Windows - double digits.
Linux - Triple digits.
BTW: Guess what Whitehouse.gov is running? (sorry, no uptime data available)
Posted on 03/10/2004 12:14:05 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Well I wouldn't do it for free. That would be communism... or even worse.. open source research! (gasp). I know you're not in favor of those things, and I'm happy to make an extra buck. So what are you offering?
Well they better hope the visionaries behind Linux don't get their way, or they like the rest of us will be stuck with support jobs whether we like them or not. If anything, their existence is conflicted in nature. Kind of like those Gay Republicans. Nothing personal, just an analogy.
What's your problem with gay Republicans? Are you saying we should drive them all away - to vote for the Democratic Party? That no one ought to be able to support lower taxes and less government without regard to their sexual preference? What's your reasoning there?
My friends work in both "closed source" projects for pay, and open source projects in things they wouldn't otherwise get to try. They enjoy it. It's fun for them. And the knowledge they gain is leveraged for free by the people paying them to work on other things. Pretty decent scenario.
"Visionaries getting their way" is equally scary in the case of closed source and open-source folks. Nuts abide on either side of that line. Thankfully, the free market prevents it. And one of the means is by preventing interested parties in a segment of the market from shutting out other parties.
So, for example, Microsoft owning the personal PC operating system market doesn't and shouldn't prevent others from developing an alternative and offering it. Surely you agree.
I assume you're also opposed to this communistic, capitalism-destroying conspiracy: US Patent Database
Giving away our trade secrets to furriners...
Thank you. I thought it was a good guess, too.
That's unbelievable, bordering on criminal negligence! Most "sane,knowledgeable" people have known this suit to be a ridiculous joke, doomed to a an early dismissal or negative judgment.
very true -- but sharing where it is in everyone's best interest to do so DOES work, and it works very well... again read George Gilder's Wealth and Poverty for an extremely lucid and inspired exponentiation of this...
no one is FORCED to use open source or "share" with it -- the astonishing strength, that which will ultimately take down Microsoft, is that those working on Open Source are all volunteers
Fixed it for you.
The original ATT licensing clause restricting export has the same structural limitation as the limitations on the breadth of the confidentiality restrictions, to wit, that the restriction is limited to the "SOFTWARE PRODUCTS" (capitalized in the licensing agreement, meaning the direct UNIX code) which do not (due the clarification I discussed in my prior post) extend to the IBM-created derivatives.
4.01 LICENSEE agrees that it will not, without the prior written consent of AT&T, export, directly or indirectly, SOFTWARE PRODUCTS covered by this Agreement to any country outside of the United States.
So that line of attack is also thwarted, unless SCO can find direct UNIX code (not derivative code) in the AIX code contributed to Linux.
BTW, in my opinion that line of argument (the export clause breach) was primarily thrown into the case by SCO to embarrass the Linux movement on political grounds. As a strictly legal theory it is a weak leg in the case because SCO would likely not be able to show any particular damages related to a purported breach of the clause even if it were factually true.
From the ATT-IBM 'side letter' executed in conjunction with the licensing agreement:
Nothing in this agreement shall prevent LICENSEE from developing or marketing products or services employing ideas, concepts, know-how or techniques relating to data processing embodied in SOFTWARE PRODUCTS subject to this Agreement, provided that LICENSEE shall not copy any code from such SOFTWARE PRODUCTS into any such product or in connection with any such service and employees of LICENSEE shall not refer to the physical documents and materials comprising SOFTWARE PRODUCTS subject to this Agreement when they are developing any such products or service or providing any such service.
Let's just say I KNEW this clause had to be in the agreement in some form or fashion.
It's what IBM and other companies refer to as a "residual knowledge clause" and it is usually included either in the confidentiality provisions or the Intellectual Property rights provisions of a business agreement regarding code and licensing -- it has essentially the same effect wherever it is placed.
The clause has the effect of limiting the scope of the 'derivative works' definition (and any corresponding duties and limitations that accrue to their use) as might otherwise be defined under case law, statutes, or common law.
The parties are agreeing, as between themselves, that re-use of IP and confidential information that flows from the licensee's employees' basic know-how IS A PERMITTED USE, notwithstanding any other terms (i.e., restrictions) stated in the contract.
So, when SCO says in its complaint that IBM derivatives use basic techniques learned from UNIX, IBM can say -- OK, but we're allowed to use that knowledge, we're only prevented from COPYING the Unix code directly into the AIX (derivative) code.
A chance for you to look like you have a single clue what you are talking about, and not just pushing speculative ideas with no real basis in fact. But I don't expect you to step up to the opportunity and prove you have anything of value, but rather continue to make your pointless jokes and more wild gueses that support your fantasies.
What's your problem with gay Republicans?
Simple. They're gay. It's immoral, spreads disease, breaks down the American family, and they are generally are misguided people. Conservatives like me don't like them, and never will based on the word of God. We don't need them, and never have. The liberals and Democrats on the other hand, consider them part of their "base". So who's side you on?
They enjoy it. It's fun for them.
Well, great then. At least somebody is "having fun" while we give our technology away to the rest of the world for nothin.
So, for example, Microsoft owning the personal PC operating system market doesn't and shouldn't prevent others from developing an alternative and offering it. Surely you agree.
Absolutely. I like Apple products equally if not better than any vendor on the market. I just don't use them because they are somewhat cost-prohibitive. Which just shows the old adage will always be true - you get what you pay for. Apply that to Linux and you see what I mean.
Enjoy your weekend. I'll be on vacation.
So you do expect work for free. Commie!
Seriously, you come into a thread insinuating conspiracy theories about Linux and the Democratic Party, and now you're trying to claim the moral high-ground. The only possible responses to that are insults or jokes. I'm a nice guy. So you get jokes.
Conservatives like me don't like [gays], and never will based on the word of God. We don't need them, and never have. The liberals and Democrats on the other hand, consider them part of their "base". So who's side you on?
Lol... "conservatives like you"? Can you point me to a single thread on Free Republic where you've discussed this topic? Or are you once again trying to imitate a conservative by saying the sort of things you think conservatives might say?
Well, great then. At least somebody is "having fun" while we give our technology away to the rest of the world for nothin.
"Our" software? Exactly what ownership are you claiming over it? Oh, right. You decided to embrace communism above. Quite a conversion tonight.
Absolutely. I like Apple products equally if not better than any vendor on the market. I just don't use them because they are somewhat cost-prohibitive.
Oh? At what price-point? If Apple was my favorite vendor, I'd have no trouble buying one. It's not like a similarly loaded PC is cheap. And from what I hear OS X is pretty impressive.
Which just shows the old adage will always be true - you get what you pay for.
Which is all the more puzzling, since you seem to think all this terribly inferior product is about to take over the marketplace unless you warn us. Odd.
Remember that free software only threatens proprietary COTS software. You could get a job where most software is written -- custom, in house.
Al Gore had that same attitude about encryption in the late 1990s. He was trying to get back doors put into software and hardware and force everyone to give the government their keys. Nobody believed his chicken-little BS either.
You're funny. We all know how much the Chinese care about others' copyright.
Just to remind you, Macs run on a free software base, and most of the tools shipped with OS X are free software.
Windows - double digits.
Linux - Triple digits.
BTW: Guess what Whitehouse.gov is running? (sorry, no uptime data available)
You could follow the Microsoft model. turn the other way while your stuff is pirated, then gradually turn the screws until more and more upgrades are licensed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.