We do not know anything about the deal. The only factoids we know is that it is between Novell
and Microsoft, that a lot of money was transferred, that it's only valid for 5 years,
and that after the deal was closed, both parties seem to disagree as to what the deal means,
judging from public comments of the CEO's, Hovsepian and Ballmer ("undisclosed balance sheet liability").
IANAL but surely a contract is only binding if both parties mean the same thing?
P.S. this is a blog entry about the U.B.S.L: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=216
Don't forget, you don't have to go for hearsay, because you have full access
to the authoritative source:
From the 2.6.15 source, file "COPYING":
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
Linus Torvalds
I think I'm beginning to understand the issue now, and with us not having
access to the actual text of the Novell-Microsoft deal, it's quite difficult
to see through that thick fog:-)
Pollution-free?
O RLY?
The half-life of one of the main fission products of uranium,
Strontium-90 (causes bone cancer), is 28.8 years. Let's say it's a lot safer
after 20 half-lives. So, when you called it "the best solution we have", did you factor in
the costs of having a heavily guarded (war on terror, remember?) storage facility, for 576 years?
Including personnel costs?
Now, is it still cheaper than renewable alternative energy sources?
Nitpick: I didn't mention Iodine-131 because it decays rapidly (in the Netherlands they didn't let the cows out
to graze for a week after Chernobyl because of the iodine). And Cesium-137 is comparable in radioactivity
to Strontium (half-life 30 years) but you can pee it out, it doesn't get stored in your bones.
I would think the reason many environmentalists are against nuclear power is because it is insane and desperate
to reap the short-term profits of it (short term = 100-200 years) at a price of waste storage for 500-1000 years (yes I'm
making these numbers up, I don't have the figures handy). Especially given that for the cost of building a heavily
guarded large nuclear power plant, and dismantling it again after 50 years (something they're still working on at the
nuclear power plant at Dodewaard, which was closed in 1997, and will be dismantled at unknown cost in 40 years when it's
less hot), you can invest a LOT of time and money in windmills, geothermal energy, fuel-cell efficiency research, etc. etc. etc.
I can't be bothered to go into your straw-man argument in your second and third paragraph.
Let's just say that I think that nuclear fission power hasn't been proven cost-effective yet.
What did you say? "Let's be realistic here"?
...
Allright, you asked for it! I shall quote G.B. Shaw at you!
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw
Here's one that seems applicable to DRM:
When will we realize that the fact that we can become accustomed to anything, however disgusting at first, makes it necessary to examine carefully everything we have become accustomed to.
And to throw some more fuel on the fire:
If you have an apple and I have an apple, and we exchange apples, we both still only have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea, and we exchange ideas, we each now have two ideas.
By the way, his plays will already be in public domain by 2021, if I calculated it well! Not bad for a Stalinist playwright!
Think for yourself.. would you accept *ANY* document as international standard if it said something like "implement this just like our closed-source proprietary computer program does it"? Do you know how MS Word 6 did linewraps? Where can I find this information?
I consider this a "killer issue" for ISO (but i'm not on any of the national standards bureaux so rest assured:-)), what is your opinion?
I quote this from groklaw: http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections #Ecma_376_relies_on_undisclosed_information):
Ecma 376 relies on undisclosed information
[edit]
Undisclosed proprietary specifications
Section 6.2.3.17 "Embedded Object Alternate Image Requests Types" (page 5679) requires implementors to support the proprietary Windows Metafiles.
[edit]
Cloning the behaviour of proprietary applications
Several sections require the implementor to clone the behaviour of a proprietary product, where the behaviour to clone is not specified in the specification. For example:
More can be found by searching Ecma 376 for the word "Guidance".
Specifications that say "clone this product", instead of explicitly stating what behavior is required, have no place in an international standard. It may also be illegal in some jurisdictions to determine what such a non-specification means, as discussed below regarding end-user license agreements (EULAs).
Compatibility Note
Attributes like these have no place in an international standard, and are not needed for compatibility with existing documents. The correct way to achieve compatibility is through generic tags. For example:
* autoSpaceLikeWord95 should be replaced by a generic character-spacing attribute that takes a numeric value or set of numeric values.
