As I heard the story this morning, the issue is the J & J licensed the use of the red cross trademark to the ARC so long as it was not used for profit.
ARC has now re-licensed the trademark they do not own to for-profit organizations to put on their products, some of which compete with J & J products directly. Yes, the ARC will get a portion of the proceeds from these sales, but the other companies make a profit at the expense of the J & J trademark.
So J & J has no choice but to sue the ARC to prevent them from sub-licensing the trademark they do not own.
Take the emotions out of the discussion, this is purely business. No, it is not big pharma beating on a poor charity, it is a trademark licensee abusing a license agreement in such a way the owner of the trademark is negatively impacted. Until J & J officially turns the trademark over to the ARC, they own and they must defend it.
One thing you didn't mention, is exactly what your LAMP stack is used for. Is it solely to run internal systems or does your agency make a living selling software and services? The answer to this question may have a large bearing on what your management is considering.
I work for an organization that sells software and services. I oversee the review of requests to use any F/OSS in the organization prior to the request going to legal for approval.
From the company's perspective, using F/OSS tools for day to day work, as developer boxes, etc. is just fine, but when F/OSS components are being requested that will be incorporated into the actual product, then legal gets concerned.
Because of the GPL distribution requirement, our legal staff does not permit GPL licensed components to be used in applications. We have some allowances for BSD, Apache and in some cases LGPL, because they do not mandate source code distribution, which for competitive reasons we do not wish to do.
So, we'll run on Linux servers (or AIX or Solaris as appropriate, best tool for the job), we'll use F/OSS databases (MySQL, Postgres and also SqlServer, Oracle and DB2 as needed), but we're very careful with developed products.
Since you don't give any details about what your shop does with the LAMP stack, I would be willing to give management the benefit of the doubt that they actually have reasons for why they want to move, and not all of them are driven by Microsoft sales agents.
I would take the time to understand what the reasoning is from either finance or legal or whoever is pushing this before trying to argue the point. Think of it as a typical debugging exercise: first you identify the cause, then you plan the fix.
While I agree with those that think a Microsoft FUD watch page is a bit of a waste of time, I'm still amused by the fact someone is posting it.
Let us not forget that Microsoft was the master of the FUD campaign. Consider how it used to be. A small, unknown company (Small Software Company) launches a software product that has great potential, but would result in users being semi-locked into that company. Microsoft sees the potential and announces they have their own version about ready to release, knowing full well they don't.
Average user thinks "Well, I'll just wait for the Microsoft product because I really don't know Small Software Company and whether they'll be around.", which gives Microsoft enough time to throw tons of money on a project to whip up a Version 1.0 to compete.
This model worked well for Microsoft for a number of years. But now, it isn't Small Software Company that Microsoft is chasing, it's Google and Apple, to name two. These are also well known to Mr. and Mrs. Average User.
So now, Apple or Google announces a new product, the Average User family starts using it. Microsoft announces their plan to release a competitor and the Average User thinks "a little late to the party".
The point is, people are getting more choice from companies they trust. So the FUD campaigns are not going to be as effective.
Funny you mention Wal-Mart. Recently my son's cell phone got damaged and I needed to get a replacement for him. My contract with Verizon had expired some time ago and I have been month to month ever since. They keep trying to get me to sign up for a new plan, but I won't.
Anyway, I went into a Verizon store to buy him a replacement phone. The prices listed were reasonable, IF you are willing to sign up for a plan. There were phones in the $49 dollar range. When I went to get one and refused a plan, the clerk told me the cost was over $200 for the basic phone and the activation fee.
I laughed and walked out of the store. I went across the street to the Wal-Mart to see how much the phones were there. Same story, buy the Verizon phone with a plan: cheap. Buy the phone, not so cheap.
I asked the girl working the counter what the cheapest phone was I could get. She told me that all I needed to do was buy a $45 Verizon Pay-As-You-Go phone and get it activated. It seems that Verizon support would activate the phone just like any other, connected to my son's number and my old plan, but the Verizon store clerks won't tell you that (commissioned of course).
So I bought him a nice simple basic phone, went home and first went online to activate it (supposedly if you try to do it online and can't, then call tech support they don't charge you) and interestingly enough the ESN number was taken without problem and the phone was turned on.
So he has a working phone and I still am not under contract.
