• Home
• Reviews
• News
• Downloads
• CNET TV

About me

• Member since: June 21, 2007

My posting summary

1 to 10 of 10

My comments

• Punish? Good Samaritan?
  A pundit wrote an editorial. How does that rate as punishment?
  
  And if you really believe that Microsoft is doing this from pure motivations, I've got some dihydro-peroxide to sell you for $50 US an ounce. MS is a for-profit company, as they so often remind us, and the reason they are releasing their APIs is because they believe they can improve their profits by doing so. If they didn't, they would be subject to lawsuits from their investors.
  
  The complaint that many developers have with this move is that the API specs can change without notice, may be incomplete, and are encumbered by patents. If MS were motivated by "pure" intentions, they would use open standards which would not be weighted down by these problems.
  
  Of course many for profit companies in the IT business use truly open standards because it benefits their customers _and_ is profitable. This is why the internet is so widespread, anyone can write a program using open standards, such as TCP/IP and HTML, and expect it to work with any other system using those standards. If all we had were the APIs from a dozen different companies, it would be difficult to impossible to write client software that worked effectively. And the ones that did exist would be so expensive, most people could not afford them.
  
  With that in mind, you should pause to consider how much further we could have progressed if MS wasn't a monopoly.
  
  Later . . . Jim In reply to: "Microsoft's open-source patent threat still intact"

  February 21, 2008

  0 replies

• Try to be patient with them, ilbg
  Microsoft is not releasing any code, they are releasing APIs. This is similar to, but not quite the same as open standards.
  
  Open standards are the things that allow you to buy any brand of lightbulb at any store and have it fit in your lamp (assuming the obvious issues are correct).
  
  By releasing their APIs, they are providing the specifications for interacting with their applications. This is not the same as an open standard, because only they can modify the specs, and they can also withhold some information.
  
  The free part is their choice, but considering how long it took them to make this move, it is reasonable to assume that they believe they can make more money by releasing the APIs, than not. Time will tell on that one, but the rest of the IT world seems to be surviving just fine using fully open standards, such as TCP/IP, HTML, SMTP, etc.
  
  Later . . . Jim In reply to: "Microsoft's open-source patent threat still intact"

  February 21, 2008

  0 replies

• OSI board members must represent the community
  Matt,
  
  Because you are on the board of the OSI, your words are taken to represent them. It sounds like you have made your decision and are now lobbying for approval of the Microsoft licenses. As a long time participant in the FOSS community (since 1995), I object to the approval of those licenses.
  
  An Open Source license is much more than a simple contract. It says a great deal about the organization backing it. When the GPL, Apache, Mozilla, MIT, or BSD licenses are applied to software, there is an understanding of the intentions of the developers because the organizations backing those licenses have an honorable history of dealing with other developers and end users.
  
  The same cannot be said of Microsoft. Take a good hard look at each item in this partial list of Microsoft's past and current actions:
  
  - Entered into contracts with small companies and then stole their technology forcing them to sue MS in expensive court cases--this has happened multiple times
  
  - Has been found guilty of abusive monopolistic practices in the US and the EU
  
  - Prevents alternative OSes from being pre-installed by threatening manufacturers in various ways
  
  - Uses non-standard features with standard protocols, making compliant products appear to be broken
  
  - Refuses to implement the OSI approved standard, ODF, and has instead pushed a different specification that is riddled with proprietary requirements using methods that are the antithesis of developing international standards
  
  - Patent threats ...
  
  - Ernie Ball ...
  
  These are not merely aggressive business practices. They are repeated dishonest, even illegal, actions. To engage MS we have to trust them to honor their commitments, and that is not possible in light of their past _and current_ actions.
  
  If the OSI approves any MS license, the message is that the Open Source community approves of this kind of behavior. And if that happens, then the OSI is most definitely mis-representing the FOSS community.
  
  Later . . . Jim In reply to: "Microsoft capitulates to the OSI, gets horse-whipped for its troubles"

  August 20, 2007

  0 replies

• Open source is a buzzword
  The OSI has lately been trying to get it under control, but that is probably a lost cause, since its meaning was never very clear (*some* source code is open as per one of several dozen licenses ...). But there is only a certain class of people who can be parted from their money by using a smokescreen of buzzwords. The rest have to be convinced that a product has value and solves their specific problems.
  
  The best narrative for Open Source is in the context of customer support. It is in the best interest of customers to make products that are adaptable to their environment. If making source code available accomplishes this goal, then customers should know about it. But almost none will spend money on a product *because* it is Open Source.
  
  In general, those companies that resort to buzzwords are probably in trouble. Getting on the latest buzzword bandwagon is like buying the latest fashion accessories to prove coolness. I have always been amazed that executives do not understand that if they have to tell customers things like, "Quality is Job 1," it is because their products have told a different story.
  
  Later . . . Jim
  
  RenaissanceCore IDS, check it out at:
  http://sourceforge.net/projects/renaissancecore In reply to: "If everyone differentiates with open source..."

  August 19, 2007

  0 replies

• It is an issue of trust
  The permissive license has a clause about patents that says, "(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from such contributor to the software ends automatically."
  
  This applies to downstream developers and users, but what about the original owner? IANAL, but after the way MS used the Novell deal to make threats about patents, I do not trust them to not seek ways to threaten developers, and even users.
  
