another day, another successful act of extortion n/t
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Mar 04, 2010 5:47 PM EDT |
- |
| techiem2 Mar 04, 2010 5:51 PM EDT |
Sadly we still don't know what patents these are.
The only thing that comes to mind obviously would be the FAT stuff.
Of course, who knows what else MS has patented that they are using in their secret bag of extortion tricks. Obviously they won't release that information, because they know that those patents would immediately be scrutinized, likely challenged as invalid, or coded around if they are in any way possibly valid. |
| gus3 Mar 04, 2010 6:21 PM EDT |
I don't care what the algorithm is, I don't care how efficiently a CPU can carry it out. It all comes down to Peano math, which is clearly prior "art". A computer is just a glorified calculator. |
| tuxchick Mar 04, 2010 7:21 PM EDT |
A sweaty, smelly embrace. Eck. |
| azerthoth Mar 04, 2010 7:32 PM EDT |
Coming soon to a new GPL near you, a 'patent payout' clause. Reading something like this "If you pay patent protection money to any source, the payout must be delineated in how much and for what patents. Failure to comply will result in revocation of right to distribute GPL protected code." Which shall be closely followed with "Use of any non GPL'd code in your system (or that of any one in your employ or family regardless of how far removed) will result in revocation of all right under the GPL" |
| tuxchick Mar 04, 2010 7:42 PM EDT |
I saw a great comment on Facebook: "Microsoft can extort money from Linux vendors (and hence users), but they get a free pass to rip off BSD and benefit from the open community in a variety of other ways.... "I don't have a problem with Microsoft defending their intellectual property, but I do have a problem with them being doubly parasitic on the open community." |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 04, 2010 9:58 PM EDT |
TC, I, too, find Microsoft's plowing of BSD to be reprehensible. I've been chastized for objecting simply for the fact that it's "perfectly legal". I believe there is morality that is above and beyond "law". Microsoft may be acting perfectly legally, but they are frightfully impolite. |
| gus3 Mar 04, 2010 10:00 PM EDT |
"Impolite" is being too... something. "Treacherous" is more like it. |
| theboomboomcars Mar 04, 2010 10:05 PM EDT |
Quoting:"Impolite" is being too... something.Polite? |
| dinotrac Mar 05, 2010 8:55 AM EDT |
So -- What, exactly bothers everybody about Microsoft using BSD code in a way that the license permits? More to the point -- what gives anybody but the code authors -- the people who licensed the stuff under BSD, presumably with the intent that people would take advantage of what the license allows -- even a shred of moral authority to cover their outrage? |
| phsolide Mar 05, 2010 9:50 AM EDT |
Quoting:More to the point -- what gives anybody but the code authors -- the people who licensed the stuff under BSD, presumably with the intent that people would take advantage of what the license allows -- even a shred of moral authority to cover their outrage? You base your argument entirely on a presumption. Do we really really know that for a fact? The BSD license (if I recall) comes out of that weird-beard AT&T vs UC Board of Regents case about BSD 4.4 code. Even if the BSD license didn't come out of a sweaty, back-room compromise between *lawyers*, not the CSRG, why give such authority to it? We don't have a Guru expounding on the meaning of the BSD license, like we have RMS, Fred von Lohmann, etc, working on and talking about the GPL. Perhaps the BSD license exists because nobody really thought about it too hard, and if they had, they would have done something more GPL like. Who is to say? |
| dinotrac Mar 05, 2010 10:56 AM EDT |
Why give such authority to the GPL? Because it is the license that the developers chose and we have no reason to override it. Your suggestion that BSD developers are naive children giving away the world without knowing is so painfully wrong I would laugh if I didn't think you were serious in your assertions. The BSD license has been around for years -- it predates the GPL. The BSD license has been discussed ad nauseam for years. If there is a license people slap on willy-nilly without thinking about the consquences, it is the GPL, not the BSD license, which has long since ceased to be the "kewl" one. |
| tuxchick Mar 05, 2010 11:40 AM EDT |
Now dino, why are devs who like the GPL more apt to be naive children? I think the "doubly parasitic" comment was right on. In real life, we don't run around with law libraries attached to our heads and consult with lawyers for every decision, because in real life moral authority far outweights the letter of the law. It is not unreasonable to expect people to do the right thing, which a lot of the time has no relationship to what is legal. Parasites like Microsoft are pathologically incapable of ever doing the right thing, even as they adhere to the letter of the law. |
| dinotrac Mar 05, 2010 12:04 PM EDT |
TC - Hmmm...how many times have we seen developers drop the GPL (when they provided all the code) or sneak around it once their projects began to take off? The GPL has become the default "free" license. The default -- like Internet Explorer -- is the choice of inertia. As to morality and the right thing, how can you accuse Microsoft of doing the wrong thing if it obeys the license? The BSD is very definitely and specifically not the GPL. You know as well as I do that BSD folk consider it to be more free than the GPL because it allows precisely the kind of use that Microsoft is making of it. |
