- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Lack of Innovation a Commonality for Microsoft, Apple
|
|
|
Comments (6)
You know Microsoft gets all bent out of shape when people ignore their license and pirate their software, and rightfully so. Despite this they have no problem ignoring somebody else's license, violating the terms of that license and ignoring the copyright on the software. Piracy by Microsoft is fine while piracy of Microsoft products is anything but.
Did anyone else about lose it when they read this line:
Since when is Vista stable? Since when is any Windows version more stable than MacOS? I understand marketing but please don't take me for a complete idiot.
Did anyone else about lose it when they read this line:
Quoting: We've significantly improved the graphical user interface, but it's built on that very stable core Vista technology, which is far more stable than the current Mac platform, for instance
Since when is Vista stable? Since when is any Windows version more stable than MacOS? I understand marketing but please don't take me for a complete idiot.
Quoting:Despite this they have no problem ignoring somebody else's license, violating the terms of that license and ignoring the copyright on the software. Piracy by Microsoft is fine while piracy of Microsoft products is anything but.And this very concern may have been among the issues uppermost in Richard Stallman's mind when crafting the changes in GPLv3. Note that the open source project code which Microsoft "borrowed" for its USB/DVD Download Tool was originally made available under the GPLv2 As Stallman writes in 'Why Upgrade to GPLv3', http://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html :
Quoting:Keeping a program under GPLv2 won't create problems. The reason to migrate is because of the existing problems which GPLv3 will address.If Microsoft a) continues to make the source code for its tool unavailable, b) proceeds to make more restrictive changes in the source code [containing GPLv2'd code], and then c) successfully shields itself from any legal repercussions following its use of the "borrowed" GPLv2'd code, then will not Microsoft, in intent and in effect, have tivoized its USB/DVD Download Tool ??
One major danger that GPLv3 will block is tivoization. Tivoization means computers (called “appliances”) contain GPL-covered software that you can't change, because the appliance shuts down if it detects modified software. The usual motive for tivoization is that the software has features the manufacturer thinks lots of people won't like. The manufacturers of these computers take advantage of the freedom that free software provides, but they don't let you do likewise.
Could this also be another erosive "Divide and rule"-type strategy against the GPL, and by extension, against F/OSS (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule ) ??
@phsolide
Seems to me that this "research roach motel" you speak of is more for Micro$uck$ to attract innovative ideas and then bury them, more than an actual way to just COPY such ideas.
@vairv I think its more a part of Micro$uck$ typical EEE pattern than this. Or maybe you could even best call this Taking it , Raking it in, and then Breaking it :-D 2c
@vairv I think its more a part of Micro$uck$ typical EEE pattern than this. Or maybe you could even best call this Taking it , Raking it in, and then Breaking it :-D 2c
@vainrveenr: Nope. It's still straight-forward copyright infringement, not tivoization. Tivoization is strictly speaking legal under GPLv2. What MS did is not.
Apart from the copyright infringement, which is what most people talk about; there's something much more interesting about 'failure at Microsoft':
What MS did is plain stupid.
-Set up a code-portal (CodePlex) where people host - amongst other things - GPLv2 code, -Hire an external developer to develop some USB/iso-tool while there's a working solution (for example isolinux, which can also boot Windows AFAIK, and otherwise H. Peter would be happy to help them for free), -When the developer sells them code that's not only freely available but also downloaded from their own portal, buy it.
To me that sounds like paying to duplicate an existing solution, then buy GPLv2 code hosted by yourself, while you give it to others for free. What a joke!
Other than that, I read WinXP and all earlier versions of Windows might be pulled from Chinese stores because Microsoft infringed some "Chinese IP". How funny is that!
What MS did is plain stupid.
-Set up a code-portal (CodePlex) where people host - amongst other things - GPLv2 code, -Hire an external developer to develop some USB/iso-tool while there's a working solution (for example isolinux, which can also boot Windows AFAIK, and otherwise H. Peter would be happy to help them for free), -When the developer sells them code that's not only freely available but also downloaded from their own portal, buy it.
To me that sounds like paying to duplicate an existing solution, then buy GPLv2 code hosted by yourself, while you give it to others for free. What a joke!
Other than that, I read WinXP and all earlier versions of Windows might be pulled from Chinese stores because Microsoft infringed some "Chinese IP". How funny is that!
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
But ways around this exist, and they're well known. Cisco buys small copies just for their developments. Sun spent a large fraction on R&D. So does MSFT, but apparently only to keep people from developing for anyone else: it's a research roach motel to hear people talk about it.