Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Luke A. Guest]

Hi,

I am wanting to change careers, I currently work in the games industry and
want to go embedded/realtime.

Now, I still have my university books (Ada-based) and I would like to get
back into Ada programming, but I am looking for a smallish project that I
can develop to prove to myself and to prospective employers that I am
serious - it'll also help me to decide whether this is what I really want
to do.

Basically, the project must be doable by one person *and* (I think that
this is the most important part) I would prefer to have a specification
similar (or same) to that which I would use in the real world.

Can anyone help me out here?

Thanks in advance,
Luke.

P.S: I the UK, I know that Ada isn't used much (except for the military -
which is something I wouldn't even consider doing anyway), but I like
the language ;-P

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Luke A. Guest]

So, I take it you people have nothing to offer then?

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Phil Thornley]

"Luke A. Guest" <laguest@__n_o_s_p_a_m__abyss2.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:pan.2003.08.06.00.35.31.121345@__n_o_s_p_a_m__abyss2.demon.co.uk...
> So, I take it you people have nothing to offer then?

Well, I can see a couple of reasons for the lack of response.

Firstly, it's early August, and the number of people reading cla is
probably well down on the usual levels.

Secondly the likeliest source of case study material are Universities,
and the few academics that read cla are highly unlikely to still be
around.

A search on Google throws up a lot of references to case studies, but
not much in the way of detailed specs. The best I could find are
referenced from http://iis-web.coloradotech.edu/bsanden/. There is a
freely available course listed there as well as some case study
descriptions that might give you what you want.

HTH

Phil

--
Phil Thornley

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Its hard to imagine what sort of project you might be interested in. One 
thing I think would be useful would be to develop an Ada programming kit 
for some small, inexpensive, popular SBC. Start with the Gnat compiler 
and pull together other open source resources and build a 
cross-compilation package that can compile, link, load and execute a 
simple Ada program on the SBC. If you can get something to start ticking 
inside an embedded box, that's 90% of the battle and ought to prove 
you're serious about it.

MDC



Luke A. Guest wrote:
> So, I take it you people have nothing to offer then?


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Luke A. Guest]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:15:35 -0400, Marin David Condic wrote:

> Its hard to imagine what sort of project you might be interested in. One

Well, for one, I have been (although not recently) researching operating
systems and want to design one. I know what I want to achieve on this but
I haven't actually been able to do any work on it for ages :-(

> thing I think would be useful would be to develop an Ada programming kit 
> for some small, inexpensive, popular SBC. Start with the Gnat compiler 
> and pull together other open source resources and build a 
> cross-compilation package that can compile, link, load and execute a 
> simple Ada program on the SBC. If you can get something to start ticking 
> inside an embedded box, that's 90% of the battle and ought to prove 
> you're serious about it.

I have an R4600 based Indy sitting next to me. Unless you mean something
smaller, a la handheld?

Luke.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Luke A. Guest]

I've been looking around the *.jobs.* groups and I haven't seen many Ada
based jobs, are there any other places to look or are Ada jobs difficult
to come by these days?

Basically, I'd like to know the kind of salary range to expect.

Luke.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Jeffrey Carter]

Luke A. Guest wrote:
> I've been looking around the *.jobs.* groups and I haven't seen many Ada
> based jobs, are there any other places to look or are Ada jobs difficult
> to come by these days?

Try

http://www.adaic.org/jobs/jobs.html

http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~adajobs/

A search for "ada software" posted in the last day on dice.com generally 
comes up with 10 or more positions a day, and most of those deal with 
Ada and not with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"From this day on, the official language of San Marcos will be Swedish."
Bananas

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Luke A. Guest]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 19:40:03 +0000, Jeffrey Carter wrote:

> http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~adajobs/

404 not found.
 
> A search for "ada software" posted in the last day on dice.com generally 
> comes up with 10 or more positions a day, and most of those deal with 
> Ada and not with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

That is quite funny ;0

I should've said that I'm in England, but I thought that might have been
obvious by my email address ;-)

Luke.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Jeffrey Carter]

Luke A. Guest wrote:
> 
>>http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~adajobs/
> 
> 404 not found.

Odd. If this doesn't clear up soon, someone should contact Mike Feldman.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"The time has come to act, and act fast. I'm leaving."
Blazing Saddles

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

An OS is a pretty serious project - even if you're looking at an 
embedded OS of some sort. If you start with too big an objective, you'll 
likely not achieve it. You might try taking some existing OS and porting 
it. That would be a good start and might be achievable in a reasonable 
time span. There was an RTOS out there written in Ada - RTEMS if I 
recall the name correctly. One called MaRTE also springs to mind. Try:

http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/457082.html

MDC

Luke A. Guest wrote:
> 
> Well, for one, I have been (although not recently) researching operating
> systems and want to design one. I know what I want to achieve on this but
> I haven't actually been able to do any work on it for ages :-(
> 



-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Phil Thornley]

"Luke A. Guest" <laguest@__n_o_s_p_a_m__abyss2.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message
news:pan.2003.08.07.21.42.01.71728@__n_o_s_p_a_m__abyss2.demon.co.uk...
> I should've said that I'm in England,

I don't know of anywhere that lists UK Ada jobs (and you've ruled out
the majority of jobs in the UK).

One place to start would be with Ada UK:
http://www.adauk.org.uk
Come along to the next conference and ask the exhibitors (selling Ada
tools, etc.) which companies you might usefully approach.

If you are interested in European jobs then the chances get much better.
The European Space Agency is a big Ada user, as are railway
manufacturing companies.

Cheers,

Phil

--
Phil Thornley

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[chris]

Luke A. Guest wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 08:15:35 -0400, Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> 
> Well, for one, I have been (although not recently) researching operating
> systems and want to design one. I know what I want to achieve on this but
> I haven't actually been able to do any work on it for ages :-(

Same here.  :(

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Martin Dowie]

"Phil Thornley" <phil.thornley@baesystems.com> wrote in message
news:3f338fe8$1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net...
> "Luke A. Guest" <laguest@__n_o_s_p_a_m__abyss2.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> message
> news:pan.2003.08.07.21.42.01.71728@__n_o_s_p_a_m__abyss2.demon.co.uk...
> > I should've said that I'm in England,
>
> I don't know of anywhere that lists UK Ada jobs (and you've ruled out
> the majority of jobs in the UK).
>
> One place to start would be with Ada UK:
> http://www.adauk.org.uk
> Come along to the next conference and ask the exhibitors (selling Ada
> tools, etc.) which companies you might usefully approach.
>
> If you are interested in European jobs then the chances get much better.
> The European Space Agency is a big Ada user, as are railway
> manufacturing companies.

Alstrom in Borehamwood springs to mind.

That's where they film Big Brother and EastEnders if that's an attraction!
;-)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Jean-Pierre Rosen]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 408 bytes --]


"Martin Dowie" <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com> a �crit dans le message de news:bh09jm$svs$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> Alstrom in Borehamwood springs to mind.
>
Sorry, but AFAIK, all software development has been brought back by Alstom to France...

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Martin Dowie]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 423 bytes --]

"Jean-Pierre Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> wrote in message
news:72d0hb.dsd.ln@skymaster...
>
> "Martin Dowie" <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com> a �crit dans le message de
news:bh09jm$svs$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
> > Alstrom in Borehamwood springs to mind.
> >
> Sorry, but AFAIK, all software development has been brought back by Alstom
to France...

Too bad - it was 3 years ago I was last offered a contract there :-(

RE: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[rleif]

I agree that an Ada OS is too large a project. However, a real-time core
that could be used with Linux and that had Ada interfaces to XML constructs
should be viable. The problem with Linux core components is that one is
making a donation to IBM, RedHat, etc. However, a POSIX type binding that
could be used with Linux might solve that problem. An Ada version of Xforms
that worked under SVG would actually cover many embedded devices. 

