Open Source / Closed Source Usage and Acceptance

[Pedersen]

This is my reply to Lost My Mind over at CS from this thread; specifically this post. Since I've already gotten into it with him once and should have gotten some infraction points there, I'm just replying here and linking to the reply there.

The reason that windows has widespread acceptance is has a standard (granted it's low). Thus every developer has a higher chance of having his stuff (out of box) working on a wider spread of varying hardware. Linux getting better.

You're right. The developers only have to worry about Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows XP SP2, and Windows Vista. Each of which has their own quirks that can make life difficult (for instance, Windows 98 requires extra DLLs to handle unicode character sets that others do not).

But, hey, it's all Windows, so it all works, right? Just so long as you write code exclusively for an English language audience, for a specific version of Windows, you'll be fine. And don't say "Well, normal developers don't have to worry about that issue." They do. Adobe Acrobat 8.0 will not install or work on Windows XP. It requires Windows XP SP2.

Compare with Linux, where even very old programs will still run just fine. For instance, I can still run a copy of Railroad Tycoon II that I have without problem on very new installs.

Maybe if someone comes out with an easier, fast development that won't have companies tied up in odd licenses. Open-source is still preventive of capitalism software companies easiest path of making money.

I believe what you might mean to say here is that open source authors won't let people take the open source code and sell it as their own.

You can make closed source programs with GCC (and people have/do). You can sell closed source programs on Linux (and people have/do). What you cannot do is take someone else's open source code, mix it into your closed source product, and sell the resulting product. That's called copyright infringement, and you will be shut down for doing so. As I address below...

Now that the courts have ruled that even "open-source" authors can dictate how their stuff is used. People who want to make money aren't going to want to use a platform that can be yanked under from them. And most software are made by people who want to make money.

I assume you mean the case discussed on this page? You're right, the courts have decided that open source authors (just like closed source authors) are allowed to determine under what conditions other developers may copy the code that has been written. It was quite a shocking revelation, too.

And nothing stops you from making money on open source programs. You just can't resell the work of others as your own. Again, truly shocking stuff.

Oh, and one final note: No open source license dictates how you may use the program. It only dictates under what terms you may modify and/or copy the program. So, to compare to the closed source licenses, you are given more rights than copyright law grants by default with open source, while most closed source licenses put more restrictions than copyright law allows.

As far as the laptop display not working, I can't really blame either. Someone didn't write an 640-480 4 color default VGA driver. Or someone did and the card itself don't really support it anymore. Hell, my video card driver for my desktop won't even go below 800x600 16bit color.

Looking like an old tv using rabbit ears? Sounds like the default driver under X11. Basically, it puts up a checkerboard as the background pattern. Pretty annoying stuff, actually. But that doesn't mean the driver or the display is broken.

[LostMyMind]

They do. Adobe Acrobat 8.0 will not install or work on Windows XP. It requires Windows XP SP2.

Compare with Linux, where even very old programs will still run just fine. For instance, I can still run a copy of Railroad Tycoon II that I have without problem on very new installs.

You really need to do better than that. When something is developed for a specific version of OS. It's not unreasonable that it won't work for an older version OS. Now, if by your example, acrobat 8 would work on windows 98/2000 but would not work with windows XP then your example would apply..... Sometimes I wonder about you.

I can run all kinds of old programs written for 9x on XP. Majority of DOS programs too. I have to go really far back to run into an impossible can not run situation.

I believe what you might mean to say here is that open source authors won't let people take the open source code and sell it as their own.

No, that not what I said or meant. Open source means exactly that, anyone can use it and distribute it freely. So people who want to make money on their creativity will avoid open source.

I assume you mean the case discussed on this page? You're right, the courts have decided that open source authors (just like closed source authors) are allowed to determine under what conditions other developers may copy the code that has been written.

I personally have no problem with the ruling. But combined with rulings that non-geek/nerd judges have ruled in apple/microsoft OS court wars. It's only a matter of time a lawyer will get the bright idea to sue companies based on infractions that was ruled in the apple/microsoft cases. Considering the most judges have really no clue and patents are given out for basic common sense coding/hardware solution. It's only a matter of time that the rug will be yanked out under any software company that goes in the direction of an "open-source" OS.

If I write an open-source calculator application. Does that now means the logic/code behind that is off limits to everyone? I call B.S. on this. And that exactly where open-source is heading because of this ruling. Not because of the ruling itself, but because judges are going to look at code and have no clue whats going on.

Basically majority of every application (codewise) will be extremely similar to everyone but the geek programmers. Everyone else is going to see an majority looking very much the same.