  For instance, if a MS-PL app only works with one of their proprietary apps, does modification of the former to make it work with other FOSS apps give them the grounds for going to court? This kind of scenario has already happened (I don't remember if it was MS or not).
  
  Granting OSI approval to MS licenses cannot be done purely on the merits of the license. Besides, there are plenty of OSI approved licenses, so I am really confused and suspicious as to why they won't use one of those. In reply to: "Open-source discrimination"

  August 8, 2007

  0 replies

• If the shoe fits ...
  > I'm pretty sure the Microsoft End-User License Agreement doesn't define terms for software distribution. There's no sense in which the MS EULA applies to developers or commercial software licenses, or in which Torvalds has to care about it, is there?
  
  While proprietary source code is usually unavailable, making the analogy weak (but not the point), the MS EULA _does_ define terms for re-distribution (or lack thereof). And that is precisely what the GPL (all versions) is about. It protects the 4 freedoms of _users_. Downstream developers can only re-distribute (ie. save themselves man-months of development and testing, not to mention licensing fees ;-) the software if they agree 100% to those 4 freedoms.
  
  This is why RMS and the FSF distinguish themselves from Open Source. Open Source advocates are consciously 'developer friendly', while the Free Software Foundation is exclusively 'user friendly'. Usually those 2 positions can happily co-exist. However, when developers (usually aided and abetted by lawyers and/or PHBs), act less friendly, they run afoul of the GPL.
  
  Recently some of those who refuse to agree 100% to the 4 freedoms have attempted to circumvent them, so the FSF decided to update the license and, in the process, close those loopholes. Anyone who is comfortable with the _spirit_ of GPLv2 should have no problem with GPLv3. Thus, those of us who will be licensing our projects under GPLv3 can't help but wonder at all the 'sturm und drang' over it.
  
  Later . . . Jim In reply to: "GPL 3--a bridge too far?"

  July 4, 2007

  1 reply

• Do what Richard does
  Replace GPL with another license and see what happens. Let's use the Microsoft EULA to get:
  
  MS EULA -- A bridge too far
  
  ... In practice, the MS EULA will also restrict the freedom of some developers and reduce compatibility with commercial licenses. ...
  
  One key test for the MS EULA will be whether it is accepted by Linus Torvalds ...
  
  ... the disadvantages of the MS EULA for commercial applications will force some hard choices. ...
  
  It seems to me that the author has decided that he wants 'Free as in love' software in some neo-60's universe. Maybe it's the long hair, but it is a mistake to assume that FOSS developers are space cadets who don't realize the value of what they are producing. They are also brilliant enough to realize that real 2-way sharing is far more powerful than clinging to 'my precious'.
  
  So I want to know, how are products produced by Montalvo Systems licensed? Do you practice what you preach, or are you just looking for freebies from gullible, idiot savants?
  
  Later . . . Jim In reply to: "GPL 3--a bridge too far?"

  July 3, 2007

  1 reply

• Are you talking about the same issue?
  The negative responses to this article may be due to the history of the OLPC project. If you are just hearing about it, Amy, it has received a lot of negative publicity that can be attributed to technical bickering on the software choices and/or 1st world patronizing attitudes. Also, the countries where the laptops will be distributed do not have widespread internet access, so the expectation is that the networks will be local to the communities.
  
  
  
  This does not mean that the children will never be exposed to internet dangers, and so your concern is legitimate. I expect that the designers would be happy to include a tutorial on being safe if you were inclined to contribute it under a Creative Commons license. Of course, there is the issue of language, which is one reason that the developers are not keen to add to the existing scope. As far as I have heard, it is being distributed in at least 5 countries with different languages, not to mention cultural nuances. In reply to: "Child abuse risks for $100 laptops?"

  June 20, 2007

  0 replies

• Are you talking about the same issue?
  The negative responses to this article may be due to the history of the OLPC project. If you are just hearing about it, Amy, it has received a lot of negative publicity that can be attributed to technical bickering on the software choices and/or 1st world patronizing attitudes. Also, the countries where the laptops will be distributed do not have widespread internet access, so the expectation is that the networks will be local to the communities.
  
  This does not mean that the children will never be exposed to internet dangers, and so your concern is legitimate. I expect that the designers would be happy to include a tutorial on being safe if you were inclined to contribute it under a Creative Commons license. Of course, there is the issue of language, which is one reason that the developers are not keen to add to the existing scope. As far as I have heard, it is being distributed in at least 5 countries with different languages, not to mention cultural nuances. In reply to: "Child abuse risks for $100 laptops?"

  June 20, 2007

  0 replies

• Are you talking about the same issue?
  The negative responses to this article may be due to the history of the OLPC project. If you are just hearing about it, Amy, it has received a lot of negative publicity that can be attributed to technical bickering on the software choices and/or 1st world patronizing attitudes. Also, the countries where the laptops will be distributed do not have widespread internet access, so the expectation is that the networks will be local to the communities.
  
  This does not mean that the children will never be exposed to internet dangers, and so your concern is legitimate. I expect that the designers would be happy to include a tutorial on being safe if you were inclined to contribute it under a Creative Commons license. Of course, there is the issue of language, which is one reason that the developers are not keen to add to the existing scope. As far as I have heard, it is being distributed in at least 5 countries with different languages, not to mention cultural nuances. In reply to: "Child abuse risks for $100 laptops?"

  June 20, 2007

  0 replies