The Ada page of my web site, www.newportinstruments.com has articles on how
multiple individuals can get together for two noble causes: 1) Spreading the
use of Ada. And 2) Making money.
Bob Leif

Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
Email rleif@rleif.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Marin David Condic [mailto:nobody@noplace.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 4:52 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

An OS is a pretty serious project - even if you're looking at an 
embedded OS of some sort. If you start with too big an objective, you'll 
likely not achieve it. You might try taking some existing OS and porting 
it. That would be a good start and might be achievable in a reasonable 
time span. There was an RTOS out there written in Ada - RTEMS if I 
recall the name correctly. One called MaRTE also springs to mind. Try:

http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/457082.html

MDC

Luke A. Guest wrote:
> 
> Well, for one, I have been (although not recently) researching operating
> systems and want to design one. I know what I want to achieve on this but
> I haven't actually been able to do any work on it for ages :-(
> 



-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Luke A. Guest]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 13:00:08 +0100, Phil Thornley wrote:

> I don't know of anywhere that lists UK Ada jobs (and you've ruled out
> the majority of jobs in the UK).

Have I?

> One place to start would be with Ada UK:
> http://www.adauk.org.uk
> Come along to the next conference and ask the exhibitors (selling Ada
> tools, etc.) which companies you might usefully approach.

Ok, thanks.

> If you are interested in European jobs then the chances get much better.
> The European Space Agency is a big Ada user, as are railway
> manufacturing companies.

Pity their website has NO jobs on it, I looked previously.

Luke.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Luke A. Guest]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 07:51:30 -0400, Marin David Condic wrote:

> An OS is a pretty serious project - even if you're looking at an 
> embedded OS of some sort. If you start with too big an objective, you'll 
> likely not achieve it. You might try taking some existing OS and porting 
> it. That would be a good start and might be achievable in a reasonable 
> time span. There was an RTOS out there written in Ada - RTEMS if I 
> recall the name correctly. One called MaRTE also springs to mind. Try:

There is also, AdaOS.

Luke.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Steve]

"Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:3F338EC2.3070002@noplace.com...
> An OS is a pretty serious project - even if you're looking at an
> embedded OS of some sort. If you start with too big an objective, you'll
> likely not achieve it. You might try taking some existing OS and porting
> it. That would be a good start and might be achievable in a reasonable
> time span. There was an RTOS out there written in Ada - RTEMS if I
> recall the name correctly...
[snip]

RTEMS was originally written in Ada.  Then a C version was created.  Both
were maintained in parallel for a while.  The C version was better
supported, so the Ada version was dropped.  GNAT (GNU/Ada) does run on the C
version of RTEMS using the Posix interface.  I believe you can still find
the old Ada sources for RTEMS at www.rtems.com.

Bringing the Ada version of RTEMS up to date would be an ambitious project,
and very educational I am sure.

Steve
(The Duck)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

AFAIK, they don't have a working version - or even really much of 
anything besides good ideas. I am not looking to criticize the people 
involved - just observe that an OS is a really ambitious project and, as 
a result, is tough to see through to completion. AdaOS looks like it is 
much more ambitious than your typical embedded RTOS as projects go. I 
think the AdaOS project might have made more progress (and friends ;-) 
if it had been de-scoped to start with just some sort of RTK that could 
have been used as the basis of an RTOS & see where it got from there. 
They need some working piece of software that is usable in some realm in 
order to develop a band of followers who might complete the rest of the 
project.

With that as an example, I'd again suggest picking a project that is 
smaller in scope. You want something that you can achieve in a few weeks 
or small number of months of evenings & weekend work, or it just doesn't 
get done.

MDC


Luke A. Guest wrote:
> 
> 
> There is also, AdaOS.
> 
> Luke.
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

At least you'd be starting out with something that already works and 
does something useful. Getting it to work on some specific SBC would be 
a start. Modifying it and adding features along the way would be 
possible follow-on jobs.

I don't know how much work RTEMS would need to be "brought up to date" - 
I presume that means "compatible with the C version". But one need not 
set that as a goal. Pick an achievable objective and it might be a good 
educational experience, as well as producing something that is an actual 
usable end-product.

MDC



Steve wrote:
> 
> Bringing the Ada version of RTEMS up to date would be an ambitious project,
> and very educational I am sure.
> 



-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Well, I'd say "too ambitious in its current undertakings". If someone 
wanted to develop an OS in Ada, I'd suggest that they start by getting 
some kind of boot loader that would work on a garden variety PC. If you 
can't get a project moving along that far (and have a usable product as 
a result) then all the dreams of glorious user interfaces and networking 
and spiffy file systems, etc., are just that - dreams. If AdaOS had a 
development environment set up and a boot loader that could get a 
program into memory & cycling, they'd have A Good Start. From there, you 
could worry about all the additional interesting things that might be 
possible - and how to make some money on it as well. ;-)

MDC



rleif wrote:
> I agree that an Ada OS is too large a project. However, a real-time core
> that could be used with Linux and that had Ada interfaces to XML constructs
> should be viable. The problem with Linux core components is that one is
> making a donation to IBM, RedHat, etc. However, a POSIX type binding that
> could be used with Linux might solve that problem. An Ada version of Xforms
> that worked under SVG would actually cover many embedded devices. 

-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

RE: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Michael Erdmann]

rleif wrote:

> I agree that an Ada OS is too large a project. However, a real-time core
> that could be used with Linux and that had Ada interfaces to XML
> constructs should be viable.
I gues somthing like this has been discussed very often at this place, and 
there are implementations already available. But i am realy wondering 
what you mean by a realtime core?

> The problem with Linux core components is
> that one is making a donation to IBM, RedHat, etc. However, a POSIX type
> binding that could be used with Linux might solve that problem. An Ada
> version of Xforms that worked under SVG would actually cover many embedded
> devices.
> 
> The Ada page of my web site, www.newportinstruments.com has articles on
> how multiple individuals can get together for two noble causes: 1)
> Spreading the use of Ada. And 2) Making money.
> Bob Leif

Does this refere to the ada developerscooperate license  you are refering
on your pages?


Michael

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Luke A. Guest]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 09:40:58 -0400, Marin David Condic wrote:

> With that as an example, I'd again suggest picking a project that is 
> smaller in scope. You want something that you can achieve in a few weeks 
> or small number of months of evenings & weekend work, or it just doesn't 
> get done.

Tell me about it. I was looking at the Lego Mindstorms hardware yesterday
to see if something like that would be a good start.

I am also currently thinking about going more towards the business end of
the programming arena as well as realtime, so I have to make a choice
before I start looking at jobs. I am also thinking it might be a better
move to play with embedded stuff (like my OS) in my own time whilst making
the kind of money you can earn in the business end. I dunno...

Luke.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

I don't know if the business end pays better or worse than the 
realtime/embedded end. Some of that is geography. Some of it depends on 
the nature of the business. Too many variables. My advice is to do 
something you really enjoy and not worry too much about the money. It 
has a way of taking care of itself so long as you are enthusiastic about 
your job and do it well. If you do a job you really love, you never have 
to work a day in your life. ;-)

MDC


Luke A. Guest wrote:
> 
> I am also currently thinking about going more towards the business end of
> the programming arena as well as realtime, so I have to make a choice
> before I start looking at jobs. I am also thinking it might be a better
> move to play with embedded stuff (like my OS) in my own time whilst making
> the kind of money you can earn in the business end. I dunno...
> 
> Luke.
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

RE: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[rleif]

" Does this refer to the Ada Developers Cooperate License  you are referring
on your pages?"

Yes, and my paper showing how the developers were ripped off when RedHat
went public is also posted on www.newportinstruments.com. I must note that
the Ada Developers Cooperate License was created for large projects. Marin
Condic and others, have quite correctly, stated that a different version is
needed for developers who are able to create a final product by themselves.