Oh, and one final note: No open source license dictates how you may use the program. It only dictates under what terms you may modify and/or copy the program. So, to compare to the closed source licenses, you are given more rights than copyright law grants by default with open source, while most closed source licenses put more restrictions than copyright law allows.

There are some open-source license that do limit how you may use a program. Like the open-source cd/dvd writing software.

The problem is the closed-source is running on an open-source. All it's going to take is a crafty lawyer and group of judges who get glassy eye at the mention of C = A + B. And you got an wtf ruling. Just like what happen in the apple/microsoft OS wars.

[Pedersen]

You really need to do better than that. When something is developed for a specific version of OS. It's not unreasonable that it won't work for an older version OS. Now, if by your example, acrobat 8 would work on windows 98/2000 but would not work with windows XP then your example would apply..... Sometimes I wonder about you.

Don't wonder too much about me. I'd say it's a safe bet you and I both view each other as spreading misinformation.

Now, as for the other part of that paragraph: How about apps written for XP that don't work in Vista? Does that count as something to which my example applies? Or is this another place where I'm still wrong?

As to why I chose Acrobat 8.0: Can you find a single feature in Acrobat 8.0 that would require a specific service pack for an operating system? I'd love to see it (and be wrong about it). However, I'm talking about a PDF reader. This is not an application that should care about which service pack it's running on. Yet, it does.

And people wonder why I say that Windows is not nearly the mono-culture that Windows advocates like to say it is.

Oh, and more examples I forgot: Internet Explorer web applications. How many pages work great under IE6 but fail miserably under IE7? (hint: It's a lot of them).

How about apps that work fine under Windows XP, but fail under Windows XP 64 bit? Or work well under Vista 32 bit, but fail under Vista 64 bit? There's whole sites dedicated to helping you figure out if your app will work with Vista when it worked just fine with XP.

No, that not what I said or meant. Open source means exactly that, anyone can use it and distribute it freely. So people who want to make money on their creativity will avoid open source.

Actually, you should be more precise: Open source means that anyone can use it and distribute it freely provided they include the original source code.

Aside from that, I think we have a major milestone here: You and I agree on something.

I personally have no problem with the ruling. But combined with rulings that non-geek/nerd judges have ruled in apple/microsoft OS court wars. It's only a matter of time a lawyer will get the bright idea to sue companies based on infractions that was ruled in the apple/microsoft cases. Considering the most judges have really no clue and patents are given out for basic common sense coding/hardware solution. It's only a matter of time that the rug will be yanked out under any software company that goes in the direction of an "open-source" OS.

Since you know these cases well enough, you can undoubtedly provide at least a reference to one of them that could be twisted to allow your fantasy ruling.

However, I'll put out that you won't see these cases won. Why? Open source exists on the back of copyright. Copyright provides specific, and limited, protections. It does not provide you the ability to claim other people's code as your own.

As to how to defend your copyrights over your own code? It's simple: Maintain your code's pedigree. Use a revision control system that shows every change. Any change you make, document in the revision control system why you made that change.

If someone tries to claim that you swiped their code, showing you did not is trivial (provided you did maintain your revision control system). You will win every one of those cases every time (well, unless you really did swipe their code).

If I write an open-source calculator application. Does that now means the logic/code behind that is off limits to everyone? I call B.S. on this. And that exactly where open-source is heading because of this ruling. Not because of the ruling itself, but because judges are going to look at code and have no clue whats going on.

Ah, now we see part of the failure. You don't understand what copyrights actually protect. By the way, feel free to check this with any copyright attorney. They'll tell you I'm right.

Copyrights protect a specific expression of a specific idea. They grant the author of that expression the exclusive right to distribute that work and its derivatives. So, whatever logic you put into your code will not be protected, but the specific code itself is.

No, that does not mean I can change variable names and then swipe the code. Courts have already established that variables names are not a portion of the expression being protected. This is why, for example, I can have a variable named "i" in my program, and so can you.

However, should you put together something complex in your calculator program, and I have a hard time doing the same thing in mine, I can read your code, write my own version (using your version to show me how it can be done), and then release my version in a closed source fashion. That is legal.

Oh, and that has already been established. For instance, check out any number of the filings in the SCO vs. IBM case.

Basically majority of every application (codewise) will be extremely similar to everyone but the geek programmers. Everyone else is going to see an majority looking very much the same.

Actually, the internals are more likely to become similar, while the UI is what will be different. What the user sees will be how companies differentiate themselves. The guts of the code? Only the developers care about that.

There are some open-source license that do limit how you may use a program. Like the open-source cd/dvd writing software.

Allow me to introduce you to the Open Source Initiative, a group that defines what Open Source is and is accepted by the community as maintaining that definition.