Its probable that part of the reason the FCC believes open source is more vulnerable is that by nature open source vulnerabilities are more quickly reported and visible. I've seen this happen with the security team where I work. Because there are more reports of vulnerabilities to some pieces of software it is viewed the software is more risky
The real reason though is the close source software denies or never announces any vulnerabilities, so the number of reports is lower.
I say that instead of fighting the FCC to change their stance we should ask that instead they put out a mandate that all purveyors of this type of system be required by law to report any and all discovered, exploited or theoretical vulnerabilities to systems that would be use for the people's airwaves
Not sure how many folks remember the 1984 movie Runaway with Tom Seleck, but the first robot going crazy that Officer Jack Ramsay had to deal with was an agrobot that worked in crop fields killing bugs.
So how long before the personal heat seeking bullets are perfected?
I agree about the updates and modifications to the Constitution. The XII amendment does make the Vice President a separately voted for individual as opposed to the presidential candidate with the second most votes, but there still is no definition in the Constitution as to the Vice President having Executive Powers. The only mention I can find about Vice President powers (not counting succession) is actually in Article I, Section 3, Clause 4. Article I is about Legislative powers and this clause identifies the VP as the head of the Senate.
Note I'm not arguing that I agree with the which ever the way the wind is blowing interpretations, because if the VP wants to use the argument about being part of the Legislative branch then Senate rules should apply to him and the Senate should be able to force his compliance. I'm just pointing out the arguments I've been hearing on this.
Wouldn't it be fun to see the American people vote for the Presidential candidate from one party and the Vice Presidential candidate from a different party? Of course most people vote a party ticket so that's not likely to happen.
One of the points being made by some of the legal analysists is that the Constitution does not define any executive powers for the Vice President. According to Article II Clause 1:
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
It mentions the VP as holding term for the same time period, but never mentions an executive power vested to the VP.
All that aside though, it does sound like Mr. Cheney is trying to have it both ways, but depending on interpretation there may be legal standing.
Don't forget at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the candidates for President and Vice President did not run as a team. Clause 3 defines the candidate with the highest number of electoral votes was President, the candidate with the second highest is Vice President, so originally the Vice President was theoretically the second most popular candidate running, and in the early years they were probably politcal rivals.
Therefor it made sense that the VP was also President of the Senate, the body originally chosen by State legislatures to represent the States as the VP was more a control item for the President as well as a popularly elected official overseeing a body of appointed Senators.
Don't be so quick to say "Science has looked at those and ruled them out pretty simply" until you've reviewed all science research.
For example, this article goes into details of what you indicate that the sun's actual output isn't directly correlated to the increase in temperature, but identifies that the changes in solar winds affects the amount of cosmic radiation able to hit the earth and this does match up more closely with temperature variations.
I'm not proposing this is in anyway more or less definitive than anything you may have read, but the fact is climatology is just too immature to be making definitive statements. We are by no means at the end of this science, simply because the problem domain is just to large.
That should already be covered under the fair use provision. What you don't have is the right to distribute the work on another medium. You pay a for a licenses to use music or movies or software. A publisher pays for the right to publish a work in any media format.
IANAL, but the way I read this ruling was that if the contract does not directly address the media type, and the original work is not modified into something new, then the publisher has already paid for the right to publish the work.
As a related, though slightly off topic issue, I have a son that just graduated high school. All of his class pictures are represented as being "owned" by the photographer. They claim the copyright on all the kid's photos.
The photographer thought my son photographed well and asked permission to use his pictures in their sales brochures. My son and wife told the photographer they wanted me to review the paperwork.
Upon reading this "release" it basically stated that if we approved, the photographer would then own the copyright to my son's image, period. No details about "only for use in their advertising."
When I challenged them on that detail they indicated that was "standard practice" and they only meant for advertising. I offered a change to the release wording which they refused so I declined to allow it.
My point on this is that everyone is looking to get as much control as they can, whether it is the publisher looking to say they already have the right to reprint or the photographer claiming they own the copyright on the image, so all I see with these rulings is see-sawing back and forth as to who owns what.
In the end, the consumers are the ones that own nothing.
This is actually something I have been looking into as well, and have discussed with members of my team (I'm a PHB) as a way to get more acceptence of open source software.
Right now, within our organization, we have to go through a rigorous review process before a piece of open source software is allowed. Everyone from helpdesk to operations to security to legal weighs in.