However, I do have an Idea for a limited, useful, and potentially profitable
commercial product, which I would recommend selling for $25 with a
reasonable royalty if it is used in a product. Microsoft has created Smart
Tags. An Ada tool kit to create Smart Tags would permit one to extend Office
2003. The data types will be in one or more XML schemas that extend the
present Microsoft Schemas and the methods will be in Ada. The data types in
the user created XML schema(s) will have a one-to-one correspondence with
the data types in the Ada packages. The Ada source text should be compiled
with A#. It would be perfectly permissible to host this software including
the user created XML schemas on Linux or any other operating system.

Bob Leif

Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
Email rleif@rleif.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Erdmann [mailto:Michael.Erdmann@snafu.de] 
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 8:53 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: RE: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

rleif wrote:

> I agree that an Ada OS is too large a project. However, a real-time core
> that could be used with Linux and that had Ada interfaces to XML
> constructs should be viable.
I gues somthing like this has been discussed very often at this place, and 
there are implementations already available. But i am realy wondering 
what you mean by a realtime core?

> The problem with Linux core components is
> that one is making a donation to IBM, RedHat, etc. However, a POSIX type
> binding that could be used with Linux might solve that problem. An Ada
> version of Xforms that worked under SVG would actually cover many embedded
> devices.
> 
> The Ada page of my web site, www.newportinstruments.com has articles on
> how multiple individuals can get together for two noble causes: 1)
> Spreading the use of Ada. And 2) Making money.
> Bob Leif

Does this refere to the ada developerscooperate license  you are refering
on your pages?


Michael

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Hyman Rosen]

rleif wrote:
> Yes, and my paper showing how the developers were ripped off when RedHat
> went public is also posted on www.newportinstruments.com.

This is utter nonsense. Those developers released their code under the GPL
for years before RedHat even existed. When RedHat went public they decided
to try to share some money with the developers, even though they were under
no obligation to do so.

RedHat distributes GPLed software, and tries to make money by doing this.
Anyone else may try to do the same, including any of the developers of the
distributed software.

ACT continues to develop GNAT and associated technology, including brand new
projects such as GPS, under the GPL. Apparently they don't feel ripped off.

RedHat itself contributes back to the community. Several of its employees are
on the GCC steering committee, actively working on improving the compilers.
The GNAT Ada technology is now a public part of this.

RedHat is working with the GPL in exactly the way it was intended to work.
Any developer who feels ripped off has only himself to blame for not
understanding what releasing under the GPL means.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[JP Thornley]

In article 
<pan.2003.08.08.23.37.10.15727@__n_o_s_p_a_m__abyss2.demon.co.uk>, Luke 
A. Guest <laguest@__n_o_s_p_a_m__abyss2.demon.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 13:00:08 +0100, Phil Thornley wrote:
>
>> I don't know of anywhere that lists UK Ada jobs (and you've ruled out
>> the majority of jobs in the UK).
>
>Have I?

 From the original post:
"I know that Ada isn't used much (except for the military -
which is something I wouldn't even consider doing anyway)"

However I suspect that, although most Ada *work* is for military 
applications, most Ada *employment* is with software houses that do a 
mix of civil and military work. Names that come immediately to mind are 
AeroSystems, Datel, DS&S and I expect there are some more as well. 
Depending on your view of what constitutes 'military' you should look at 
the ownership of these companies to decide their acceptability to you. 
(E.g. Is it acceptable to you to work on a civil application when the 
company doing the work is subsidiary of a US defence contractor? Is 
Rolls-Royce a military or a civil company?)

Phil Thornley

-- 
JP Thornley

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Luke A. Guest]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 18:47:14 -0400, Marin David Condic wrote:

> I don't know if the business end pays better or worse than the 
> realtime/embedded end. Some of that is geography. Some of it depends on 
> the nature of the business. Too many variables. My advice is to do 
> something you really enjoy and not worry too much about the money. It 
> has a way of taking care of itself so long as you are enthusiastic about 
> your job and do it well. If you do a job you really love, you never have 
> to work a day in your life. ;-)

Yeah, I know what you mean. The thing is I have decided to get out of my
job ASAP and I don't want to *jump into* something that's wrong for me. I
have just spent four-ish years in the game industry and that was by
accident, so I want to do it properly this time. BTW, the games industry
could be cool if it was the *right* game but that just never seems to
happen, also it pays really badly, I've been on way below graduate level
for all four-ish years mainly because I was willing to take a bit less for
a while to get off the dole.

Now I'm in debt and need to get something that pays, so if I go for a job
in London, say, I need something that will allow me to pay off my debts
(I will also have to start paying back my student loans as well by then)
and live in the London area, and that just isn't possible on �30,000 even
if you share a place :-( If you calculate the outgoings, I wouldn't be in
a better situation, so that's why I'm looking at the business end as well,
that kind of jobs does *seem* to start paying around the �35,000 - �40,000
mark, it's just a matter of getting in there (a bit of Java learning).

Now, the real question is, am I cut out to do realtime? If I am, I want a
job that won't get in the way of developing my OS, i.e. contractual
obligations and all that jazz. So, say I am cut out for it, do I really
need electronics experrience? I don't have any, so that also stops me from
earning *enough*. Many things to think about :-/

Thanks,
Luke.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Mário Amado Alves]

A similar and related effort to Robert Leif's Ada Developers
Cooperative License is the Software Developers Cooperative (SDC) at

  http://www.softdevelcoop.org

RE: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[rleif]

This is the typical argument for GPL, which I totally reject. By any
economic standard, the developers were defrauded of the fruits of their
labor. In fact, Karl Mark in Das Kapital never considered the workers
receiving that small a part of the payment for the fruits of their labor. 

Hyman Rosen stated, "Several of its (RedHat) employees are on the GCC
steering committee." If I were getting free labor, I definitely would place
my employees on the steering committee. What you have described is George
Orwell's Animal Farm. "Some of us are more equal than others." 

Stallman was absolutely correct about making the sources available. This was
a great contribution. The next step is to decouple the excellent idea of the
availability of the sources from the exploitive economics of the Free
Software Foundation. This is what I have proposed to do. The added benefit
is that because of ASIS, Ada is by far the best language for profitable
cooperative software development. In short, one should work for one's own
benefit and not to benefit IBM, RedHat, and others.

Since the use of commercial C++ software drivers for my instruments has
provided a week of suffering that has made me particularly testy, I will
also note the GPL is one of the causes of ACT's extremely bi-level pricing
policy, free or very expensive. In order for Ada to be truly COTS, she
desperately needs products with PC type pricing. In a standard PC market,
ACT would have an incentive to productize and support A#. Because of the
economics of the GPL, this is not the case for ACT. I might note that I
still have the highest regard for the technical competence of the ACT group.


Bob Leif
Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
Email rleif@rleif.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Hyman Rosen [mailto:hyrosen@mail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 12:10 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

rleif wrote:
> Yes, and my paper showing how the developers were ripped off when RedHat
> went public is also posted on www.newportinstruments.com.

This is utter nonsense. Those developers released their code under the GPL
for years before RedHat even existed. When RedHat went public they decided
to try to share some money with the developers, even though they were under
no obligation to do so.

RedHat distributes GPLed software, and tries to make money by doing this.
Anyone else may try to do the same, including any of the developers of the
distributed software.

ACT continues to develop GNAT and associated technology, including brand new
projects such as GPS, under the GPL. Apparently they don't feel ripped off.

RedHat itself contributes back to the community. Several of its employees
are
on the GCC steering committee, actively working on improving the compilers.
The GNAT Ada technology is now a public part of this.