Allow me to introduce you to their list of OSI approved licenses. Please find for me on that list a license which tells you how you may use the software supplied to you under that license.

Alternatively, please provide to me the "open-source cd/dvd writing software" url, that I may read this license myself. If you do this, please tell me what terms in the license state how I may use this program.

The problem is the closed-source is running on an open-source. All it's going to take is a crafty lawyer and group of judges who get glassy eye at the mention of C = A + B. And you got an wtf ruling. Just like what happen in the apple/microsoft OS wars.

Sorry, but this is one place where you are dead wrong.

That "crafty lawyer" is representing somebody. They are not able to bring a case to trial on their own. That somebody has to have contributed to the operating system itself, and have had their code used by the closed source people.

The absolute worst case scenario that the closed source people will face is a judgment going completely against them. In such a case, the closed source people will be enjoined from having their product distributed until they rectify the copyright infringement and/or they will have to pay statutory damages to the original author of the code they infringed.

There is no circumstance under which a company can be forced to open source their product by a judge, at least not in the USA. After all, the product (the part that they did write) does belong to the company. The other part belongs to someone else (with open source, possibly many someone else's).

No different than one closed source company supplying a product to another.

Now, if you'd like to provide concrete methods under which these delusional ideas could come to pass, I'd be happy to debate those. As it is, I'm hearing things from an anti-open source zealot who's pissed because he can't just take all that open code out there and use it however he wants.

No, I'm not an open source zealot. I am, though, a realist. I'll use closed source when it's the best tool for my needs. The last time that happened, though, was with VMWare, and even that's off my plate now. No, wait, I do use some closed source software: I currently hotsync my palm device using a windows virtual machine (running on Virtual Box). That's it.

And I just realized I can simplify my life by getting rid of that, even. Cool, a small project to do

[LostMyMind]

Now, as for the other part of that paragraph: How about apps written for XP that don't work in Vista? Does that count as something to which my example applies? Or is this another place where I'm still wrong?

Microsoft went out of their way to say that Vista will not have 100% backward compatibility. So you find a few that won't work under Vista (at least without serious tweaking). So yes, you're still wrong.

As to why I chose Acrobat 8.0: Can you find a single feature in Acrobat 8.0 that would require a specific service pack for an operating system? I'd love to see it (and be wrong about it). However, I'm talking about a PDF reader. This is not an application that should care about which service pack it's running on. Yet, it does.

So bad programing on adobe part is the OS fault? There probably isn't a real reason for the requirement, but then again. It might be using an DRM that isn't available until SP2. So who knows, but adobe.

Oh, and more examples I forgot: Internet Explorer web applications. How many pages work great under IE6 but fail miserably under IE7? (hint: It's a lot of them).

I can say the same for firefox. FF3 broke my website because it decided to follow a rule that it didn't follow before. Beside Internet Explorer is not the OS. It may be embedded greatly. Every browser have problems, and none of them would have problems if the website developers/coder/writers followed the rules that came out in the future.... oh crap. darn. That crystal ball of my just broke. Can I have yours.

How about apps that work fine under Windows XP, but fail under Windows XP 64 bit? Or work well under Vista 32 bit, but fail under Vista 64 bit?

Now this is just silly, since again microsoft goes out of their way to say that 64bit version of their OS requires 64bit software. It's not unreasonable to assume you can't put gas in an diesel engine.

Are you sure you're an software developer?

However, I'll put out that you won't see these cases won. Why? Open source exists on the back of copyright. Copyright provides specific, and limited, protections. It does not provide you the ability to claim other people's code as your own.

Copyrights usually protect things as a whole, not in parts (regarding software). Patents deal with the "how to do this" part.

Copyrights used to not prevent me from looking at your code, figuring out how you solved a problem and then use that solution in my code. Now with this ruling, the "how to do this" part is now part of a copyright in software.

Ah, now we see part of the failure. You don't understand what copyrights actually protect. By the way, feel free to check this with any copyright attorney. They'll tell you I'm right.

Why would I? I have copyrights. The problem is this latest ruling change the copyright coverage regarding computer code.

They grant the author of that expression the exclusive right to distribute that work and its derivatives. So, whatever logic you put into your code will not be protected, but the specific code itself is.

And here is what you're not able to grasp. In computer software, logic and specific coding are the same. So by copyrighting the one, you're copyrighting the other. Before open-source, everyone protected their "how to do this" by not showing the source. Now with this ruling, open-source is saying "here how I did this", oh by the way, "you can't even use this method without blah blah blah".

