First off, I'm not a super tech-head, so I get confused about a lot of things. When I say 'source' I may be using the wrong term. And it goes without saying, IANAL. Anyway...
I realize that this is going to piss off a lot of/., but think about this. A few weeks ago there was a huge stink on/. about MS releasing the source of their version of Kerberos. Now, I know a lot of ppl were upset that MS modified it from the original, but that doesn't come into the point I'm trying to make (I don't think). What happened?/. readers began posting ways to 'get around' the license agreement, linked to sites which had published the source, and in fact on person posted it in its entirety. Some ppl posted it out of anger of the modifications, but most did it with a 'screw MS' mentality. There were arguments over whether or not MS still had any sort of IP rights over it since they had released it to the public, no matter what licensing agreement they had.
My point is this:/. clamors for MS to release the source of 'Project X' because it's only fair/right/their moral obligation. MS does so (believe me, it's not because of/. either), but tries to keep it as their own IP, proprietary, etc. They say 'You can't use any of this in your software, it belongs to us!' which is perfectly legal by copyright/IP law (AFAIK)./. users immediately jump MS case for trying something 'shady' or backhanded, when they are trying to protect what they consider their IP. Some/. readers (who are of course NAL) then say, by publishing it, its not even their IP anymore. It just seems to me that/. readers are very hypocritical when it comes to MS. MS does what is good for MS, and that's it. They don't release source if it is going to hurt them. Don't pretend for a moment that they are going to change. So quit railing against MS. I would love it if/. never posted another story about MS and just let them do what they are going to do.
as someone else's sig says: are you moderating because you agree or disagree, or because of quality?
Just because the business world has noticed Linux doesn't mean that everything is in place. Big companies will probably make up a huge chunk of Linux users, but only when Linux has become a true alternative to Windows in terms of average home users will everything truly be in place. Fortunately, I think that the biggest thing holding back (knowledgeable) home users from choosing Linux is the small number of applications for the typical home user. Until my mom and dad at home can get all the software they use on Linux, they'll stick with the status quo. (A funny sidenote: my grandmother, who didn't have a computer at the time, once asked me if she should get windows 95. No joke.) The reason I say fortunately is because as more businesses choose Linux, more developers will write software for Linux. That's when I think everything will be in place.
Slashdot Mirror
I realize that this is going to piss off a lot of /., but think about this. A few weeks ago there was a huge stink on /. about MS releasing the source of their version of Kerberos. Now, I know a lot of ppl were upset that MS modified it from the original, but that doesn't come into the point I'm trying to make (I don't think). What happened? /. readers began posting ways to 'get around' the license agreement, linked to sites which had published the source, and in fact on person posted it in its entirety. Some ppl posted it out of anger of the modifications, but most did it with a 'screw MS' mentality. There were arguments over whether or not MS still had any sort of IP rights over it since they had released it to the public, no matter what licensing agreement they had.
My point is this: /. clamors for MS to release the source of 'Project X' because it's only fair/right/their moral obligation. MS does so (believe me, it's not because of /. either), but tries to keep it as their own IP, proprietary, etc. They say 'You can't use any of this in your software, it belongs to us!' which is perfectly legal by copyright/IP law (AFAIK). /. users immediately jump MS case for trying something 'shady' or backhanded, when they are trying to protect what they consider their IP. Some /. readers (who are of course NAL) then say, by publishing it, its not even their IP anymore. It just seems to me that /. readers are very hypocritical when it comes to MS. MS does what is good for MS, and that's it. They don't release source if it is going to hurt them. Don't pretend for a moment that they are going to change. So quit railing against MS. I would love it if /. never posted another story about MS and just let them do what they are going to do.
as someone else's sig says: are you moderating because you agree or disagree, or because of quality?
since they've publicly stated that they want napster to go out of business, it would seem that the very expensive route would be the way to go.
Just because the business world has noticed Linux doesn't mean that everything is in place. Big companies will probably make up a huge chunk of Linux users, but only when Linux has become a true alternative to Windows in terms of average home users will everything truly be in place. Fortunately, I think that the biggest thing holding back (knowledgeable) home users from choosing Linux is the small number of applications for the typical home user. Until my mom and dad at home can get all the software they use on Linux, they'll stick with the status quo. (A funny sidenote: my grandmother, who didn't have a computer at the time, once asked me if she should get windows 95. No joke.) The reason I say fortunately is because as more businesses choose Linux, more developers will write software for Linux. That's when I think everything will be in place.