RedHat is working with the GPL in exactly the way it was intended to work.
Any developer who feels ripped off has only himself to blame for not
understanding what releasing under the GPL means.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Both links on this page point to a Yahoo group. Do you have a link to 
the license itself somewhere on the website?

MDC

M�rio Amado Alves wrote:
> A similar and related effort to Robert Leif's Ada Developers
> Cooperative License is the Software Developers Cooperative (SDC) at
> 
>   http://www.softdevelcoop.org


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Which doesn't alter the fact that RedHat (and other Linux related) 
companies got their R&D done for free. The fact that people voluntarily 
release valuable stuff into the world and allow others to then make a 
profit from it without recompense is clear. People do that. Nobody 
forced them to. Its their right to be foolish if they like. Personally, 
I don't think it is basic justice that someone should get their R&D work 
done by someone else and not pay something to the laborer, but if the 
laborer is a willing slave, that's his business. As for me, I'll offer 
my software development talents to those willing to give me a paycheck 
or otherwise compensate me in a manner I find acceptable.

Freedom is the freedom to be a fool if you like. I certainly won't stop 
someone from putting out code under the GPL. Sometimes its to their 
advantage since it can build market share and still have reasonable 
protection from competitors. But releasing something under the GPL is 
not an *obligation* nor is it anyone's *right* to receive software under 
any particular conditions.

MDC


Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> This is utter nonsense. Those developers released their code under the GPL
> for years before RedHat even existed. 

-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

RE: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Michael Erdmann]

rleif wrote:

> I agree that an Ada OS is too large a project. 

Any way, i have missed  part of the thread. What do you mean 
in fact by an real time OS on top of Linux (which is a non
relatime OS). A framework of components allowing you to
control some external equipment in realtime or ?

This could be interesting.

Michael



However, a real-time core
> that could be used with Linux and that had Ada interfaces to XML
> constructs should be viable. The problem with Linux core components is
> that one is making a donation to IBM, RedHat, etc. However, a POSIX type
> binding that could be used with Linux might solve that problem. An Ada
> version of Xforms that worked under SVG would actually cover many embedded
> devices.
> 
> The Ada page of my web site, www.newportinstruments.com has articles on
> how multiple individuals can get together for two noble causes: 1)
> Spreading the use of Ada. And 2) Making money.
> Bob Leif
> 
> Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
> Email rleif@rleif.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marin David Condic [mailto:nobody@noplace.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 4:52 AM
> To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
> Subject: Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.
> 
> An OS is a pretty serious project - even if you're looking at an
> embedded OS of some sort. If you start with too big an objective, you'll
> likely not achieve it. You might try taking some existing OS and porting
> it. That would be a good start and might be achievable in a reasonable
> time span. There was an RTOS out there written in Ada - RTEMS if I
> recall the name correctly. One called MaRTE also springs to mind. Try:
> 
> http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/457082.html
> 
> MDC
> 
> Luke A. Guest wrote:
>> 
>> Well, for one, I have been (although not recently) researching operating
>> systems and want to design one. I know what I want to achieve on this but
>> I haven't actually been able to do any work on it for ages :-(
>> 
> 
> 
> 

RE: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Michael Erdmann]

rleif wrote:

> " Does this refer to the Ada Developers Cooperate License  you are
> referring on your pages?"
> 

> 
> However, I do have an Idea for a limited, useful, and potentially
> profitable commercial product, which I would recommend selling for $25
> with a reasonable royalty if it is used in a product. Microsoft has
> created Smart Tags. An Ada tool kit to create Smart Tags would permit one
> to extend Office 2003. The data types will be in one or more XML schemas
> that extend the present Microsoft Schemas and the methods will be in Ada.
> The data types in the user created XML schema(s) will have a one-to-one
> correspondence with the data types in the Ada packages. The Ada source
> text should be compiled with A#. It would be perfectly permissible to host
> this software including the user created XML schemas on Linux or any other
> operating system.

Why using Add? C# would be the better solution if you want to use 
the software on Windows (.net) and Linux running. 

Michael

> 
> Bob Leif
> 
> Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
> Email rleif@rleif.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Erdmann [mailto:Michael.Erdmann@snafu.de]
> Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 8:53 AM
> To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
> Subject: RE: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.
> 
> rleif wrote:
> 
>> I agree that an Ada OS is too large a project. However, a real-time core
>> that could be used with Linux and that had Ada interfaces to XML
>> constructs should be viable.
> I gues somthing like this has been discussed very often at this place, and
> there are implementations already available. But i am realy wondering
> what you mean by a realtime core?
> 
>> The problem with Linux core components is
>> that one is making a donation to IBM, RedHat, etc. However, a POSIX type
>> binding that could be used with Linux might solve that problem. An Ada
>> version of Xforms that worked under SVG would actually cover many
>> embedded devices.
>> 
>> The Ada page of my web site, www.newportinstruments.com has articles on
>> how multiple individuals can get together for two noble causes: 1)
>> Spreading the use of Ada. And 2) Making money.
>> Bob Leif
> 
> Does this refere to the ada developerscooperate license  you are refering
> on your pages?
> 
> 
> Michael

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Hyman Rosen]

rleif wrote:
> This is the typical argument for GPL, which I totally reject.

I don't understand. What is it that you are rejecting? Is it the
right of a developer to decide how his work should be licensed?
No one is forced to release their software under the GPL.

 > By any economic standard, the developers were defrauded of the
 > fruits of their labor. In fact, Karl Mark in Das Kapital never
 > considered the workers receiving that small a part of the payment
 > for the fruits of their labor.

They made the fruits of their labor available to be used in such a
way, willingly. While you are making these claims of fraud, how many
of the GPLing developers have complained? How many developers are
making money on software development except as employees or contractors
producing work for hire?

> What you have described is George Orwell's Animal Farm. "Some of us
 > are more equal than others."

I'll say. The members of the committee are doing all the work, while
having to listen to unhelpful and carping suggestions from people who
want the results of the labor without contributing to it.

> the exploitive economics of the Free Software Foundation.

No one is chained to his keyboard. Anyone who dislikes the consequences
of the GPL is perfectly free not to incorporate GPLed software into his
own work, and not to release his own work under the GPL.

> In short, one should work for one's own benefit and not to benefit IBM,
 > RedHat, and others.

Under such a policy, all potential users and distributors are forced to
contend with licensing issues and compliance. This is an enormous added
burden over dealing with free software. So such software won't go into
wide release, especially when hundreds of packages must be considered.
In order to be "working for one's own benefit" you are placing the burden
of license compliance on distributors and users, in effect forcing them
to work for your benefit as well.

So you are free to work for your own benefit, but then you mustn't feel
slighted when the big distributors choose to ignore you. Part of creating
a successful business is marketing, distribution, and support and if you
want to work for your own benefit, you must expect to do these things
yourself and not gain the benefits of wide distribution that being a part
of RedHat gets you.

> the GPL is one of the causes of ACT's extremely bi-level pricing
> policy, free or very expensive. In order for Ada to be truly COTS,
 > she desperately needs products with PC type pricing.

Really? First of all, "PC-type pricing" for compilers is now going for
around US$1000 per seat. Have you looked the prices for a Microsoft
development system lately? And do you think that gets you live human
support for your problems? Employing people to answer questions and
help with development is enormously expensive. My wife owns a software
company which provides such handholding for its clients. She leases the
software for over $2000 per seat *per month*.

The ACT model is wonderful. Companies who really need the support and can
pay the freight defray the costs for having a high-quality implementation
of Ada available to everyone for free. People or companies who can't afford
to pay can try to devlop local expertise, or read books, or use newsgroups
for their support, but they can use the software immediately and for free.

> In a standard PC market, ACT would have an incentive to productize and
 > support A#. Because of the economics of the GPL, this is not the case
 > for ACT.