No, that does not mean I can change variable names and then swipe the code. Courts have already established that variables names are not a portion of the expression being protected. This is why, for example, I can have a variable named "i" in my program, and so can you.

I can take program and move things around and codewise it will be a different program to anyone but a programmer. More that just switching variable names. That's just step one.

And you believe a judge will be able to tell the difference when a lawsuit happens? And you call yourself a realist.

However, should you put together something complex in your calculator program, and I have a hard time doing the same thing in mine, I can read your code, write my own version (using your version to show me how it can be done), and then release my version in a closed source fashion. That is legal.

Well, IMO that was legal. This ruling is going to change alot. Because it's not saying that the "look/feel" of the software is copyright. But the code itself. Even that small part of the code that you "snip" to complete your version. Because that what the suit boil down to, can someone say what can be done with the "guts" of a software if he puts the guts out for the world to see. The court just ruled that he can.

Allow me to introduce you to their list of OSI approved licenses. Please find for me on that list a license which tells you how you may use the software supplied to you under that license.

So only licenses that are accepted by that group is legal. You got to be joking.

Alternatively, please provide to me the "open-source cd/dvd writing software" url

They already been sued and pulled the project. So it's gone.

The absolute worst case scenario that the closed source people will face is a judgment going completely against them. In such a case, the closed source people will be enjoined from having their product distributed until they rectify the copyright infringement and/or they will have to pay statutory damages to the original author of the code they infringed.

Wow, I guess that don't bother you. Companies have gone out of business due to this kind of stuff.

There is no circumstance under which a company can be forced to open source their product by a judge, at least not in the USA. After all, the product (the part that they did write) does belong to the company. The other part belongs to someone else (with open source, possibly many someone else's).

Since a judge just ruled that the copyright extends to the "code" itself. I'm guessing you don't see the possibility of a judge ruling, "That software belongs to him, turn everything over."

I'm hearing things from an anti-open source zealot who's pissed because he can't just take all that open code out there and use it however he wants.

Man, you make alot of assumptions. Granted false ones. I like open-source. I like linux. I also like windows. I'm a firm believer in using the right tool for the job.

I'm pissed because, majority of code out there aren't originals. And if I had just copyrighted all my little routines/libraries way back then, instead of protecting the source code from competitors. I could be sue happy with an company that bought out an ex-employer of mine. Now that those exact coding are in their "close-source" application.

No, I'm not an open source zealot. I am, though, a realist. I'll use closed source when it's the best tool for my needs. The last time that happened, though, was with VMWare, and even that's off my plate now. No, wait, I do use some closed source software: I currently hotsync my palm device using a windows virtual machine (running on Virtual Box). That's it.

And I just realized I can simplify my life by getting rid of that, even. Cool, a small project to do

Glad you're able to simplify your life.

[Technical.Angel]

You two are like an old married couple, I swear.

I do heart you both though.

[Pedersen]

Microsoft went out of their way to say that Vista will not have 100% backward compatibility. So you find a few that won't work under Vista (at least without serious tweaking). So yes, you're still wrong.

Ah, good. I was afraid I'd get consistent rulesets, and manage to get something right for once. So, my original point of Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows XP 64, Windows Vista, Windows Vista 64, Windows Server 2003, Windows Server 2003 64bit... I do hope I'm not forgetting one of the various versions. Anyway, your statement was "Thus every developer has a higher chance of having his stuff (out of box) working on a wider spread of varying hardware.". As long as the developer restricts himself to using the APIs that were available with Windows 95, you're right. However, with that variety of options available for Windows, you're wrong.

And all of that doesn't even begin to get into the myriad of development options, all of which have their own idiosyncracies: COM, COM+, DCOM, ActiveX, DirectX, OpenGL, .Net (1.x, 2.x, and 3.x), and probably a few others that I'm forgetting.

Yep. Any developer working on Windows has it so easy with the consistent APIs that don't break as you change around which version of Windows you're on. Definitely.

Now this is just silly, since again microsoft goes out of their way to say that 64bit version of their OS requires 64bit software. It's not unreasonable to assume you can't put gas in an diesel engine.

If we were discussing cars, your analogy would be accurate. Since we're not, it's about as wrong and misleading as most of the other ideas you've espoused. Good example: Linux runs on 64 bit CPU's. And it has a set of 32 bit libraries available when doing so. End result: You can run 32 bit software in your 64 bit OS without hassle. And yes, I've used it. it does work.

I can say the same for firefox. FF3 broke my website because it decided to follow a rule that it didn't follow before. Beside Internet Explorer is not the OS. It may be embedded greatly. Every browser have problems, and none of them would have problems if the website developers/coder/writers followed the rules that came out in the future.... oh crap. darn. That crystal ball of my just broke. Can I have yours.