One of the biggest arguments we get is that there is no way to manage the updates. Some software like Firefox has a builtin update check, but others do not.
Like it or not, one of the big reasons corporations tend to stay Microsoft focused is the availability of tools for managing large scale deployments. It may seem counter intuitive that managing hundreds of Windows desktops is easier, but Microsoft put time and effort into simple tools that provide for automatic updates and patch distribution.
I believe that if there was a consistent mechanism for keeping open source software managed and up-to-date on Windows boxes, then there would be more likely hood of corporate adoption of those same tools.
Stands for Java Network Launch Protocol, and as others point out it runs on any platforms that have Java installed and the plugin connected to the browser.
Why even continue with the journals? MIT could just as easily create a managed social networking site for researchers where they are invited to join.
Don't make the site open to just anyone, require the posters be invited and vetted by a review board. Don't make it a narrow subject area, open it to all research.
Set the site up with an ability for researchers to create draft papers they can invite people to review, then when they publish the papers are available to any one, not just site members.
I personally would love to have access to a site like this where I could just look for topics of interest and find good papers available, and be able to easily communicate with the authors.
Since, as has been pointed out, the researchers aren't paid anyway, they wouldn't lose anything going this route.
A MySpace for the geek-hacker (in the true sense of the word) crowd.
Continuity planning can be complicated based on the environment, and quite often overlooked until the first time it is needed.
Few companies maintain sufficient hardware of their own for true disaster recovery purposes. In most cases like that, the organization will have redundant data centers that are probably used in a load sharing model. Hopefully one data center can carry the full load of the critical activities if the other goes down. For these organizations, backup tapes are really intended for a complete disaster at all sites that would require acquiring new hardware.
Other organizations have agreements with firms like Sunguard and IBM for cold sites. These vendors guarantee a certain square footage in their own data centers. They then work with the client to understand the exact hardware and software requirements that would be needed in case the cold site needs to go hot. In these instances, the tapes are shipped to the Sunguard or IBM site and loaded on machines as quickly as possible. The contracts normally give the vendor a minimum amount of time to stand up hardware and load the software and data, governed a great deal by how much data needs loading.
Just a note, if your company is deciding on going the hosted DR route, make sure before hand that you have agreement from your software vendors that your license allows you to load their software outside your organization. I worked at one company that didn't have that in their original software contracts and had to spend more money with the software vendors when they created a DR plan. Many software vendors won't mention this little detail.
Most often I've seen backup tapes used when for example an important database table was dropped accidentally. The last good backup tape was loaded and the database completely restored to get back to production. This is what you'd think of as single system disaster recovery.
You make an interesting point about the Java of today related to the COBOL of yesterday.
It actually does fit that mold.
So if What's needed is something genuinely new to go mainstream, for the business world, what would that look like? There was appeal to Business BASIC and COBOL. Java has some appeal in the business software space, maybe because of how it simplifies server side development and many businesses moved to mid-tier from mainframes, but what would a genuinely new business programming language look like?
Your comment makes I pointed that I had totally missed regarding Net Neutrality legistlation.
Imagine this scenario:
Background: A new worm was released that exploits a hole in a popular software product that locates suggestive information on a persons hard drive, sends it and identification information on the hard drive owner to an off shore website where it is displayed for all the world to see. This worm has infected many senate and congressional representatives and staffers computers leading to much embarrassment.
Scene: Senate hearing with a panel of exposed Senators questioning the software maker representatives.
Embarrassed Senator: So, you are telling us that your company was aware of the security hole this worm made use of?
Software Vendor: Absolutely Senator, we even published a notice about it on our website at the beginning of the month.
Embarrassed Senator: And the only way to prevent it was to download a patch from your company?
Software Vendor: Yes sir.
Embarrassed Senator: So why didn't you make the patch available for download?
Software Vendor: Because Senator, we had already exceeded the bandwidth our network provider allowed us to use for the month and we were trying to get emergency funding to buy more.
Embarrassed Senator: What do you mean allowed for use?
Software Vendor: Why Senator, you remember the end of net neutrality you helped sponsor? Well, our contract with our provider either requires us to limit bandwidth or pay large overage penalities, just like cell phone plans when you go over the limit. Since we had put out one large patch already, we had no available bandwidth for our update servers until next month.
Why? Perhaps because if we don't, we will kill ourselves off sooner.