And yet they had the incentive to productize and support GPS, and still
chose to use the GPL. ACT deals with Ada customers every day; if they
don't feel that A# is worth supporting, they are more likely to be right
than you are.

And note that ACT does not just use the GPL, they take special pains to make
public versions available so that people can use their free version easily,
even though they are under no obligation to do so.

There's also the fact that the wide platform availability of GNAT comes
"free" as a result of being based on the existing GPLed gcc back end, and
that the original development of GNAT was paid for through tax dollars.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Alexander Kopilovitch]

rleif wrote:

> In order for Ada to be truly COTS, she
> desperately needs products with PC type pricing.

But Ada already has such a product -- Randy Brukardt's Janus/Ada
(http://www.rrsoftware.com) -- validated Ada95/83 compiler with typical
PC price, and had it for years. So, what are you asking for?



Alexander Kopilovitch                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Mark Lorenzen]

"Luke A. Guest" <laguest@__n_o_s_p_a_m__abyss2.demon.co.uk> writes:

[snip]

> 
> Yeah, I know what you mean. The thing is I have decided to get out of my
> job ASAP and I don't want to *jump into* something that's wrong for me. I
> have just spent four-ish years in the game industry and that was by
> accident, so I want to do it properly this time. BTW, the games industry
> could be cool if it was the *right* game but that just never seems to
> happen, also it pays really badly, I've been on way below graduate level
> for all four-ish years mainly because I was willing to take a bit less for
> a while to get off the dole.

If you want to wotk with something that is "done rigth", then learn a
good craft. Software will always be hacked together due to time
pressure and management incompetence.

[snip]

> that kind of jobs does *seem* to start paying around the £35,000 - £40,000
> mark, it's just a matter of getting in there (a bit of Java learning).
> 

Then you definitely do not want to be a software engineer, but a
manager.

[snip]

- Mark

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Hyman Rosen]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> But releasing something under the GPL is not an *obligation* nor
 > is it anyone's *right* to receive software under any particular
 > conditions.

No one (here, anyway) has said otherwise. Notice that GNAT/ACT has
been purely GPL from inception, and nevertheless their developers
are compensated for their work, so there is proof by existence that
the GPL and getting paid can coincide. The same model should work
in other circumstances. That is, you find someone who has a critical
need for a software product that does not yet exist, and is therefore
willing to pay for it, but also does not mind if the product is free
software.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Luke A. Guest]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:08:01 +0200, Mark Lorenzen wrote:

> If you want to wotk with something that is "done rigth", then learn a
> good craft. Software will always be hacked together due to time
> pressure and management incompetence.

Ok, I really cannot believe that the embedded side would be that bad,
surely planes, cars, etc. wouldn't be safe.
 
>> that kind of jobs does *seem* to start paying around the £35,000 - £40,000
>> mark, it's just a matter of getting in there (a bit of Java learning).
> 
> Then you definitely do not want to be a software engineer, but a
> manager.

First, I DO NOT want to be a manager, too much bullshit and not enough
actual knowledge...pen pushing...no way!

Secondly, there are jobs that pay that much and more, they're just don't
seem to be in this side of the industry.

Thirdly, I really think that that kind of sum is reasonable for a software
developer, especially living in London. Nobody can expect to live on
anything less than £35,000 in London, it's just a joke.

Luke.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Mark Lorenzen]

"Luke A. Guest" <laguest@__n_o_s_p_a_m__abyss2.demon.co.uk> writes:

> On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:08:01 +0200, Mark Lorenzen wrote:
> 
> > If you want to wotk with something that is "done rigth", then learn a
> > good craft. Software will always be hacked together due to time
> > pressure and management incompetence.
> 
> Ok, I really cannot believe that the embedded side would be that bad,
> surely planes, cars, etc. wouldn't be safe.

When I am travelling on the Metro (read: "underground") train here in
Copenhagen I always consider myself lucky, because I have never seen
the bleeding entrails of the software. The Metro is a driver-less
system, but still monitored by real humans. I guess that if I knew the
software, then I would be too scared and take a bus instead.

I do not trust software - not even the software that I write myself.

[snip]

> First, I DO NOT want to be a manager, too much bullshit and not enough
> actual knowledge...pen pushing...no way!

This I fully understand. But when browsing the English job ads, I have
noticed that there is a wage leap between an engineer and a
manager. This is not the case here, where the transition is more
gradual.

> 
> Secondly, there are jobs that pay that much and more, they're just don't
> seem to be in this side of the industry.
> 
> Thirdly, I really think that that kind of sum is reasonable for a software
> developer, especially living in London. Nobody can expect to live on
> anything less than £35,000 in London, it's just a joke.
> 
> Luke.

Right again. I even think that 35K GPB is in the "good end" of the
scale. And London is so terribly expensive to live in....

- Mark

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Luke A. Guest]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 23:04:00 +0200, Mark Lorenzen wrote:

> Right again. I even think that 35K GPB is in the "good end" of the
> scale. And London is so terribly expensive to live in....

Yes, but to live in London an employer must wake up and smell the coffee
and pay *not* the going rate, but the *correct* rate, especially for the
skills as well.

Luke.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

There is a law of the universe that is just as reliable as any of the 
gas laws. Its called "Supply and Demand". Although many have tried, 
nobody successfully violates it for very long. The "Correct" rate to pay 
someone is equal to the "Going" rate. A thing is only worth what you can 
get someone to pay for it - including one's labor. My advice would be to 
get comfortable with that law, study it thoroughly and learn to use it 
to your best advantage, because otherwise you will go through life 
flogging a dead horse and being frustrated over the fact that it won't run.

If wages aren't high enough in London to meet your expectations, help 
improve that situation by reducing the supply of labor in that area. 
Take a job in some other area where the wages and cost of living are 
more to your liking. We're seeing that sort of thing take place here in 
the US where California is experiencing a loss of businesses and workers 
as they move to lower cost states. Wages in California look really nice 
until you factor in all the costs of living there. Whereas here in my 
home state of Florida, population is going up at least in part because 
the cost of living & doing business here is comparatively lower than in 
some other states. (It doesn't hurt that we have all that sunshine, palm 
trees, tropical beaches and girls in bikinis either. ;-)

MDC

Luke A. Guest wrote:
> 
> Yes, but to live in London an employer must wake up and smell the coffee
> and pay *not* the going rate, but the *correct* rate, especially for the
> skills as well.
> 
> Luke.
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Well, I don't dispute that the GPL can be successfully used in 
developing and marketing a product. I simply dispute that it is the only 
"right" way to develop and market a product. I also dispute the notion 
that someone like RedHat didn't effectively get their engineering work 
done free of charge by a group of developers who released their work 
under the GPL.

Mind you, I don't fault RedHat for that. Linux was there under the GPL 
and RedHat didn't hold a gun to anyone's head and insist they give it to 
them free of charge. The guys who developed it can stare at RedHat's 
profit line and wish they had it, but they have nobody to blame but 
themselves. They voluntarily put up the "sweat equity" in RedHat and 
didn't get a single share of stock in return. That's their decision and 
they are the ones that have to live with it.

 From my perspective, I might make some software I wrote available to 
the rest of the world at no cost and in open source provided it was not 
used for some form of commercial gain (personal and internal-business 
use, not for resale). The minute someone wants to put it into a product 
and sell it, I want some piece of the action. I think that's basic 
justice and that's why I wouldn't release anything I wrote under the GPL 
- unless, possibly, there was a business case to be made as to why this 
particular piece of software would make me money if released under the GPL.