* wpSpaceWidth should be replaced by by a generic space-width tag that takes a numeric value or set of numeric values.
Even attributes as obscure as lineWrapLikeWord6 can be generalized into a line-wrap-style attribute. Using a more general solution offers far more extensibility and flexibility.
There are conditions in patent law designed to prevent anyone taking out patents with the objective of preventing the use of the embodied inventions. These were designed to prevent unfair competition, but will still apply.
Name them. I thought you got a full monopoly for the term of the patent (20 years), which includes the right to license *or refuse to license* to anyone and for *any* cost, depending on your whim. In other words it's completely legal to use a patent just to block other companies' progress. Think: AIDS medicine production in India (gets decided in 2 weeks btw).
I can only think of one exception, and that's if a government decides a granted patent goes against national security (e.g. war plane manufacture in WWII, canadian BlackBerry lawsuit:-)) and overrules it for the government's own use.
You call 40 years long? Do you think M.A.D equilibrium will hold for the next, oh say 3000 years, giving us time to spread and adapt and not depend on 1 planet anymore?
When's the first space elevator ready, I want a ticket.
I disagree; what's ubiquitous *now* might not be in 20 years (which is nothing). Can you still find the source for an executable for your current architecture to unpack your old zoo, lharc, and.Z files? (yes, I know gzip does.Z and zoo is in Debian, but you get my point). I think it's much, much more important that it's described in detail in a lot of locations (such as PK-ZIP and US-tar format). And when you mention Wordperfect, let me mention Wordstar:-)
BTW, where's the royalty-free standards document that describes fully what the structure of a FAT32 filesystem is?
I found it a pity when the MIR was sent to burn up in the Earth's atmosphere. Couldn't they have given it a big shove that would end up with it as a scrapyard orbiting Mars? (doesn't matter if it takes 20 years to get there or if it breaks in half from the push).
Loosen your tin-foil hat; it was the Commission that tried to shove software patents down our throat, not the council (the Council is just the term for the assembled ministers of foreign affairs of the EU countries).
Isn't the Apocrypha by definition all bible books that are not part of the Canon? I.e. the ones like
Jesus Sirach (which is my favourite btw) and this new Judas gospel I haven't even read yet?
could you give me a link? I looked up the MCPP requirements, which states e.g.
Microsoft Communications Protocol Program (MCPP) licensees must sign a license agreement and must meet the following program entry requirements before the agreement becomes effective.
[stuff omitted] and
C-1. An evaluation fee of $4,500 is required for a 30-day evaluation. The evaluation fee is nonrefundable but is 100 percent applicable toward the prepaid royalties required for an MCPP Development Agreement.
C-2. For each separate MCPP Development Agreement, a prepaid royalty payment of $12,500 is required. These prepaid royalties are nonrefundable unless your participation in the MCPP is terminated because you do not complete other Program Entry Requirements.
Ok, suppose the *developer* pays this sum and gets the SMB documentation.
You said "some royalty free". I lookup File Server protocol, "Server Message Block Protocol", and it says 4% royalties for a software product. That means, that any Microsoft-sanctioned FOSS software implementation is out of the question, AFAIK.
If I'm wrong I'd like to hear it.
BTW I think 12000 pages of documentation is a calculated insult, not a protocol description. But maybe that's because I'm a European..
No, the more I read about this the more i agree with parent, but for a different reason.
This Badvista idea is trying to fight Microsoft on its home turf: marketing. If it's true that Microsoft allocated half a billion worth of marketing money for Vista, to try to beat them on their home turf is just pathetic. How much TV airspace is badvista going to buy for clever advertisements? How many PC magazine columnists should be bought?
I think it would be better to go a completely different direction, and ask e.g. the EU to ask Microsoft whether Vista's purported SMB2 is 100% compatible with SMB, and if not, whether they'd please provide the differences in the spec as addition to their punishment-document (1200 pages IIRC is a punishment for both parties), ASAP, or else explain why they are trying to dodge the anticompetitiveness lawsuit AGAIN.