IANAPOA (I am not a Psychologist or Anthropologist)
For most of human history until most recently, human society has had somewhere unknown they could reach and explore. This provided our very aggressive natures with an outlet. Young men had dreams of conquest and riches (yes I know it was detrimental to so-called indigenous peoples).
Today, however, there is little to no unexplored-untamed areas available. Young men particularly have no outlet for their wanderlust.
I believe this is why there has been such a rise in violence and crime. So called l33t h4x0rs find their outlets in using cyberspace and computers to show off. Much of the radical religious movements are fueled by disillusioned young men.
What happens in a few years when all the young men in China can't find wives because so many families there were adhering to the one child policy and favored boys over girls? What do they focus their energies on?
We see some of this in today's business world too. Treating business as war and competitors as the enemy drives many business leaders to make bad decisions.
What about the fans of professional sports? People root and cheer for teams to win, and when they do the fans go on destruction sprees.
Don't forget history. The Europeans had trained young men from early age as fighters to repel the Muslims and when they finally succeeded and reclaimed France, Spain and Italy, they then had this large population of young men who had been promised wealth and lands that had nothing. If the America's had not been available as the new land of conquest opportunity (and a place where many of these men would ultimately die) there would have been utter chaos in Europe.
My point in all this is, that unless humanity can find an outlet for it's aggressive nature and provide it's younger generation with at least the hope of fame and fortune, we are likely to see a continual rise in gangs and violence and a downward spiral of civilization.
Then again, this could just be me having a bad day.
The United States had a large amount of physical space with less population, so the cities are not as compact and more sprawling.
European cities started out largely as outposts and towns around royal residences that the US never had.
If people aren't spread out as much, public transit is very good and economical. Think of it like DSL service. Companies won't spend money to put DSL infrastructure in less inhabited areas because the population doesn't support the ROI.
Same thing with mass transit in the US.
I spent 2 years in Germany in the mid 80's and my car stayed in storage at my home in the US. I had a bicycle for intown use (with saddle bags to carry groceries) and I used trains for trips. Loved every minute of it. Where I live in the US (outside a large city) the only subway station is 40 miles away and there is no bus service to my suburban county. My office is on the edge of the city where the bus lines start.
In the US the primary mode of distance travel is by air, with all the fun little restrictions we deal with there. I wish we had train service like European countries do.
Actually, I see the potential differently. Consider ---
For years the GNU folks have tried to point out that Linux is just a kernel and the system should be referred to as GNU/Linux. They've been largely unsuccessful because there is no alternative (GNU/Hurd isn't really there).
Now along comes Sun offering the Solaris kernel which would allow for GNU/Solaris.
Add to this that the SCO lawsuit was based on IBM contributing code to the Linux kernel (though they probably tried to include samples from GNU tools), Microsoft working with Novell to patent protect users of the the Linux kernel (haven't heard MS say anything about the GNU tools), and we have business concerned again about Linux legalities.
Sun, however, will claim original or approved authorship of all of Solaris (as early Unix licensees), thus making GNU/Solaris potentially less risky in the eyes of the business community. I would think Sun would prefer the separation of Solaris (on Sun hardware) from Solaris (on Intel hardware) and probably wouldn't have an issue with it being referred to as GNU/Solaris, IMHO.
And, if Sun does it right and continues improvements in Project Looking Glass, then GNU/Solaris with a 3D desktop built on GPL3-Java could have an impact not only on Windows but also potentially OSX. I wonder how many video card manufacturers would be willing to work with Sun for drivers for GNU/Solaris?
All in all, this could push Linux (GNU/Linux) off the front burner. Could be interesting.
Another option to consider is offering to do development work for non-profit charity groups. Many of them can benefit from systems, either custom written or created from various open source offerings, but have little in the way of budget. They usually aren't target clients for the group that is telling you to 'stay off their lawn'.
The upside of working with these groups is you're usually working with people who aren't there just to get a paycheck, they believe in the work they do, and that attitude in others can make for a pleasant work experience.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh man, you're making me feel old. How long has it been since there was the Folger's Crystal coffee swap commercials?
As I heard the story this morning, the issue is the J & J licensed the use of the red cross trademark to the ARC so long as it was not used for profit.
ARC has now re-licensed the trademark they do not own to for-profit organizations to put on their products, some of which compete with J & J products directly. Yes, the ARC will get a portion of the proceeds from these sales, but the other companies make a profit at the expense of the J & J trademark.
