Mac fanatic raves about Vista on a Mac!

[Jonti]

my point is that what would happen is that one particularlly usefull piece of open source software with one unquie feature which was added as a propreitory code base as afork of the original code base would then become a chargeable but essentail app on a machine meanign that of course those with the money to pay developers to develop that are going to be the big multi nationals with drm investments...

You can incorporate someone else's copyrighted and GPL-licensed work into your *own* program. But such a "fork" would be a derivative work of a GPL-licensed program. As such you would need to honour the terms of the license of the code you've taken for your own program.

In other words, you can incorporate GPL code into your own work. But, if you do, you have to extend to others the same priviledge of being able to use *your* work.

 

[Jonti]

So why do you think Linux is the fastest growing OS in terms of deployed numbers?

 

[editor]

So why do you think Linux is the fastest growing OS in terms of deployed numbers?

Because it's free?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

You can incorporate someone else's copyrighted and GPL-licensed work into your *own* program. But such a "fork" would be a derivative work of a GPL-licensed program. As such you would need to honour the terms of the license of the code you've taken for your own program.

In other words, you can incorporate GPL code into your own work. But, if you do, you have to extend to others the same priviledge of being able to use *your* work.

no you don't you only have to exend the right to others to have access to the code...

they had this arguemnt in great detail after the mambo joomla fork ...

Charging money is not allowed
The GPL expressly permits one to sell copies of GPL-covered works and charge a download fee for them. Purchasing rather than downloading may make sense from a convenience standpoint, but it does not change either the purchaser's or vendor's rights or responsibilities under the GPL. In fact, licenses that only allow non-commercial distribution are automatically incompatible with the GPL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

basically you can widraw the software from gnu licence or gpl and negitiate driectly with the original licencees and then charge release and propritory ...

it really ain't as easy as all that...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

So why do you think Linux is the fastest growing OS in terms of deployed numbers?

cos like firefox it's got to a certian level with in the states where it's becomign the perffered os of technologically literate people as each successive generation bring sthese more and more intergrated and technologically literate peoples about then this will grow but htis growth is largely with in the states and isn't else where when you think that in reality we still have less than 20% of the world population on line let alone with their own home pc the majority of these users are on doze not nix....

 

[Jonti]

This bit ...

(Linux) growth is largely with in the states and isn't else where

... linky??

 

[Jonti]

Because it's free?

BSD is free, and isn't the fastest growing o/s.

Any other ideas?

 

[jæd]

i think someone needs to explain open source to jæd actually... technically there is nothing wiht in the licencing which prevents nayone charging at any time for open source software it's installation or confingureation period it' merel that the code still needs to be accessable as do the copyright notices...

My point was that if DRM is reverse engineered there's nothing stopping someone making a gpl'd version of the unDRM'd program. (Unless you happen to reside in a country with DMCA equivilents)

 

[Jonti]

basically you can widraw the software from gnu licence or gpl and negitiate driectly with the original licencees and then charge release and propritory ... .

You can license your *own* code as you please. But you can't just change how someone else has licensed their own code. That's up to them.

Obviously.

 

[untethered]

My point was that if DRM is reverse engineered there's nothing stopping someone making a gpl'd version of the unDRM'd program. (Unless you happen to reside in a country with DMCA equivilents)

There is a problem with software patents that would apply to a general process that was reverse engineered, regardless of DMCA.

Isn't there a DMCA equivalent in the EU now, too?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

You can license your *own* code as you please. But you can't just change how someone else has licensed their own code. That's up to them.

Obviously.

i reckon you can 'change how some one licences their code' with a large lump some of cash... my bet is so will the DRM peoples... either that or use the defintion of their coyright to assert that this technology can only legally besold via appored vendors and that regardless of licence type that only these vendours may code this software... hell if a corrupt court can vote in an american presiedent who lost the vote... etc...

 

[gabi]

Because it's free?

To be fair, everythings free with file-sharing these days. I could download any OS I want for free.

Anyway. this thread's got all geeky and acronym heavy.. im out. DMCA? WTF?

 

[Jonti]

Well, that's a matter of judgement. We'll have to see.

Meanwhile, you made a claim that needs some back up, here.

 

[Jonti]

To be fair, everythings free with file-sharing these days. I could download any OS I want for free.

Anyway. this thread's got all geeky and acronym heavy.. im out. DMCA? WTF?

WTF stands for What The Fuck?

Dunno about the other stuff ...

 

[editor]

To be fair, everythings free with file-sharing these days. I could download any OS I want for free.

Well, sort of, but not to the average consumer who is happy to buy an XP-loaded PC or fork out for the bells and whistles of Vista.

I doubt if many of them will be on file sharing sites and running OS cracks, to be honest.

 

[editor]

BSD is free, and isn't the fastest growing o/s.

Any other ideas?

You don't think the fact that it's free plays any part in its growing popularity?

 

[jæd]

You don't think the fact that it's free plays any part in its growing popularity?

Yep, but its free and "hard-to-use". So why would it be popular...? The answer is that is reliable... And some of us expect our computers to do stuff other than get viruses and malware every five minutes. (Or less).