(very offtopic)
Hey KFG! I have something on my slashdot journal now that might interest you! (and any other curious slashdotters who can spell well). Hint: it's from before black & white TV.
Or, is there some twist in the US Legal System that would allow M$ to sue RH and not Oracle even though it was just as liable to be in breach of the unnamed patents?
Yes, AFAIK if you have a patent, you are granted a full monopoly, so you can choose who to sue and how much money you want (no limits whatsoever) or even refuse a license at any price to some of the infringers, while giving others a free license.
In that same verse it says you shouldn't sacrifice your children in the fire to Moloch, yet I find it scandalous that nobody nowadays complains about such practices anymore. What is the world coming to !!!!?!111! When are our governments going to pass a law that it is forbidden to sacrifice children to Moloch (or Baal-Marduk etc.)?
And what does the author of Leviticus mean (yes, in the same verse) with "neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion" does that mean the woman will be confused or the animal? What is the XXI^{th} century's bible-thumpers' opinion on this matter?
(this comment only for kfg)
hi, is there any way i can e-mail you via slashdot? i want to discuss technology from last century, based on an article of yours in august this year.
Slashdot Mirror
We do not know anything about the deal. The only factoids we know is that it is between Novell and Microsoft, that a lot of money was transferred, that it's only valid for 5 years, and that after the deal was closed, both parties seem to disagree as to what the deal means, judging from public comments of the CEO's, Hovsepian and Ballmer ("undisclosed balance sheet liability").
IANAL but surely a contract is only binding if both parties mean the same thing?
P.S. this is a blog entry about the U.B.S.L: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Burnette/?p=216
From the 2.6.15 source, file "COPYING":
I think I'm beginning to understand the issue now, and with us not having access to the actual text of the Novell-Microsoft deal, it's quite difficult to see through that thick fog :-)
Pollution-free?
O RLY?
The half-life of one of the main fission products of uranium, Strontium-90 (causes bone cancer), is 28.8 years. Let's say it's a lot safer after 20 half-lives. So, when you called it "the best solution we have", did you factor in the costs of having a heavily guarded (war on terror, remember?) storage facility, for 576 years?
Including personnel costs?
Now, is it still cheaper than renewable alternative energy sources?
Nitpick: I didn't mention Iodine-131 because it decays rapidly (in the Netherlands they didn't let the cows out to graze for a week after Chernobyl because of the iodine). And Cesium-137 is comparable in radioactivity to Strontium (half-life 30 years) but you can pee it out, it doesn't get stored in your bones.
I would think the reason many environmentalists are against nuclear power is because it is insane and desperate to reap the short-term profits of it (short term = 100-200 years) at a price of waste storage for 500-1000 years (yes I'm making these numbers up, I don't have the figures handy). Especially given that for the cost of building a heavily guarded large nuclear power plant, and dismantling it again after 50 years (something they're still working on at the nuclear power plant at Dodewaard, which was closed in 1997, and will be dismantled at unknown cost in 40 years when it's less hot), you can invest a LOT of time and money in windmills, geothermal energy, fuel-cell efficiency research, etc. etc. etc.
I can't be bothered to go into your straw-man argument in your second and third paragraph.
Let's just say that I think that nuclear fission power hasn't been proven cost-effective yet.
Allright, you asked for it! I shall quote G.B. Shaw at you! http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw
Here's one that seems applicable to DRM: And to throw some more fuel on the fire: By the way, his plays will already be in public domain by 2021, if I calculated it well! Not bad for a Stalinist playwright!
I consider this a "killer issue" for ISO (but i'm not on any of the national standards bureaux so rest assured
I quote this from groklaw: http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objection
Because then, they can pooh-pooh the reputability of the Wikipedia articles that cast them in an unfavourable light.
Name them. I thought you got a full monopoly for the term of the patent (20 years), which includes the right to license *or refuse to license* to anyone and for *any* cost, depending on your whim. In other words it's completely legal to use a patent just to block other companies' progress. Think: AIDS medicine production in India (gets decided in 2 weeks btw).