Dr. Leif and I disagree on some of the particulars of his ADCL, but we 
both wholeheartedly agree on the basic concept behind it - that if 
someone develops software that another party wants to use to make a 
profit, the developer ought to get something out of it. I can't and 
won't force that position on someone else, so if a developer wants to 
release his code under the GPL, that's his business. I just wouldn't do 
it myself and I wouldn't advise others to do it either unless there were 
particular circumstances that made it warranted. (Think about why the 
Grateful Dead allow bootleggers to record their live concerts and sell 
them without royalties to them. It promotes the band and helps them sell 
concert tickets as well as their studio albums without really cutting 
heavily into sales they might have had.)


MDC

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> No one (here, anyway) has said otherwise. Notice that GNAT/ACT has
> been purely GPL from inception, and nevertheless their developers
> are compensated for their work, so there is proof by existence that
> the GPL and getting paid can coincide. The same model should work
> in other circumstances. That is, you find someone who has a critical
> need for a software product that does not yet exist, and is therefore
> willing to pay for it, but also does not mind if the product is free
> software.
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Dmytry Lavrov]

Mark Lorenzen wrote:
> 
> "Luke A. Guest" <laguest@__n_o_s_p_a_m__abyss2.demon.co.uk> writes:
> 
> > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:08:01 +0200, Mark Lorenzen wrote:
> >
> > > If you want to wotk with something that is "done rigth", then learn a
> > > good craft. Software will always be hacked together due to time
> > > pressure and management incompetence.
> >
> > Ok, I really cannot believe that the embedded side would be that bad,
> > surely planes, cars, etc. wouldn't be safe.
> 
> When I am travelling on the Metro (read: "underground") train here in
> Copenhagen I always consider myself lucky, because I have never seen
> the bleeding entrails of the software. The Metro is a driver-less
> system, but still monitored by real humans. I guess that if I knew the
> software, then I would be too scared and take a bus instead.
> 
> I do not trust software - not even the software that I write myself.

ESPECIALLY the software where i know sources,and more especially if i
write it myself. ;-)

I know one system where programs _may_(and may not) contain REALLY no
bugs.
It's very old "ussr programmable calculator"(i played with one).There
was versions with i/o ports(digital and analog ports) specially for
realtime.
Why program for this "platform" may have no bugs:
there is about 90 instruction maximal programm length(!!!),separate
instructions and data,and only 12 floating-point registers(no other data
storage except registers),and one 4-floats double ended queve (one
register of this deq are showed on "screen").
And it's all what you need for small programs like controlling almost
any conveyor(with some hardware-based help,of course) ;))).It was coded
in assembler,but opcodes was "designed" to make code length smaller.
It's possible to solve Hanoi tower task on it,to calculate orbit of
satellite,control food-making mashines,etc.(it really have call by
reference!).

Almost any simple realtime control task can be solved (when simplified)
with set of calculators and some help from hardware.
Because there is no need to make flexible programs  with many user-set
options (when someone want to change something,it's simpler to reprogram
calculator from another card:max. 90 steps).

**

About metro("underground"): i don't know why safety so strongly depend
to programming here.Let's use simply hardware blocking(and it's very
simply to design it):when one train are on line,another train phisically
can't go this line(by hardware,on brakes that will set special swiches
on train,and will phisically make lower pressure in brakes system ).

When one train entering >- there is inpossible for another train to be
near it. WHY WE NEED FLEXIBLE PROGRAMS for safety..What,all old
technologies of solving tasks in hardware are lost?Or it's now are "too
expensive"?

Software can be used to control trains,but software should be blocked by
hardware when situation are dangerous.
As in old days when it's controlled by human if all ok, and by hardware
in dangerous situations,except that we SHOULD replace ONLY human by
software,and shouldn't replace hardware by soft even if it's "cheap".

Soft are flexible.Hardware are not. Safety shouldn't be flexible!,

but safety in soft are soft safety...

> 
> [snip]
> 
> > First, I DO NOT want to be a manager, too much bullshit and not enough
> > actual knowledge...pen pushing...no way!
> 
> This I fully understand. But when browsing the English job ads, I have
> noticed that there is a wage leap between an engineer and a
> manager. This is not the case here, where the transition is more
> gradual.
> 
> >
> > Secondly, there are jobs that pay that much and more, they're just don't
> > seem to be in this side of the industry.
> >
> > Thirdly, I really think that that kind of sum is reasonable for a software
> > developer, especially living in London. Nobody can expect to live on
> > anything less than бё35,000 in London, it's just a joke.
> >
> > Luke.
> 
> Right again. I even think that 35K GPB is in the "good end" of the
> scale. And London is so terribly expensive to live in....
> 
> - Mark

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Hyman Rosen]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> Well, I don't dispute that the GPL can be successfully used in 
> developing and marketing a product.

Good.

> I simply dispute that it is the only  "right" way to develop and
 > market a product.

Good, since it is not, except in the view of a very few people.

> I also dispute the notion that someone like RedHat didn't
 > effectively get their engineering work done free of charge
 > by a group of developers who released their work under the GPL.

That depends on what you consider RedHat's product to be.
I think that their product is the distribution - that is,
the rational assembly of the available GNU/Linux elements
into a system whereby it can be readily installed, updated,
and maintained, and also support for that distribution.

Under that point of view, they didn't get that much for free,
and built a lot for themselves. I find your point of view
similar to denigrating Ansel Adams because he had nothing to
do with creating the scenery which he photographed.

 > The guys who developed it can stare at RedHat's profit line
 > and wish they had it

RedHat is a struggling company, and their profit, when they
have it, is tenuous. Investors in RedHat have a significant
risk of losing a large part, or perhaps all, of their money.
RedHat makes money by providing support. Other people are
free to do the same.

The people behind BeOS followed your model. They kept their
code proprietary and closed, and attempted to profit off the
the fruits of their labor instead of giving it away. Now the
company is out of business and the software is dead.

> provided it was not used for some form of commercial gain

What you fail to see is that no one wants to be bothered with
this, trying to keep track of a myriad different licenses, and
trying to figure out what constitutes commercial gain, what
constitutes making bombs, and all the other idiosyncracies that
people toss into their licenses. Releasing under such a license
will get you just as ignored as if you did not release at all.

It's possible that things might be different if you released
some enormously useful piece of software under such a license
that people found so necessary that they would jump through
hoops to get it, but how many times doe sthat happen?

> if someone develops software that another party wants to use  to
 > make a profit, the developer ought to get something out of it.

And I say again that the logistics of trying to do this, especially
for products which are agglomerations of hundreds of such packages,
are so onerous that no distributor would bother incorporating any
but the most important ones.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Marin David Condic wrote:

> I also dispute the notion that someone like RedHat didn't effectively
> get their engineering work done free of charge by a group of
> developers who released their work under the GPL.

Well RedHat has released their products under GPL. They financed the GTK
development f.ex. Owen Taylor is an employee of RedHat. Of course that
is not the only product. So RedHat is far from any kind of parasite.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Colin Paul Gloster]

Luke A. Guest wrote:
"On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:08:01 +0200, Mark Lorenzen wrote:

> If you want to wotk with something that is "done rigth", then learn a
> good craft. Software will always be hacked together due to time
> pressure and management incompetence.

Ok, I really cannot believe that the embedded side would be that bad,
surely planes, cars, etc. wouldn't be safe.

[..]"

Things can be that bad in some companies.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

rleif wrote:
> This is the typical argument for GPL, which I totally reject. By any
> economic standard, the developers were defrauded of the fruits of their
> labor.

No, just that the fruits /= money.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

rleif wrote:
> Since the use of commercial C++ software drivers for my instruments has
> provided a week of suffering that has made me particularly testy, I will
> also note the GPL is one of the causes of ACT's extremely bi-level pricing
> policy, free or very expensive. 

No, it is because they offer two different products. 

   1. Compiler 
   2. Compiler + support.

I think that the era of producing crappy software and charge money for
it without giving any support nor assurance is fading.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Vinzent Hoefler]

Colin Paul Gloster wrote:

>Ok, I really cannot believe that the embedded side would be that bad,
>surely planes, cars, etc. wouldn't be safe.