(And another part of the answer is that we know it won't have lots of DRM'd stuff shoved into it. Because as soon as someone might try then we can just fork it...)

 

[untethered]

You don't think the fact that it's free plays any part in its growing popularity?

I'm sure it does, and it's often touted as the major appeal of Linux.

However, the fact that the software is available at no charge is the least important aspect of its appeal for me.

As this thread demonstrates, it's the "freedom" of the software (at least, potentially) that matters, not the fact that you might save a few pounds vs. the price of Windows whose price is generally embedded in the hardware you buy it with.

That said, there's still huge usability hurdles for Linux to jump, but promoting the idea that The Man doesn't interfere with the way you want to use your computer should be a big part of the message, if not the primary part.

 

[Jonti]

There is a problem with software patents that would apply to a general process that was reverse engineered, regardless of DMCA.

Yes, software patents are a threat to folk who want to work together to build stuff to share. They are also a threat to freedom of thought. Whether that loss of freedom of thought is a worthwhile trade is something that folks will have to decide for themselves. My own position is that the right to think about stuff, to understand it, and to share that understanding, is an unalienable right.

Not saying that there are *no* circumstances where keeping shtum is appropriate. Just that the RIAA/MPAA don't make the grade.

Incidently, getting on for 70% of patents fail or are curtailed when challenged. Just because some clown has tried to patent some mathematical method does *not* mean it's enforceable. In particular, right now, the EU explicitly forbids software patents.

 

[jæd]

I doubt if many of them will be on file sharing sites and running OS cracks, to be honest.

Well... One of the advantages of open-source is you *don't* need a crack...

 

[Jonti]

You don't think the fact that it's free plays any part in its growing popularity?

Of course the fact that the price is right matters

It's just not as important as one might think (or hope). Sure it's an enormous benefit to the small firm or single trader. But for an outfit of any size, running costs matter just as much, maybe more.

Point is that Ubuntu's success cannot be attributed to the nice price alone -- there's plenty of other free operating systems; and plenty of other free linux distros. So we have to look a little more carefully to discover why one of them in particular seems to be doubling its installed base every eight months.

I think I do understand why (I fell upon Ubuntu with cries of joy when it appeared, it was so obvious to me -- in retrospect -- that they had done it right). It's a long and complicated subject, but to summarise, I'd say ...

• price (and cost of ownership)
• usability
• security

 

[pk]

Anyway. this thread's got all geeky and acronym heavy.. im out. DMCA?

 

[editor]

Well... One of the advantages of open-source is you *don't* need a crack...

So let's get this straight: if Linux grows massively in popularity, you really think corporate copyright holders and the big studios will somehow not bother to try and stop users helping themselves just because it's open source?

 

[editor]

Yep, but its free and "hard-to-use". So why would it be popular...? The answer is that is reliable... And some of us expect our computers to do stuff other than get viruses and malware every five minutes. (Or less).

So long as users bother to install a couple of free programs on their PCs there is absolutely no reason why anyone should ever suffer viruses and malware, let alone "get them every five minutes or less."

It really doesn't help your argument when you make idiotic claims like this, you know.

 

[Jonti]

Seeing as the whole DRM business is a mirage anyway, who knows what the lunatics will try next?

Some folks may well find it inconvenient that some of us run linux. But we have every right to do that -- and no-one has any right to prevent us.

In the long run, the bullyboys will just have to get over themselves.

 

[Jonti]

Ahem. Sony. Acer.

Neither of these exploits was prevented -- or preventable -- by firewalls.

 

[Crispy]

For example, if you don't want to pay for Windows Server, and to pay a client license for each machine that uses the server, you don't need to, not anymore. When it comes to printer and file sharing, most small offices will find Samba to be a quality replacement for Windows Server.

But to talk specifically about Office applications ... Open Office has a rather superior scripting ability -- but it's not compatible with MS Office macros. Those macros would ned to be re-written, and that would often be difficult or expensive.

This is exactly what has happened in our office. We have thousands of legacy odcuments that show odd formatting when you open them in OO, and lots of essential windows-only software. But our server, storage and email has been linux for 2 years now. I don't see any change to this setup in the next 10 years.

 

[Crispy]

So let's get this straight: if Linux grows massively in popularity, you really think corporate copyright holders and the big studios will somehow not bother to try and stop users helping themselves just because it's open source?

They will try, but they will have a hard time succeeding.

 

[jæd]

So long as users bother to install a couple of free programs on their PCs there is absolutely no reason why anyone should ever suffer viruses and malware, let alone "get them every five minutes or less."

It really doesn't help your argument when you make idiotic claims like this, you know.

As long as you use a properly designed operating system then (as they exist now) viruses and malware are a thing of the past. I know for a Windows user it might sound crazy but viruses/malware aren't a natural problem all computers face. (However much Hollywood wants us to believe)

And hopefully now we can add Vista to the list of "properly designed" operating systems...

 

[editor]

They will try, but they will have a hard time succeeding.

Just like on a PC then. Hurrah!