I can only think of one exception, and that's if a government decides a granted patent goes against national security (e.g. war plane manufacture in WWII, canadian BlackBerry lawsuit
You call 40 years long? Do you think M.A.D equilibrium will hold for the next, oh say 3000 years, giving us time to spread and adapt and not depend on 1 planet anymore?
When's the first space elevator ready, I want a ticket.
Well.. they haven't done the Kristallnacht yet..
I disagree; what's ubiquitous *now* might not be in 20 years (which is nothing). Can you still find the source for an executable for your current architecture to unpack your old zoo, lharc, and .Z files? (yes, I know gzip does .Z and zoo is in Debian, but you get my point). I think it's much, much more important that it's described in detail in a lot of locations (such as PK-ZIP and US-tar format). And when you mention Wordperfect, let me mention Wordstar :-)
BTW, where's the royalty-free standards document that describes fully what the structure of a FAT32 filesystem is?
I found it a pity when the MIR was sent to burn up in the Earth's atmosphere. Couldn't they have given it a big shove that would end up with it as a scrapyard orbiting Mars? (doesn't matter if it takes 20 years to get there or if it breaks in half from the push).
Loosen your tin-foil hat; it was the Commission that tried to shove software patents down our throat, not the council (the Council is just the term for the assembled ministers of foreign affairs of the EU countries).
Isn't the Apocrypha by definition all bible books that are not part of the Canon? I.e. the ones like Jesus Sirach (which is my favourite btw) and this new Judas gospel I haven't even read yet?
Peter F. Hamilton??
Peter F. "Deus - ex - Machina - in the extreme" Hamilton??
No thank you.
That's old, this is what the Register had to say about them in 2002: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08/09/ms_softwar e_choice_scheme/ :-)
It's a good article to read actually, I recommend it.
[stuff omitted] and
Ok, suppose the *developer* pays this sum and gets the SMB documentation.
You said "some royalty free". I lookup File Server protocol, "Server Message Block Protocol", and it says 4% royalties for a software product. That means, that any Microsoft-sanctioned FOSS software implementation is out of the question, AFAIK.
If I'm wrong I'd like to hear it.
BTW I think 12000 pages of documentation is a calculated insult, not a protocol description. But maybe that's because I'm a European..
(replying to myself here) Read this and weep: http://ipw.scofacts.org/ipw-2004-11-4-193122-475.h tml
No, the more I read about this the more i agree with parent, but for a different reason. This Badvista idea is trying to fight Microsoft on its home turf: marketing. If it's true that Microsoft allocated half a billion worth of marketing money for Vista, to try to beat them on their home turf is just pathetic. How much TV airspace is badvista going to buy for clever advertisements? How many PC magazine columnists should be bought?
I think it would be better to go a completely different direction, and ask e.g. the EU to ask Microsoft whether Vista's purported SMB2 is 100% compatible with SMB, and if not, whether they'd please provide the differences in the spec as addition to their punishment-document (1200 pages IIRC is a punishment for both parties), ASAP, or else explain why they are trying to dodge the anticompetitiveness lawsuit AGAIN.
(very offtopic) Hey KFG! I have something on my slashdot journal now that might interest you! (and any other curious slashdotters who can spell well). Hint: it's from before black & white TV.
I'm game for that :-)
In that same verse it says you shouldn't sacrifice your children in the fire to Moloch, yet I find it scandalous that nobody nowadays complains about such practices anymore. What is the world coming to !!!!?!111!
When are our governments going to pass a law that it is forbidden to sacrifice children to Moloch (or Baal-Marduk etc.)?
And what does the author of Leviticus mean (yes, in the same verse) with
"neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion"
does that mean the woman will be confused or the animal?
What is the XXI^{th} century's bible-thumpers' opinion on this matter?
(this comment only for kfg) hi, is there any way i can e-mail you via slashdot? i want to discuss technology from last century, based on an article of yours in august this year.