Well, are they?

<URL:http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200301/msg00180.html>:

|Auto industry expert Dennis Virag, president of the Automotive
|Consulting Group Inc., says the problem is not customer ignorance,
|but industry carelessness. In the race to add glitzy amenities like
|navigation, Virag says, auto manufacturers are contracting out the
|development of immature and faulty software. "The auto industry is
|highly regulated, and these are not mission-critical systems," he
|says. "But companies like Microsoft can't do to the auto industry
|what they did to the PC industry. You can't play Russian Roulette
|every time you stick the key into the ignition."

"These are not mission-critical systems." Oh well.


Vinzent.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Vinzent Hoefler]

Preben Randhol wrote:

>I think that the era of producing crappy software and charge money for
>it without giving any support nor assurance is fading.

I would hope that. But seen realistically, I really doubt that will
ever be the case.


Vinzent.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
>>I think that the era of producing crappy software and charge money for
>>it without giving any support nor assurance is fading.
> 
> I would hope that. But seen realistically, I really doubt that will
> ever be the case.

I mean support will be a more important source of revenue than the
software itself. But of course it depends on the product, market etc...

I see much of the open-source software like a magician who reveals old
tricks in order to force the magicians to invent new better tricks.

Seeing a lady "sawn" is as interesting as yawning is.

On the other hand producing crappy Open-Source software without support
is still possible :-)

mvh
Preben
-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Colin Paul Gloster]

"> If you are interested in European jobs then the chances get much better.
> The European Space Agency is a big Ada user, as are railway
> manufacturing companies.

Pity their website has NO jobs on it, I looked previously."

What does a website have to do with anything? ESA uses Ada and ESA hires
people to work for it.

You have to understand that people have better things to be doing than
managing websites. They're old but still useful:
HTTP://ListServ.ACM.org/archives/wa.cgi?A2=ind0112&L=team-ada&P=R1354
and
HTTP://WWW.ESTEC.ESA.NL/wmwww/EME/Ravenscar_Evaluation/
and
HTTP://WWW.ESTEC.ESA.NL/wmwww/EME/compilers/language.htm

If you wish to have more advice about who uses Ada in ESA before applying,
you may contact me privately.

Good luck.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Vinzent Hoefler]

Preben Randhol wrote:

>Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
>> Preben Randhol wrote:
>> 
>>>I think that the era of producing crappy software and charge money for
>>>it without giving any support nor assurance is fading.
>> 
>> I would hope that. But seen realistically, I really doubt that will
>> ever be the case.
>
>I mean support will be a more important source of revenue than the
>software itself.

In manager speech: The software has to have bugs to support then. ;)

And managers BTW are a strange sort of human beings. They rather spend
a lot of money on crappy commercial systems, just *because* they cost
money.

>But of course it depends on the product, market etc...

Yes, definitely. Some kind of of software will always need support.
But I doubt that this is a very large quantity of existing software.
I mean a lot of people get around with some man pages. You don't pay
ACT for support, do you? ;)

But let's talk about embedded systems, there the user usually never
really comes in contact with the software until it fails (like our
coffee machines here... "Out of Order" *reboot*, ... "R 6", "M D B",
"Serial COMM failed" *reboot* ... whatever this means, it looks
interesting at last). So what would you like to support there? If it
doesn't work, it's just plain simply broken. That's not support,
that's guarantee and it will *cost* you money to fix it.

(And sometimes this can become quite a lot of money you will lose...,
the previous bug[0] allowed us to get coffee for free. Did I already
mention that I am sometimes a very big bastard?). So if they would
have invested a little bit more money (or preferably: time) into their
software development..., but they didn't do it. Why? Time to market?

>I see much of the open-source software like a magician who reveals old
>tricks in order to force the magicians to invent new better tricks.

And what have we gained from that so far? You still don't trust a x.0
version, do you?

>On the other hand producing crappy Open-Source software without support
>is still possible :-)

Whenever something is possible, it will be done. ;->


Vinzent.

[0] I would bet a 100 bucks it's written in C. ;)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Colin Paul Gloster]

Hyman Rosen wrote in response to things Rob Leif said:

"[..]  
> the GPL is one of the causes of ACT's extremely bi-level pricing
> policy, free or very expensive. In order for Ada to be truly COTS,
> she desperately needs products with PC type pricing.

Really? First of all, "PC-type pricing" for compilers is now going for
around US$1000 per seat. Have you looked the prices for a Microsoft
development system lately? And do you think that gets you live human
support for your problems? Employing people to answer questions and
help with development is enormously expensive. My wife owns a software
company which provides such handholding for its clients. She leases the
software for over $2000 per seat *per month*.

The ACT model is wonderful. Companies who really need the support and can
pay the freight defray the costs for having a high-quality implementation
of Ada available to everyone for free. [..]
  
[..]
  
There's also the fact that the wide platform availability of GNAT comes
"free" as a result of being based on the existing GPLed gcc back end, and
that the original development of GNAT was paid for through tax dollars.

[..]"

ACT received taxes to assist in the porting of GNAT for SPARC to ORK
(which targets a SPARC). ORK is buggy.
  
"[..]

And note that ACT does not just use the GPL, they take special pains to make
public versions available so that people can use their free version easily,
even though they are under no obligation to do so.

[..]"

This is a nice gesture.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Colin Paul Gloster]

Rob Leif confused Colin Paul Gloster with:

"[..] The added benefit
is that because of ASIS, Ada is by far the best language for profitable
cooperative software development. [..]"

Sorry, why?

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Vinzent Hoefler wrote:

> And what have we gained from that so far? You still don't trust a x.0
> version, do you?

Well, WPs that crash as much as the commercial once, but are gratis ;-)


-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Ed Falis]

On 12 Aug 2003 16:14:02 GMT
Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org (Colin Paul Gloster) wrote:

> Hyman Rosen wrote in response to things Rob Leif said:
> 
> "[..]  
> > the GPL is one of the causes of ACT's extremely bi-level pricing
> > policy, free or very expensive. In order for Ada to be truly COTS,
> > she desperately needs products with PC type pricing.
> 
Aonix, for whom I worked for many years, tried exactly that (several
ways and times) - Microsoft style pricing with something a bit better
than Microsoft-style support.

The existing Ada market wanted support equivalent to what they'd get for
$10K a year per copy.  The potential Ada market didn't see any
differentiators (and ObjectAda on Windows was pretty full-up as a
development system).

Needless to say, Aonix did not make a lot of bucks for our efforts.

- Ed

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[FJ de Bruin]

"Luke A. Guest" <laguest@__n_o_s_p_a_m__abyss2.demon.co.uk> wrote in 
news:pan.2003.08.08.23.37.10.15727@__n_o_s_p_a_m__abyss2.demon.co.uk:
> 
> Pity their website has NO jobs on it, I looked previously.
> 
I am not sure what you mean with 'no jobs on it', but if you want to see 
the vacancies, go to http://www.esa.int/hr/index.htm.

If you want a job that is related to software engineering and Ada, your 
best bet is with the Agency's research center ESTEC.

However, if you want to actively work with Ada, ESA might not be the best 
option. Most of the work is contracted out and very little software 
engineering hands-on work is carried out at ESA itself. So your better 
apply with companies that do contracts for ESA.

Note that also in the European Space industry there appears to be a shift 
away from Ada.


Frank de Bruin

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Luke A. Guest]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:34:04 -0400, Marin David Condic wrote:

> Well, I don't dispute that the GPL can be successfully used in 
> developing and marketing a product. I simply dispute that it is the only 
> "right" way to develop and market a product. I also dispute the notion 
> that someone like RedHat didn't effectively get their engineering work 
> done free of charge by a group of developers who released their work 
> under the GPL.