So J & J has no choice but to sue the ARC to prevent them from sub-licensing the trademark they do not own.
Take the emotions out of the discussion, this is purely business. No, it is not big pharma beating on a poor charity, it is a trademark licensee abusing a license agreement in such a way the owner of the trademark is negatively impacted. Until J & J officially turns the trademark over to the ARC, they own and they must defend it.
One thing you didn't mention, is exactly what your LAMP stack is used for. Is it solely to run internal systems or does your agency make a living selling software and services? The answer to this question may have a large bearing on what your management is considering.
I work for an organization that sells software and services. I oversee the review of requests to use any F/OSS in the organization prior to the request going to legal for approval.
From the company's perspective, using F/OSS tools for day to day work, as developer boxes, etc. is just fine, but when F/OSS components are being requested that will be incorporated into the actual product, then legal gets concerned.
Because of the GPL distribution requirement, our legal staff does not permit GPL licensed components to be used in applications. We have some allowances for BSD, Apache and in some cases LGPL, because they do not mandate source code distribution, which for competitive reasons we do not wish to do.
So, we'll run on Linux servers (or AIX or Solaris as appropriate, best tool for the job), we'll use F/OSS databases (MySQL, Postgres and also SqlServer, Oracle and DB2 as needed), but we're very careful with developed products.
Since you don't give any details about what your shop does with the LAMP stack, I would be willing to give management the benefit of the doubt that they actually have reasons for why they want to move, and not all of them are driven by Microsoft sales agents.
I would take the time to understand what the reasoning is from either finance or legal or whoever is pushing this before trying to argue the point. Think of it as a typical debugging exercise: first you identify the cause, then you plan the fix.
But now you are impacting another part of a manufacturer's business model: planned obsolescence.
If the original CD does not wear out, then the manufacturer can only make money off of you one time on the original sale.
So obviously fair use copying is just another form of piracy!
While I agree with those that think a Microsoft FUD watch page is a bit of a waste of time, I'm still amused by the fact someone is posting it.
Let us not forget that Microsoft was the master of the FUD campaign. Consider how it used to be. A small, unknown company (Small Software Company) launches a software product that has great potential, but would result in users being semi-locked into that company. Microsoft sees the potential and announces they have their own version about ready to release, knowing full well they don't.
Average user thinks "Well, I'll just wait for the Microsoft product because I really don't know Small Software Company and whether they'll be around.", which gives Microsoft enough time to throw tons of money on a project to whip up a Version 1.0 to compete.
This model worked well for Microsoft for a number of years. But now, it isn't Small Software Company that Microsoft is chasing, it's Google and Apple, to name two. These are also well known to Mr. and Mrs. Average User.
So now, Apple or Google announces a new product, the Average User family starts using it. Microsoft announces their plan to release a competitor and the Average User thinks "a little late to the party".
The point is, people are getting more choice from companies they trust. So the FUD campaigns are not going to be as effective.
It is fun to watch, though.
Funny you mention Wal-Mart. Recently my son's cell phone got damaged and I needed to get a replacement for him. My contract with Verizon had expired some time ago and I have been month to month ever since. They keep trying to get me to sign up for a new plan, but I won't.
Anyway, I went into a Verizon store to buy him a replacement phone. The prices listed were reasonable, IF you are willing to sign up for a plan. There were phones in the $49 dollar range. When I went to get one and refused a plan, the clerk told me the cost was over $200 for the basic phone and the activation fee.
I laughed and walked out of the store. I went across the street to the Wal-Mart to see how much the phones were there. Same story, buy the Verizon phone with a plan: cheap. Buy the phone, not so cheap.
I asked the girl working the counter what the cheapest phone was I could get. She told me that all I needed to do was buy a $45 Verizon Pay-As-You-Go phone and get it activated. It seems that Verizon support would activate the phone just like any other, connected to my son's number and my old plan, but the Verizon store clerks won't tell you that (commissioned of course).
So I bought him a nice simple basic phone, went home and first went online to activate it (supposedly if you try to do it online and can't, then call tech support they don't charge you) and interestingly enough the ESN number was taken without problem and the phone was turned on.
So he has a working phone and I still am not under contract.