Your example would be relevant if Firefox wasn't aiming for closer compliance to the various standards for web development. Since IE still isn't aiming for standards compliance, even with IE8 (and before you state that they've promised to adhere to standards, check out this article), that means that Microsoft is coming up with new and inventive ways to break web standards compatibility that aren't even compatible with old versions of IE.

Firefox and others are aiming for standards. Do things break as people relied on an old (and broken) behavior that gets fixed? Yes.

Oh, and yes, you can have my crystal ball. Works fairly well for telling me what the standards are right now, and what's coming up.

Are you sure you're an software developer?

Are you sure you're keeping up with your medication doses?

Copyrights used to not prevent me from looking at your code, figuring out how you solved a problem and then use that solution in my code. Now with this ruling, the "how to do this" part is now part of a copyright in software.

Actually, nothing has changed with this ruling. Not one single thing.

If you have something copyrighted, and I copied your code verbatim, then I'm screwed. If you have something copyrighted, and I read your code and say "Oh! That's a neat way to do factorials!", and then use your method in my code (providing I write it myself), I'm not at all screwed. In court, I have to show that I wrote it myself, even if your code showed me a way to do it.

Perhaps you should go and read some more details on that case, though. Here's the parts that you have either ignored, or failed to comprehend: The person who had the ruling go against them copied source files, and stripped out the copyright notices. That person got caught, and now they've had a crucial ruling go against them.

Keep in mind the ruling doesn't say "If you copy someone else's technique, you're in trouble." Nope. It says "If you copy someone else's expression, you're in trouble." A good example of how this could work: Read somebody else's C code, write it in Python. The equivalent code in Python is noticeably different, and is all yours, even though you have acted as a translator for the C code.

Again, check with a copyright attorney. They'll tell you I'm right.

And you believe a judge will be able to tell the difference when a lawsuit happens? And you call yourself a realist.

Yeah, I do. Because if I get called before a judge for any project of mine, I'll be able to show, in detail, how each piece of code came to be written. I'll be able to easily show that the code is mine. Are there some bad judges out there? Sure. But they're getting the hang of this technology stuff, and making better rulings (overall).

So only licenses that are accepted by that group is legal. You got to be joking.

Did I say that only that group's licenses were legal? Let me re-check ... Nope, sure didn't. I said that this group maintains the definition of Open Source, and maintains a list of licenses they have identified as meeting that definition. So, again, I invite you to actually back up one your more ludicrous claims. And again you choose to refuse to do so.

They already been sued and pulled the project. So it's gone.

How convenient. And, unfortunately, no sites maintain any archives or caches of no longer existent pages. Nor would there be any news sites that would maintain archives of discussions about those cases or licenses.

Nope, not letting you out of this one. I'll be blunt: Pull a link, or drop the claim. You have the entire internet at your disposal. Show me a reference that backs up what you're talking about. Or admit you're making it up as you go.

Wow, I guess that don't bother you. Companies have gone out of business due to this kind of stuff.

You're right: Companies taking from others and going out of business because they did so without permission doesn't bother me. Should it?

Since a judge just ruled that the copyright extends to the "code" itself. I'm guessing you don't see the possibility of a judge ruling, "That software belongs to him, turn everything over."

Actually, I don't. Why? Because when you write code, you can demonstrably show what you have written. That code is yours. You might lose it for other reasons (for instance, having to declare bankruptcy and sell off assets). But no judge anywhere will require you to surrender that which is yours in any lawsuit. If it belongs to you, it won't be taken away.

If it does get taken away, then chances are pretty good that you simply changed a few variable names.

I'm pissed because, majority of code out there aren't originals. And if I had just copyrighted all my little routines/libraries way back then, instead of protecting the source code from competitors. I could be sue happy with an company that bought out an ex-employer of mine. Now that those exact coding are in their "close-source" application.

Ah, good luck. Were you salaried? If so, then your ex-employer owned everything you ever did, period. If you'd like, I'll go and find cases to show it. People have left employers, started new companies, and had their companies handed over to the previous employer because the company was based off an idea that was had by the employee while receiving a paycheck from that previous employer.

Your ex-employer owned all the rights to all the code you made while you worked for them. Unless they explicitly gave you those copyrights, that code belonged to them. You never owned a thing. And if you had filed for the copyright, and gotten it, you would be very lucky not to face prison time for falsifying federal documents.

BTW, per the Berne convention, once something is placed into a fixed form, it is considered copyrighted. That's right, even those post wars of ours are copyrighted.

Glad you're able to simplify your life.

