Board index » kylix » Re: IBM strikes back .. SCO in a canopy.. ;-)

Re: IBM strikes back .. SCO in a canopy.. ;-)


2003-08-13 01:24:37 AM
kylix2
JQP wrote:
Quote
I are doing much the same thing in this newgroup. I'm not sure Open Source
can claim credit for this "innovation".
All protocols being used here have been developed using the "Open
Source" way.
Remember that *eveyone*, including MS, copied TCP/IP from Unix.
Ok. MS version was from FreeBSD. <g>
Rosimildo.
 
 

Re:Re: IBM strikes back .. SCO in a canopy.. ;-)

"Rosimildo da Silva" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
All protocols being used here have been developed using the "Open
Source" way.
If the protocols had been developed the "Open Source way", every program
that uses the Internet would have to publish it's source code.
 

Re:Re: IBM strikes back .. SCO in a canopy.. ;-)

"Johannes Berg" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
I think you're confusing "Open Source" with "GPLed source". But then, what
do I know, maybe RMS' definition of open source is after all correct ;-)
Open Source = Public Domain + GNU ideology/agenda
Subtract the GNU {*word*99} ... er, uh stuff and you're left with "public domain"
which existed long before the GPL or the phrase "Open Source".
The internet protocols were mostly developed as government funded "public
domain" projects and are truly "free" as in free beer, free speech and free
of socio-political agendas.
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: IBM strikes back .. SCO in a canopy.. ;-)

Quote
>I have never seen any innovations incoming from open source projects.
>Nearly all innovations mostly going from commercial companies or
>scientists that able to put significant time/brain resources on the
>problem solution.
RZ>Please, use the right word: MONEY.
RZ>Commercial companies can hire/buy scientists (ehi, you don't think
RZ>MS employees are "scientst", don't you? <g>) using money.
RZ>The more money they have, the more innovative they can be.
Yes. As we all know money - representation of resources. You can convert
money into resource or production. If commercial company buy something
pretty good for use instead of develop it internally, i don't see anything
bad.
RZ>Microsoft surely has a lot of money, but evidently they are not used
RZ>the right way.
I think MS better know how use their money.
RZ>Anyway, I think this is OT in this thread.
Quote
>BTW, MS customers is most protected from this stupid battle between
>SCO and
>IBM/Linux community. :-)
RZ>Be serious, who do you think there is under SCO?
MS can't be so stupid.
 

Re:Re: IBM strikes back .. SCO in a canopy.. ;-)

E>Yes. As we all know money - representation of resources. You can
E>convert money into resource or production. If commercial company buy
^^^^^^^^ - research, sorry.
 

Re:Re: IBM strikes back .. SCO in a canopy.. ;-)

JQP wrote:
Quote
"Rosimildo da Silva" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news:3f3921fa$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

>All protocols being used here have been developed using the "Open
>Source" way.


If the protocols had been developed the "Open Source way", every program
that uses the Internet would have to publish it's source code.


No, it would not to. Unless its source code is released under the GPL
license. AFAIK there are other licenses used in open-source projects
wich don't require open-sourcing derivative works.
--
Roal Zanazzi
 

Re:Re: IBM strikes back .. SCO in a canopy.. ;-)

JQP wrote:
Quote
"Johannes Berg" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

>I think you're confusing "Open Source" with "GPLed source". But then, what
>do I know, maybe RMS' definition of open source is after all correct ;-)


Open Source = Public Domain + GNU ideology/agenda

That's YOUR idea.
Open source is essentially "open source" =>source code can be freely
distributed.
Don't be so tied to the GNU ideology (now I understand why you referred
to community/communal property etc... :-)
There's not only GNU out there in the "open-source space" :-)
Quote
Subtract the GNU {*word*99} ... er, uh stuff and you're left with "public domain"
which existed long before the GPL or the phrase "Open Source".

The internet protocols were mostly developed as government funded "public
domain" projects and are truly "free" as in free beer, free speech and free
of socio-political agendas.

So they original source code is (should be) open-source (using the modern
term to call them).
And they were innovative at their time.
So open-source projects were at least once innovative.
Ok, thank you for your kind confirmation ;-)
--
Roal Zanazzi
 

Re:Re: IBM strikes back .. SCO in a canopy.. ;-)

Ender wrote:
Quote
RZ>That's not what is commonly referred to as "innovation".
RZ>I just grabbed and parsed a couple of dictionaries I have at home,
RZ>and both say that innovation is either the introduction of
RZ>something new, or a rielaboration in a new fashion of something
RZ>already existing (or a mix of the two).

RZ>If we keep your definition (which is formally correct, BTW), we
RZ>should agree that there was little or no innovation in the last 50
RZ>years.

You're totally right. Currently i'm doing some work with statistic
calculations. Many books used by me was written more than 50 years ago,
before WWII and even in XIX century.

There are even more curious research holes in time...
I'm reading something about a particular kind of data (image)
compression, well it has theoretical bases dated around 1890~1910, then
nothing for about 70 years. I think this has to do with the "rule N.1"
of engineers that you clearly posted at the end of your message,
basically there was no need/possibility to translate theory into usable
products. But what's interesting is that once the time has been mature
enough, theoretical researches are boosted by consequence of the
engineering needs. In all this activity, spread in a long time, it's
very difficult to find a narrow spot where innovation is concentrated...
I was thinking about all this when this thread came up :-)
Quote
RZ>But that's a bit sterile, and I don't like the idea that so much
RZ>work on researching and enginnering new, better ways to do the
RZ>same things is just a waste of time :-)

Huge amount of work actually is combination of exisiting techniques,
methods, algorithms. Each software product usually have very small
innovative things because it builded usually on the top of other
works/researches. I think many people calls something as "innovative" just
because some brainwork was involved in process of creation of product. Even
if this brainwork simple as 2+2.