Its probable that part of the reason the FCC believes open source is more vulnerable is that by nature open source vulnerabilities are more quickly reported and visible. I've seen this happen with the security team where I work. Because there are more reports of vulnerabilities to some pieces of software it is viewed the software is more risky
The real reason though is the close source software denies or never announces any vulnerabilities, so the number of reports is lower.
I say that instead of fighting the FCC to change their stance we should ask that instead they put out a mandate that all purveyors of this type of system be required by law to report any and all discovered, exploited or theoretical vulnerabilities to systems that would be use for the people's airwaves
Not sure how many folks remember the 1984 movie Runaway with Tom Seleck, but the first robot going crazy that Officer Jack Ramsay had to deal with was an agrobot that worked in crop fields killing bugs.
So how long before the personal heat seeking bullets are perfected?
I agree about the updates and modifications to the Constitution. The XII amendment does make the Vice President a separately voted for individual as opposed to the presidential candidate with the second most votes, but there still is no definition in the Constitution as to the Vice President having Executive Powers. The only mention I can find about Vice President powers (not counting succession) is actually in Article I, Section 3, Clause 4. Article I is about Legislative powers and this clause identifies the VP as the head of the Senate.
Note I'm not arguing that I agree with the which ever the way the wind is blowing interpretations, because if the VP wants to use the argument about being part of the Legislative branch then Senate rules should apply to him and the Senate should be able to force his compliance. I'm just pointing out the arguments I've been hearing on this.
Wouldn't it be fun to see the American people vote for the Presidential candidate from one party and the Vice Presidential candidate from a different party? Of course most people vote a party ticket so that's not likely to happen.
One of the points being made by some of the legal analysists is that the Constitution does not define any executive powers for the Vice President. According to Article II Clause 1:
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
It mentions the VP as holding term for the same time period, but never mentions an executive power vested to the VP.
All that aside though, it does sound like Mr. Cheney is trying to have it both ways, but depending on interpretation there may be legal standing.
Don't forget at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the candidates for President and Vice President did not run as a team. Clause 3 defines the candidate with the highest number of electoral votes was President, the candidate with the second highest is Vice President, so originally the Vice President was theoretically the second most popular candidate running, and in the early years they were probably politcal rivals.
Therefor it made sense that the VP was also President of the Senate, the body originally chosen by State legislatures to represent the States as the VP was more a control item for the President as well as a popularly elected official overseeing a body of appointed Senators.
Thank you, I needed a good laugh today. Now have to clean the coffee that I just laugh/spewed onto my monitor.
Don't be so quick to say "Science has looked at those and ruled them out pretty simply" until you've reviewed all science research.
For example, this article goes into details of what you indicate that the sun's actual output isn't directly correlated to the increase in temperature, but identifies that the changes in solar winds affects the amount of cosmic radiation able to hit the earth and this does match up more closely with temperature variations.
I'm not proposing this is in anyway more or less definitive than anything you may have read, but the fact is climatology is just too immature to be making definitive statements. We are by no means at the end of this science, simply because the problem domain is just to large.
That should already be covered under the fair use provision. What you don't have is the right to distribute the work on another medium. You pay a for a licenses to use music or movies or software. A publisher pays for the right to publish a work in any media format.
IANAL, but the way I read this ruling was that if the contract does not directly address the media type, and the original work is not modified into something new, then the publisher has already paid for the right to publish the work.
As a related, though slightly off topic issue, I have a son that just graduated high school. All of his class pictures are represented as being "owned" by the photographer. They claim the copyright on all the kid's photos.
The photographer thought my son photographed well and asked permission to use his pictures in their sales brochures. My son and wife told the photographer they wanted me to review the paperwork.
Upon reading this "release" it basically stated that if we approved, the photographer would then own the copyright to my son's image, period. No details about "only for use in their advertising."
When I challenged them on that detail they indicated that was "standard practice" and they only meant for advertising. I offered a change to the release wording which they refused so I declined to allow it.
My point on this is that everyone is looking to get as much control as they can, whether it is the publisher looking to say they already have the right to reprint or the photographer claiming they own the copyright on the image, so all I see with these rulings is see-sawing back and forth as to who owns what.
In the end, the consumers are the ones that own nothing.
This is actually something I have been looking into as well, and have discussed with members of my team (I'm a PHB) as a way to get more acceptence of open source software.
Right now, within our organization, we have to go through a rigorous review process before a piece of open source software is allowed. Everyone from helpdesk to operations to security to legal weighs in.