Thanks. Probably going to wait until the weekend to do it, though. Configuring bluetooth hotsync is kind of a pain in the ass under any operating system.

You two are like an old married couple, I swear.

I do heart you both though.

In that case, I want a divorce

And I won't speak for LMM (obviously), but you're hearted right back

[lordlundar]

You two are like an old married couple, I swear.

Yeah, great show though.

Popcorn?

[CancelMyService]

Heh, and to think I accidentally started all this by my tale of my Linux adventures.

The funny thing was the point I was trying to make was while I was poking my way through the install all I could think of was "there's no way anyone non-technical would deal with this".

Personally I love open source software. I prefer programs like FireFox and Open Office to the (usually bloated) commercial equivalents. That's not to say that all open source software is perfect, but a lot of it is at least equal if not superior. It makes it all the more maddening that something like a wonky install program could potentially drive people away.

[LostMyMind]

Ah, good. I was afraid I'd get consistent rulesets, and manage to get something right for once. So, my original point of Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows XP 64, Windows Vista, Windows Vista 64, Windows Server 2003, Windows Server 2003 64bit... I do hope I'm not forgetting one of the various versions.

Show me an application that followed the ruleset that don't work. I can run an application I wrote back in win3.0 days and it will still run under XP with no problems or tweaking. Majority of problems are because developers (including myself) use a "cheat" or "work around" to avoid doing things the right way (ie. the ruleset). Even microsoft has been guilty of violating their own OS API rulesets.
And yes, you forgot many versions. There Win 3.x, hell you even forgot Win NT 3.x. Lets not forget the mobile Win CE.

The only windows OS that don't have good backwards support are CE and 64bit versions. And microsoft went out of their way to say these are different and require their own applications maded for those specific OS.

Anyway, your statement was "Thus every developer has a higher chance of having his stuff (out of box) working on a wider spread of varying hardware.". As long as the developer restricts himself to using the APIs that were available with Windows 95, you're right. However, with that variety of options available for Windows, you're wrong.

You got to be kidding. If I walk into a store and see a software made for 98. There is a very high chance that it will work on my computer running XP. I'm not delusional enough (like you) to expect that a software that saids it requires vista to work on XP. (which was your complaint about adobe reader 8.0)

You seem to be fixated on the few "window" OS (64bits and CE) that microsoft specifically said that requires their own version of software and will not run any other "window" applications.

Next you'll be complaining about non-i386 version of windows not being able to run an i386 application.

And all of that doesn't even begin to get into the myriad of development options, all of which have their own idiosyncracies: COM, COM+, DCOM, ActiveX, DirectX, OpenGL, .Net (1.x, 2.x, and 3.x), and probably a few others that I'm forgetting.

So far everything you listed are programmers "tools" that are develop outside of the OS. (granted some are by microsoft) And it's up to the "tools" developer if they want to keep the ruleset backward compatible. It's still not the blame of the engine (OS) for what other people break.

It's interesting that your first four examples are basically the same thing with slightly different rulesets evolved from OLE. Not that I would expect you to know what OLE is.

If we were discussing cars, your analogy would be accurate. Since we're not, it's about as wrong and misleading as most of the other ideas you've espoused. Good example: Linux runs on 64 bit CPU's. And it has a set of 32 bit libraries available when doing so. End result: You can run 32 bit software in your 64 bit OS without hassle. And yes, I've used it. it does work.

So you can pulled up an 16bit or 8bit unix program and run it without recompiling or tweaking on 64bit linux. Linux will run all those 100% of all really old programs from the 70s without any tweaking? B.S. eventually backward support will stop. Maybe if you weren't such a hater and accept all things for what they are and not for what you think or want them to be.

Your example would be relevant if Firefox wasn't aiming for closer compliance to the various standards for web development. Since IE still isn't aiming for standards compliance, even with IE8 (and before you state that they've promised to adhere to standards, check out this article), that means that Microsoft is coming up with new and inventive ways to break web standards compatibility that aren't even compatible with old versions of IE.

Here is what I don't understand. You bitch about microsoft for not following the ruleset (IE6), then you bitch about microsoft not supporting the "bad" rules they used to support (IE7). Make up your mind would you.

And so what if microsoft comes up with their own standards. They're allowed to do so. Just like I can create my own browser choosing to follow the rules I want to follow. Firefox has their own non-w3c rules too. Bash them too. Just like you said "closer" not 100% compliance.

Firefox and others are aiming for standards. Do things break as people relied on an old (and broken) behavior that gets fixed? Yes.

And it seems you have no problem with this because it's non-microsoft. So you're just an fanatic who has his logic twisted by his hate.