| tuxchick Mar 05, 2010 12:10 PM EDT |
Dino, you're missing the context of the quote. |
| gus3 Mar 05, 2010 12:22 PM EDT |
Quoting:The BSD license (if I recall) comes out of that weird-beard AT&T vs UC Board of Regents case about BSD 4.4 code.It was 4.3BSD (more specifically, Net-2). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi The BSD license predates the lawsuit by a year, and predates UC Berkeley's inclusion in the lawsuit by 3 years. |
| gus3 Mar 05, 2010 12:30 PM EDT |
Quoting:how can you accuse Microsoft of doing the wrong thing if it obeys the license?It is possible to speak the truth, and still be a liar. It is possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Even criminals can obey the law when it suits their purposes. |
| dinotrac Mar 05, 2010 12:52 PM EDT |
TC -- No, I'm not. You're free not to like the fact, but you should be equally angry at those BSD folks who said "Go ahead, take my gift and do as you please with it." You don't like Microsoft. I get that. I feel that. I don't like them, either. But their use of BSD code is almost exactly why the BSD license is done the way it is. |
| dinotrac Mar 05, 2010 12:53 PM EDT |
gus3 -- And criminals are also free to eat soup with a spoon. Should I get mad at them for not slurping it up like a dog? |
| azerthoth Mar 05, 2010 2:10 PM EDT |
Not sure if Dino wants me weighing in on his side (radical wierdo that I am). However those using the BSD license cant be defined as deluded or misguided. The license, as previously mentioned has been around an awfully long time, long enough to be understood by those who use it. To nutshell it, it is differing view points and approaches to the word freedom. To the GPL, freedom of the code, keeping the code itself out in the wild and free for all to use with guarantees the changes to the code itself are shared for all. Code Freedom. To the BSD, freedom of the individual. It's a gifting license, where no imposition is made upon an individual or entity to use or change it. If you want it, use it, with the blessing of the author(s). It depends on how you like your freedom as to which you choose, and blaming someone for using one over the other is at the least mildly hypocritical. @TC, I believe the person you are quoting also called the GPL a virus. The comment as a whole was not an endorsement of any of the 'free licenses' rather a confused babble that failed to differentiate between the functions of the differing licenses. |
| tuxchick Mar 05, 2010 2:23 PM EDT |
az, here's the whole quote:Quoting: This is actually an example of what I dislike about the GPL and other FOSS licenses. |
| azerthoth Mar 05, 2010 2:26 PM EDT |
Yup, thats the one. |
| gus3 Mar 05, 2010 2:27 PM EDT |
@dino: Have you ever dealt with a sociopath? When I was growing up, there was one living across the road for twelve years. It didn't matter what he said or did; even when he said 1+1=2, one had to wonder what his ulterior motives were for bringing it up. Not because we thought he was lying. There was no significant person in his life, who hadn't been victimized by his lying at some point. "Oh, but lying to friends and neighbors isn't against the law," you say. And that is how you miss the point. It wasn't a specific criminal act, but the pattern of his history that gave pause. He was utterly untrustworthy in all his interpersonal dealings. "Not doing evil" is not the same as "doing good" (which Google still hasn't truly learned). It doesn't matter if Microsoft didn't violate the BSD license. Their pattern of conduct is still that of a criminal organization. Look at the pattern: La cosa nostra: insists on secrecy in its dealings; retaliation for speaking out; buys the cops and judges when necessary; blackmails anyone who poses a threat, even if only perceived. Microsoft: insists on secrecy in its dealings; retaliation for speaking out; buys the legislators when necessary; blackmails anyone who poses a threat, even if only perceived. I don't care if Microsoft found a permanent silicon fix for all those old Pentium floating-point errors (yeah, right). Their only reason for doing so was to weaken their competitors' market positions. And remember, that isn't hyperbole, any more than "Embrace, extend, extinguish" is mere rhetoric. They are both established fact. |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 05, 2010 3:40 PM EDT |
> It is not unreasonable to expect people to do the right thing, which a lot of the time has no relationship to what is legal. I couldn't have said it better myself. |
| azerthoth Mar 05, 2010 3:49 PM EDT |
After someone can come up with a universally accepted definition of what is or isn't moral, what is or isn't ethical, then maybe we can tackle a universally accepted truth for 'right'. i.e. there is no defintion of right, moral, or ethical behavior that exists. These are judgments based upon individual and/or societal bias. Using them as a base for any metric is as meaningless as the words themselves. So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do. --Benjamin Franklin *curiously I had put that quote up on Facebook some 35 minutes before the posts that triggered the response* |
| dinotrac Mar 05, 2010 3:52 PM EDT |
gus3 - Oh yeah, more than one, I'm afraid. Feel free to despise Microsoft for any number of reasons. Using BSD code in a completely permissible way should not be one of them. |
| dinotrac Mar 05, 2010 3:54 PM EDT |
azer - I have to differ with you there. There is absolute right and wrong, and anybody who feels even a peppercorn's worth of self-worth should know it: Good for Dino == right Bad for Dino == wrong When in doubt, ask Dino. |