One of the biggest arguments we get is that there is no way to manage the updates. Some software like Firefox has a builtin update check, but others do not.
Like it or not, one of the big reasons corporations tend to stay Microsoft focused is the availability of tools for managing large scale deployments. It may seem counter intuitive that managing hundreds of Windows desktops is easier, but Microsoft put time and effort into simple tools that provide for automatic updates and patch distribution.
I believe that if there was a consistent mechanism for keeping open source software managed and up-to-date on Windows boxes, then there would be more likely hood of corporate adoption of those same tools.
Stands for Java Network Launch Protocol, and as others point out it runs on any platforms that have Java installed and the plugin connected to the browser.
So I'm assuming this is the same thing as F3 that Chris Oliver has been working on and posting to his blog for sometime? The syntax looks the same.
Did you also see this part on the products link:
Altair Engineering has a patent regarding the replacement of fluorescent tubes with LEDs, with additional patent work in progress.
So do they even have a product or just a patent portfolio?
Why even continue with the journals? MIT could just as easily create a managed social networking site for researchers where they are invited to join.
Don't make the site open to just anyone, require the posters be invited and vetted by a review board. Don't make it a narrow subject area, open it to all research.
Set the site up with an ability for researchers to create draft papers they can invite people to review, then when they publish the papers are available to any one, not just site members.
I personally would love to have access to a site like this where I could just look for topics of interest and find good papers available, and be able to easily communicate with the authors.
Since, as has been pointed out, the researchers aren't paid anyway, they wouldn't lose anything going this route.
A MySpace for the geek-hacker (in the true sense of the word) crowd.
Continuity planning can be complicated based on the environment, and quite often overlooked until the first time it is needed.
Few companies maintain sufficient hardware of their own for true disaster recovery purposes. In most cases like that, the organization will have redundant data centers that are probably used in a load sharing model. Hopefully one data center can carry the full load of the critical activities if the other goes down. For these organizations, backup tapes are really intended for a complete disaster at all sites that would require acquiring new hardware.
Other organizations have agreements with firms like Sunguard and IBM for cold sites. These vendors guarantee a certain square footage in their own data centers. They then work with the client to understand the exact hardware and software requirements that would be needed in case the cold site needs to go hot. In these instances, the tapes are shipped to the Sunguard or IBM site and loaded on machines as quickly as possible. The contracts normally give the vendor a minimum amount of time to stand up hardware and load the software and data, governed a great deal by how much data needs loading.
Just a note, if your company is deciding on going the hosted DR route, make sure before hand that you have agreement from your software vendors that your license allows you to load their software outside your organization. I worked at one company that didn't have that in their original software contracts and had to spend more money with the software vendors when they created a DR plan. Many software vendors won't mention this little detail.
Most often I've seen backup tapes used when for example an important database table was dropped accidentally. The last good backup tape was loaded and the database completely restored to get back to production. This is what you'd think of as single system disaster recovery.
You make an interesting point about the Java of today related to the COBOL of yesterday.
It actually does fit that mold.
So if What's needed is something genuinely new to go mainstream, for the business world, what would that look like? There was appeal to Business BASIC and COBOL. Java has some appeal in the business software space, maybe because of how it simplifies server side development and many businesses moved to mid-tier from mainframes, but what would a genuinely new business programming language look like?
Might make for a good Ask Slashdot question.
Your comment makes I pointed that I had totally missed regarding Net Neutrality legistlation.
Imagine this scenario:
Background: A new worm was released that exploits a hole in a popular software product that locates suggestive information on a persons hard drive, sends it and identification information on the hard drive owner to an off shore website where it is displayed for all the world to see. This worm has infected many senate and congressional representatives and staffers computers leading to much embarrassment.
Scene: Senate hearing with a panel of exposed Senators questioning the software maker representatives.
Embarrassed Senator: So, you are telling us that your company was aware of the security hole this worm made use of?
Software Vendor: Absolutely Senator, we even published a notice about it on our website at the beginning of the month.
Embarrassed Senator: And the only way to prevent it was to download a patch from your company?
Software Vendor: Yes sir.
Embarrassed Senator: So why didn't you make the patch available for download?
Software Vendor: Because Senator, we had already exceeded the bandwidth our network provider allowed us to use for the month and we were trying to get emergency funding to buy more.
Embarrassed Senator: What do you mean allowed for use?