Oh, and yes, you can have my crystal ball. Works fairly well for telling me what the standards are right now, and what's coming up.

Nice, and nobody actually follows w3c rules 100% of the time. You know why? Because everything looks good on paper, real life has other things in mind.

Keep in mind the ruling doesn't say "If you copy someone else's technique, you're in trouble." Nope. It says "If you copy someone else's expression, you're in trouble." A good example of how this could work: Read somebody else's C code, write it in Python. The equivalent code in Python is noticeably different, and is all yours, even though you have acted as a translator for the C code.

You can not buy a book from a book store. Translate a chapter it into another language and shove it in your own book then sell it as your own. Which is what you're saying you can do.

There was an exemption for computer code, because it was considered mathematic/engineering which fell under patent rules and not copyright rules. Well, it used to, not anymore because of this ruling. Because the "code" itself is now protected by copyright. Because the court said the code is protected by copyrights, which means the author can put restriction via license agreement.

I guess you're not aware of quite a few "libraries" that aren't applications that are floating out there with open-source licenses.

Yeah, I do. Because if I get called before a judge for any project of mine, I'll be able to show, in detail, how each piece of code came to be written. I'll be able to easily show that the code is mine.

Which is great if someone copy your code word for word, changing only "reference names". Not of someone rearrange everything tweaking only the small amount of code related to UI.

So, again, I invite you to actually back up one your more ludicrous claims. And again you choose to refuse to do so.

How convenient. And, unfortunately, no sites maintain any archives or caches of no longer existent pages. Nor would there be any news sites that would maintain archives of discussions about those cases or licenses.

It's interesting that you actually believe the myth that nothing is really deleted from the internet. I can't point you to an url that has been deleted. If I cut/paste it in here. You'll just accuse me of creating it myself.

Actually, I don't. Why? Because when you write code, you can demonstrably show what you have written. That code is yours.

Unless someone can prove they wrote the same code before you did. And now they will only have to prove that they wrote a small part of your code before you. Because the ruling covers the "written" code not the just "look/feel" of the program.

If it belongs to you, it won't be taken away.

But it won't belong to you, because someone else wrote it first and they can prove it.

If it does get taken away, then chances are pretty good that you simply changed a few variable names.

ha, tell microsoft that. The code was majorly different than apple's code, but the "output" was similar and microsoft lost the rights to that.

Which was funny, imo because xerox did it before apple did.

Ah, good luck. Were you salaried? If so, then your ex-employer owned everything you ever did, period. If you'd like, I'll go and find cases to show it. People have left employers, started new companies, and had their companies handed over to the previous employer because the company was based off an idea that was had by the employee while receiving a paycheck from that previous employer.

Not if I can prove that I made it before the ex-employer paid me. Just because you take a paycheck don't mean that employer owns everything you ever done.

Your ex-employer owned all the rights to all the code you made while you worked for them.

But not code that was made before you worked for them. And then you "license" it to the employer. Which is what I did. And then that employer got bought out by another company which I did not give them a license for my code.

But I filed it all away, statue of limitation and all. Plus I don't put comments in my code, since I can read computer code like I can read english. I'm not worry about those programmer want-a-bes being able to figure out what I did.

BTW, per the Berne convention, once something is placed into a fixed form, it is considered copyrighted. That's right, even those post wars of ours are copyrighted.

Yes, and you can't have my 50%

I do heart you both though.

I aim to please

The funny thing was the point I was trying to make was while I was poking my way through the install all I could think of was "there's no way anyone non-technical would deal with this".

Personally I love open source software. I prefer programs like FireFox and Open Office to the (usually bloated) commercial equivalents. That's not to say that all open source software is perfect, but a lot of it is at least equal if not superior. It makes it all the more maddening that something like a wonky install program could potentially drive people away.

I love open source, believe it or not. I love the new ruling and what it will imply even though Pedersen don't think it will go down that road. Not that I'm worried about it. I'm retired so unless someone goes back in time and can prove they wrote theirs before I wrote mine. It would be nice if more things go down the open source road.

Will linux become majority OS. No, not until microsoft goes bankrupt and even then it probably won't.

I'm still waiting for an linux install that won't touch my primary boot drive when it gets installed. I'm too lazy to unplug my drives and then install linux and then plug my drives back in.

[Boozy]

There have been a few personal attacks, guys. Just because someone differs in opinion from you doesn't mean that you can question their mental competence or ability to perform well in their chosen field.

Play nice. I really don't want to have to read through this thread again.

(Boozy, with eyes glazed over, goes to fetch herself a cold compress.)

[Pedersen]

Okay, I'll drop a whole slew of stuff here, and just boil it down to the basics. Just reconcile these two quotes for me, okay?

