to you).
-It is the OSS Solution Saler dutty to promote the developments that will help your clients.
-Selling software copies doesn't help the world (doesn't create value). Selling solutions do.
I think you missed the point about Free Software. You may sell it! Specially if you are a programmer hired to create a software. You just have to sell all of it, not a license to use it but not look into it.
:-(
What they made is a trap! You learn Visual Studio and after that, you will have to pay for the real thing. Hail the all-mighty monopoly! They are good at it... Unfortunately they are very good at it.
At least here in Brazil that contract is 100% void. And I don't mean only that clause, something like that could let you trash the contract. No contract can reduce a right given to you by a law. And we have our Consumers Protection Code stating we have the right to compare and comment any product.
:-)
One interesting thing about the net is that usualy the most libertarian legislation applies. If something is not allowed in a country, someone will do it where it is allowed. Just host the site somewhere else. Just look what PirateBay is doing (and telling the layers).
Hello, MySQL, want to move to Brazil? I could tell you a lot of ISPs that would love hosting you and enjoying the international attention.
(I know it isn't only the site, the whole company needs to be here!)
When? When it became clear that if you have a majority of the users, web designers will follow the standaards instead of being worry about the major company product not showing it properly. I had a web designing studio, and my clients were woried not about technical aspects, but if people would be able to see their site. So I had to break the standards several times just to look nice in Internet Explorer. Unfortunately, that's the true.
Good products NEED advertisements! That's how people becomes aware of them. Linux isn't what it is today only because of its virtues, but because people knew GNU/Linux. That gave us the leverage to develop new software. And I think BSD isn't better because nobody (outside the geek world) knows what it is.
I will ever be against a OSS predating another OSS, because it doesn't help anyone. But I'm favorable to fight monopoly. To enforce standards you need power, and that, in the case of browsers, means users.
Legal where? Contract legislation is different in different nations. That's one of the hardests things if you work with international sales... One thing you have to understand is that, at least in most nations, you cannot include something in a contract that is against the law, and to forbid someone to discuss with others about the performance of a public sold software is ilegal in many nations. You cannot forbid people from commenting if the product they bought is good or bad, and a benchmark is just that: a comparision between products.
At least that's how it works in most european and south america nations. I don't work with US, so I'm not familiar with US freedom of speach. But since the North American freedom of speach is famous, I think you won't be able to enforce something that prevents the users from comparing products.