| gus3 Mar 05, 2010 4:11 PM EDT |
And what about the stuff that doesn't affect Dino one whit? |
| techiem2 Mar 05, 2010 4:48 PM EDT |
That falls under the clause stating that you are violating Dino's IP by not affecting him. |
| dinotrac Mar 05, 2010 5:02 PM EDT |
That would be correct. Good job. |
| tuxchick Mar 05, 2010 5:15 PM EDT |
Dang, it's so hard to keep track of all this. No wonder law libraries are so huge. Guess I'll start a new shelf for Dino Covenants. Oh, my aching back. |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 05, 2010 5:32 PM EDT |
> After someone can come up with a universally accepted definition of what is or isn't moral, what is or isn't ethical, then maybe we can tackle a universally accepted truth for 'right'. At this time I would like to interject the "Non-Aggression Axiom". That it is "wrong" to use coercion, or deligate that use of coercion, against someone who has not aggressed against someone else. In other words, no use of force except against an aggressor. Since no two people or two situations are ever identical, courts and social standards have evolved to enable there to be some semblance of "justice". I think that's as close to a universally acceptable definition as we're going to get. I haven't heard of any better. |
| TxtEdMacs Mar 05, 2010 7:06 PM EDT |
Quoting:When in doubt, ask DinoI will accept your dubious assertions, if and only if you can respond affirmatively to these questions: 1. Do you spill more spirits than most other humans are able to consume? 2. Are you known for your steadiness of hand* at all stages of inebriation? 3. Can you carry a tune? Your Buddy Txt. * Meaning you do not spill much. |
| azerthoth Mar 05, 2010 7:52 PM EDT |
So the payments to both dino and YBT must be calculated against the gross total, and may not have any other disbursements recorded before said calculation. Remember that the percentages for any thing that does not affect either is twice the rate of if it does, so it is in your best interest to always include them. |
| gus3 Mar 05, 2010 8:37 PM EDT |
Quoting:So the payments to both dino and YBT must be calculated against the gross totalWith heavy emphasis on "gross". |
| tuxchick Mar 05, 2010 8:46 PM EDT |
Eye pee is kind of icky. |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 05, 2010 9:26 PM EDT |
> Eye pee is kind of icky. The word of the thread is "gross". |
| jdixon Mar 05, 2010 11:10 PM EDT |
Folks, in this case, Dino is absolutely correct. Microsoft is using the BSD code exactly as the license permits and the developers intended. The BSD folks have made it clear more times than I can count that this is exactly what they wanted Now, as I recall, Microsoft had to be dragged kicking and screaming into admitting that they had in fact used BSD code, but once it was conclusively shown that they had, they complied with the license. |
| Scott_Ruecker Mar 05, 2010 11:31 PM EDT |
Quoting:Eye pee is kind of icky. Ewww, now that is gross..lol! |
| dinotrac Mar 06, 2010 12:52 AM EDT |
txt -- re 1& 2: Drank enough in college for a lifetime. Now have a beer when eating Mexican or watching a ball game, but nearly a teetotaler. 3. Surprisingly -- Yes. In young days, used to perform on stage regularly, though it helped that the audence was drinking. |
| TxtEdMacs Mar 06, 2010 9:22 AM EDT |
dino, Well that proves conclusively that dino is right Some of the Time, in a Space-Time continuum. Other times ... well ... Let me think about it, BBL*. YBT P.S. Hmm, citing college experiences, but not presently may invalidate my tentative acceptance of "Dino Rules!" Now this is becoming complicated, in vector space would this hold? BBL* * aka Be Back Later.. |
| hkwint Mar 06, 2010 12:54 PM EDT |
But what's Non Agression? If people who do no harm, like the ones who write GPLv2 code and the Japanese firm are bled dry by Microsoft, can such a 'legal' act be considered Agression? If so, wasn't it the act of allowing software patents to be enforceable in first place that enabled and condones this Agression? |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 06, 2010 1:42 PM EDT |
> But what's Non Agression? Non-Aggression is just voluntary interaction. Other than pointing you to several relevant texts, consider the concept of "trespassing": Cracking into someone's computer is wrong because the owner of the private property has made it clear (through security measures and convention) that logging onto the system without permission is ...well... not permitted. The trespasser is aggressing upon they who are being trespassed. While most cultures have conventions and traditions about "right of way", "easement" and other ways people use in order to get along, there is pretty much no way to aggress upon someone else and not have it be considered "wrong". A trojan horse is an example of "fraud", which is also an aggression but through an idea rather than physical trespass. > wasn't it the act of allowing software patents to be enforceable in first place that enabled and condones this Agression? I believe that your statement makes perfect sense. Lots of things that are legal are in fact aggression, which if done by someone who does not enjoy the protection of the statutes would be considered "wrong". > Well that proves conclusively that dino is right Some of the Time, in a Space-Time continuum. In the 11 dimensions of the universe, there is a trace where Dino is always right. I'm not convinced that it's the same trace I am typing in now, but it could be. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!