One thing is for sure in this thread, not everyone agree on the same
interpretation of the word "innovation" :-)
If we are stuck with the restrictive interpretation of "something new,
never seen before", I doubt that we can find something innovative in all
the engineering works ever done. That's because they are (nearly) always
applications of theoretical works, so eventually only the original
theoretical works can be considered innovations.
That's why I think this interpretation is sterile.
Quote
RZ>Many of the past innovations/inventions were not achieved because of
RZ>paid research and engineering. They eventually became commercial
RZ>things after, but did not started as such.

Invention itself has little value. You need to make it ready to production,
cheap, reliable, accessible, working... Some innovations/inventions cannot
be implemented because they has too high price for use, at least on current
level of technology and science. In russia there was magazine: "Junior
technican" ("Yunij technik"). It contained hundereds of various innovations,
but without economical part. How much was implemented? Very little.

Yes, this is the "rule N.1" for all engineers :-)
--
Roal Zanazzi
 

Re:Re: IBM strikes back .. SCO in a canopy.. ;-)

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 08:31:05 -0400, JQP wrote:
Quote
GNU is the only thing that differentiates "open source" from "public
domain".
When did that happen?
So in your interpretation code licensed under MPL is not "open source"? Or
one of the other zillions of licenses that are used?
johannes
--
 

Re:Re: IBM strikes back .. SCO in a canopy.. ;-)

"Johannes Berg" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
So in your interpretation code licensed under MPL is not "open source"? Or
one of the other zillions of licenses that are used?
In my interpretation, these alternate licenses represent varying shades of
gray between "public domain" and "Open Source". Most lean one way or the
other.
The MPL implements enough GNU characteristics to qualify as OS.
On the other hand, the LGPL pays lip service to GNU but is "quite different
from the ordinary GPL". In a practical sense, LGPL is "public domain"
spelled out using a lot more words<g>. As might be expected, this doesn't
make RMS very happy.
 

Re:Re: IBM strikes back .. SCO in a canopy.. ;-)

"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM :
Quote
different from the ordinary GPL". In a practical sense, LGPL is
"public domain" spelled out using a lot more words<g>. As might be
expected, this doesn't make RMS very happy.
No it is not.
--
Iman
 

Re:Re: IBM strikes back .. SCO in a canopy.. ;-)

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 09:39:54 -0400, JQP wrote:
Quote
In a practical sense, LGPL is "public domain"
spelled out using a lot more words<g>.
You might want to look up the (commonly used) definition of Public Domain.
There's no way LGPL is even close to PD, or even the BSD license.
johannes
 

Re:Re: IBM strikes back .. SCO in a canopy.. ;-)

JQP wrote:
Quote
"Rosimildo da Silva" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news:3f3a3121$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

>What is *your* problem against open source ?
>
>The only category that I believe looses with OSS are developers that are
>the only ones that will never make money from it.

I'm a developer ... maybe that explains it<g>?

No, it doesn't. I'm a developer too, and I don't have a such restricted
view of the public domain/open source/<whatever you want to call it>world.
There are many developers who are involved in OS projects. Are all these
just mad, or communists, or whatever seems to terrorize you?
No, I don't think so.
Quote
My only objective to Open Source is GNU and what I see as it's subversive
nature. If you want to set your software "free", make it public domain and
I'll have no problem with it.

And "open source" is not GNU (oh, I think I already heared something
like this :-P ), despite of your personal creed.
Quote
>As a user, I love it.

At this relatively new stage of the game, it's easy to understand why.
*When* OS development starts to decline after you've invested a lot in OS
software, you may not feel the same way.

History is a constellation of such catastrofic sentences.
Remember: nothing is destroyed, all is changed. That's a rule of phisics.
If time will prove that OS development is not suitable for whatever
reason, we will change accordingly. Maybe RMS will not be so happy, but
who cares? <g>
--
Roal Zanazzi
 

Re:Re: IBM strikes back .. SCO in a canopy.. ;-)

JQP wrote:
Quote
"Roal Zanazzi" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

>Don't be so tied to the GNU ideology (now I understand why you referred
>to community/communal property etc... :-)
>There's not only GNU out there in the "open-source space" :-)


GNU is the only thing that differentiates "open source" from "public
domain".

Government funded "public domain" projects existed long before "Open
Source". Using such projects to draw convenient conclusions about "open
source" in general is being somewhat dis-ingenuous and inconsistent IMO.

JQP, please, get down from the tree... :-)
"open source" is just another way to say "public domain". It just
indicates that source code is in the public domain (giving credit to the
author[s]).
You just give "open source" a wrong legacy to the GNU project.
Indeed, projects under the GPL license are only a part of all the open
source projects alive.
--
Roal Zanazzi
 

Re:Re: IBM strikes back .. SCO in a canopy.. ;-)

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:08:02 +0200, Roal Zanazzi wrote:
Quote
"open source" is just another way to say "public domain". It just
indicates that source code is in the public domain (giving credit to the
author[s]).
Huh? Thats simply not true!
Lets say I have a piece of code that is very interesting to a lot of
Delphi developers. Now if I open source it under the MPL, then you may not
distribute a modified version without sending me back modifications.
If OTOH I make it public domain, you may do that.
Both would be referred to as open source.
johannes