Software Vendor: Why Senator, you remember the end of net neutrality you helped sponsor? Well, our contract with our provider either requires us to limit bandwidth or pay large overage penalities, just like cell phone plans when you go over the limit. Since we had put out one large patch already, we had no available bandwidth for our update servers until next month.
How fun would that be to watch?
Why? Perhaps because if we don't, we will kill ourselves off sooner.
IANAPOA (I am not a Psychologist or Anthropologist)
For most of human history until most recently, human society has had somewhere unknown they could reach and explore. This provided our very aggressive natures with an outlet. Young men had dreams of conquest and riches (yes I know it was detrimental to so-called indigenous peoples).
Today, however, there is little to no unexplored-untamed areas available. Young men particularly have no outlet for their wanderlust.
I believe this is why there has been such a rise in violence and crime. So called l33t h4x0rs find their outlets in using cyberspace and computers to show off. Much of the radical religious movements are fueled by disillusioned young men.
What happens in a few years when all the young men in China can't find wives because so many families there were adhering to the one child policy and favored boys over girls? What do they focus their energies on?
We see some of this in today's business world too. Treating business as war and competitors as the enemy drives many business leaders to make bad decisions.
What about the fans of professional sports? People root and cheer for teams to win, and when they do the fans go on destruction sprees.
Don't forget history. The Europeans had trained young men from early age as fighters to repel the Muslims and when they finally succeeded and reclaimed France, Spain and Italy, they then had this large population of young men who had been promised wealth and lands that had nothing. If the America's had not been available as the new land of conquest opportunity (and a place where many of these men would ultimately die) there would have been utter chaos in Europe.
My point in all this is, that unless humanity can find an outlet for it's aggressive nature and provide it's younger generation with at least the hope of fame and fortune, we are likely to see a continual rise in gangs and violence and a downward spiral of civilization.
Then again, this could just be me having a bad day.
Geography and population density.
The United States had a large amount of physical space with less population, so the cities are not as compact and more sprawling.
European cities started out largely as outposts and towns around royal residences that the US never had.
If people aren't spread out as much, public transit is very good and economical. Think of it like DSL service. Companies won't spend money to put DSL infrastructure in less inhabited areas because the population doesn't support the ROI.
Same thing with mass transit in the US.
I spent 2 years in Germany in the mid 80's and my car stayed in storage at my home in the US. I had a bicycle for intown use (with saddle bags to carry groceries) and I used trains for trips. Loved every minute of it. Where I live in the US (outside a large city) the only subway station is 40 miles away and there is no bus service to my suburban county. My office is on the edge of the city where the bus lines start.
In the US the primary mode of distance travel is by air, with all the fun little restrictions we deal with there. I wish we had train service like European countries do.
Actually, I see the potential differently. Consider ---
For years the GNU folks have tried to point out that Linux is just a kernel and the system should be referred to as GNU/Linux. They've been largely unsuccessful because there is no alternative (GNU/Hurd isn't really there).
Now along comes Sun offering the Solaris kernel which would allow for GNU/Solaris.
Add to this that the SCO lawsuit was based on IBM contributing code to the Linux kernel (though they probably tried to include samples from GNU tools), Microsoft working with Novell to patent protect users of the the Linux kernel (haven't heard MS say anything about the GNU tools), and we have business concerned again about Linux legalities.
Sun, however, will claim original or approved authorship of all of Solaris (as early Unix licensees), thus making GNU/Solaris potentially less risky in the eyes of the business community. I would think Sun would prefer the separation of Solaris (on Sun hardware) from Solaris (on Intel hardware) and probably wouldn't have an issue with it being referred to as GNU/Solaris, IMHO.
And, if Sun does it right and continues improvements in Project Looking Glass, then GNU/Solaris with a 3D desktop built on GPL3-Java could have an impact not only on Windows but also potentially OSX. I wonder how many video card manufacturers would be willing to work with Sun for drivers for GNU/Solaris?
All in all, this could push Linux (GNU/Linux) off the front burner. Could be interesting.
Another option to consider is offering to do development work for non-profit charity groups. Many of them can benefit from systems, either custom written or created from various open source offerings, but have little in the way of budget. They usually aren't target clients for the group that is telling you to 'stay off their lawn'.
The upside of working with these groups is you're usually working with people who aren't there just to get a paycheck, they believe in the work they do, and that attitude in others can make for a pleasant work experience.