The reason that windows has widespread acceptance is has a standard (granted it's low). Thus every developer has a higher chance of having his stuff (out of box) working on a wider spread of varying hardware. Linux getting better.

Microsoft went out of their way to say that Vista will not have 100% backward compatibility. So you find a few that won't work under Vista (at least without serious tweaking)

It sounds to me an awful lot like you're agreeing with me that no developer can rely on a program working, and gets a "maybe it will".

You can not buy a book from a book store. Translate a chapter it into another language and shove it in your own book then sell it as your own. Which is what you're saying you can do.

Aha, we agree! So, to use the analogy from the case in question: JMRI published code which included modules to control various model railroad controllers. KAM Industries copied some of those modules and put them into their own product and claimed them as their own. The judge said that KAM Industries couldn't legally do that.

In other words, nothing has changed from what it was.

Oh, and BTW, as long as you independently create your code, even if it is functionally identical, the copyright belongs to you.

Again, nothing has changed.

It's interesting that you actually believe the myth that nothing is really deleted from the internet. I can't point you to an url that has been deleted. If I cut/paste it in here. You'll just accuse me of creating it myself.

Well, since I just (in the past 10 minutes) downloaded code I created some 13 years ago and had lost, I'd have to say that nothing is deleted.

Wait, are you talking about the DeCSS code? Yeah, that's still very available, and used by quite a few open source DVD players.

ha, tell microsoft that. The code was majorly different than apple's code, but the "output" was similar and microsoft lost the rights to that.

Do you mean the 1988 Apple v. Microsoft look and feel lawsuit that Apple appealed the decision numerous times since the courts treated it as contract instead of copyright? Yeah, Microsoft didn't really lose that by any definition of the word.

I'm still waiting for an linux install that won't touch my primary boot drive when it gets installed. I'm too lazy to unplug my drives and then install linux and then plug my drives back in.

Try a USB hard drive. Linux will boot just fine from that as long as your BIOS will do so. And Linux won't touch your main hard drive at all under those conditions (unless you tell it to).

[Slytovhand]

As much as I love a good movie without having to re-write the script or tell director what to do... (oh - hang on, no, I always need to say how it should have been done...)


I just want to throw in 2 cents.

Judges aren't paid to understand the ins and outs of programing and coding etc. That's the job of the expert witnesses, and the lawyers to turn geek language into common. They're paid to determine legalities and understand the complexities of copyright law, and apply that knowledge to the information provided to them by the witnesses, as the lawyers are able to pull it out.


Carry on....

[Dreamstalker]

I prefer programs like FireFox and Open Office to the (usually bloated) commercial equivalents. That's not to say that all open source software is perfect, but a lot of it is at least equal if not superior. It makes it all the more maddening that something like a wonky install program could potentially drive people away.

The ex refuses to even touch Firefox 3.0 because he says the installer is corrupted...when asked exactly what the problem was (some people have had issues and some haven't, so I was trying to get a bit more info) he pulled the "It doesn't work for ME therefore it's Evil" card.

LMM, there are plenty of Linux versions that are designed to run from flash media. Or partition your primary drive to give Linux the minimum required space if you're paranoid.

[PepperElf]

i'll confess i haven't read all of this yet, but if i remember correctly....

some of the reasons windows took over widely....

1) used licensing instead of actually selling the rights to software
2) started doing packages where, if you want this computer you'll get this software
3) originally had office for free to get everyone use to it... then switched to charging for it once it had become the standard

not to mention the fake "windows rebate" offer where, if you buy a computer and take windows off and install a different OS you were suppose to get a refund for windows... only, MS refused to refund saying the vendor was suppose to refund, and the vendor refused to refund saying that MS was suppose to refund. joy!


haven't used Linux yet ... well not much. i did try suse a while back but had a lot of issues with it. might have been the OS, might have been that i didn't know what i was doing so i have no hard feelings against the OS. and actually the grapics were nice, i just couldnt get the sound card to work properly - 2 seconds of sound usually turned into constant reverb. (shrug)

actually i've read a lot of good things bout unbuntu, but since i'm happy with my mac ... i'll go by the old adage "if it aint broke why fix it"

but i do agree with something one of my college teachers said last week...

if you're going to work in computers you need to know more than one operating system.

nothing is really deleted from the internet.

eh. granted there's the way-back machine but... a long time ago i found the list to quests from a specific online game i play and how to solve each quest. no such list exists anymore. (in game it's illegal to share quest info with other players, can't even do a quest *with* someone else if you already solved it on an alt character). but... without going too far off topic, the list of "cheats" no longer exists.