Open source software only happened because of companies like M$ stealing
all of the market with shoddy software and not letting anyone else get any
way in unless you work for them.

GPL is not the only way to develop software, but, it is the only way to
develop software that can get into the market. Simple as that.

When M$ is dead, OSS will no longer need to exist and probably won't.

Luke.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Hyman Rosen]

Luke A. Guest wrote:
> Open source software only happened because of companies like M$ stealing
> all of the market with shoddy software and not letting anyone else get any
> way in unless you work for them.

It happened because Richard Stallman wanted to change a printer driver
and couldn't. MS software isn't at all shoddy. It's just that certain
people are tinkerers, and get frustrated when they can't.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Wesley Groleau]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> and couldn't. MS software isn't at all shoddy. It's just that certain

I think you meant "MS software isn't all shoddy"
to which I would reply, "No, not all, only most."

-- 
Wes Troll, Oh!

RE: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Robert C. Leif]

Again, there is this utter confusion concerning release of the sources to
the customers, users, whatever; and charging for one's intellectual
property. These two subjects should NOT be linked! I still believe that even
Karl Marx ever foresaw the workers receiving an absolutely miniscule share
of the proceeds from the sale of the product.
 
Even though my profession (scientist) was started by medieval monks, I am
against poverty, chastity and obedience.

Bob Leif  

Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
Email rleif@rleif.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Hyman Rosen [mailto:hyrosen@mail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 6:48 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

Marin David Condic wrote:
> Well, I don't dispute that the GPL can be successfully used in 
> developing and marketing a product.

Good.

> I simply dispute that it is the only  "right" way to develop and
 > market a product.

Good, since it is not, except in the view of a very few people.

> I also dispute the notion that someone like RedHat didn't
 > effectively get their engineering work done free of charge
 > by a group of developers who released their work under the GPL.

That depends on what you consider RedHat's product to be.
I think that their product is the distribution - that is,
the rational assembly of the available GNU/Linux elements
into a system whereby it can be readily installed, updated,
and maintained, and also support for that distribution.

Under that point of view, they didn't get that much for free,
and built a lot for themselves. I find your point of view
similar to denigrating Ansel Adams because he had nothing to
do with creating the scenery which he photographed.

 > The guys who developed it can stare at RedHat's profit line
 > and wish they had it

RedHat is a struggling company, and their profit, when they
have it, is tenuous. Investors in RedHat have a significant
risk of losing a large part, or perhaps all, of their money.
RedHat makes money by providing support. Other people are
free to do the same.

The people behind BeOS followed your model. They kept their
code proprietary and closed, and attempted to profit off the
the fruits of their labor instead of giving it away. Now the
company is out of business and the software is dead.

> provided it was not used for some form of commercial gain

What you fail to see is that no one wants to be bothered with
this, trying to keep track of a myriad different licenses, and
trying to figure out what constitutes commercial gain, what
constitutes making bombs, and all the other idiosyncracies that
people toss into their licenses. Releasing under such a license
will get you just as ignored as if you did not release at all.

It's possible that things might be different if you released
some enormously useful piece of software under such a license
that people found so necessary that they would jump through
hoops to get it, but how many times doe sthat happen?

> if someone develops software that another party wants to use  to
 > make a profit, the developer ought to get something out of it.

And I say again that the logistics of trying to do this, especially
for products which are agglomerations of hundreds of such packages,
are so onerous that no distributor would bother incorporating any
but the most important ones.

RE: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Robert C. Leif]

Because ASIS provides the functionality to determine the actual contribution
of individual packages to the linked code. Imagined scenario: I supply you
with a one million line library and you use 100 lines of the code in a
commercial project. (The metric is unimportant). Do you pay me for the one
million or 100 lines? ASIS provides the technology to have you just pay me
for the 100 lines without both of our lawyers negotiating the deal and
eating up most of the profits. Variations on this would be payment for the
100 lines and a small fee for the capacity to use the entire library.
If we can create a rational, efficient market for Ada components, we might
still be able to compete. In fact, I believe that we could grab the markets.
Bob

Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
Email rleif@rleif.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Paul Gloster [mailto:Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 9:18 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

Rob Leif confused Colin Paul Gloster with:

"[..] The added benefit
is that because of ASIS, Ada is by far the best language for profitable
cooperative software development. [..]"

Sorry, why?

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Luke A. Guest wrote:
> 
> Open source software only happened because of companies like M$ stealing
> all of the market with shoddy software and not letting anyone else get any
> way in unless you work for them.
> 
> GPL is not the only way to develop software, but, it is the only way to
> develop software that can get into the market. Simple as that.
> 
> When M$ is dead, OSS will no longer need to exist and probably won't.

No. This is not true.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> It happened because Richard Stallman wanted to change a printer driver
> and couldn't. MS software isn't at all shoddy. It's just that certain


Oh it isn't? So how come every time I use Windows Update to fix security
issues in XP I get some other kind of problems with the machine? Last
was that the sound card stoppped working. Why is it that when I search
for a file on the system it slows down to almost an halt? etc...

> people are tinkerers, and get frustrated when they can't.

No, it is also because Windows is bloody user unfriendly and one wants to
do it a better way.


-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Robert C. Leif wrote:
> Again, there is this utter confusion concerning release of the sources to
> the customers, users, whatever; and charging for one's intellectual
> property. These two subjects should NOT be linked! I still believe that even
> Karl Marx ever foresaw the workers receiving an absolutely miniscule share
> of the proceeds from the sale of the product.

Why do you keep linking Open Source and Karl Marx?

> Even though my profession (scientist) was started by medieval monks, I am
> against poverty, chastity and obedience.

But are you for that all scientific research should be closed? That one
should not publish the finding so others can also benifit from them and
bringing science a step ahead? Because it sound like it.


-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Vinzent Hoefler]

Preben Randhol wrote:

>Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
>
>> And what have we gained from that so far? You still don't trust a x.0
>> version, do you?
>
>Well, WPs that crash as much as the commercial once, but are gratis ;-)

Well, that's surely an advantage. ;)


Vinzent.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
>>Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
>>
>>> And what have we gained from that so far? You still don't trust a x.0
>>> version, do you?
>>
>>Well, WPs that crash as much as the commercial once, but are gratis ;-)
> 
> Well, that's surely an advantage. ;)

Seriously. The gain of Open Source developments is that I can make
programs/tools in my spare time that I myself and many more may benifit
from. It also makes the machines usable to a great deal more people as
they can afford to buy the hardware, but might not afford to fork out
several hundred/thousand $ for crappy software. Especially third world.

But another very important benifit is that the format of your files is
not closed. You keep you information in a way that can easily be used in
other programs in the future and you are not dependant on *one* company.

It is quite scary to think that if you get only Microsoft computers,
mobiles, game consoles, gadgets etc... they would get an enormous power.

Another gain is security. It is not for nothing that Microsoft have to
show their source code to governments around the world. There is no
trick in putting in spyware in a close source Microsoft Windows OS.

mvh
Preben
-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Vinzent Hoefler]

Preben Randhol wrote:

>Seriously. The gain of Open Source developments is that I can make
>programs/tools in my spare time that I myself and many more may benifit
>from.

Well, that's not quite it (only a part of it). Free software in the
sense of public domain and freeware existed. This has nothing to do
with Open Source in general.

Robert Dewar's Keynote Presentation from the SIGAda2002 is now online
(well, ironically in Microsoft Power Point format):
<URL:http://info.acm.org/sigada/conf/sigada2002/SIGAda2002-CDROM/SIGAda2002-Proceedings/Dewar-Keynote.pps>

You might find it worth reading it.

>But another very important benifit is that the format of your files is
>not closed. You keep you information in a way that can easily be used in
>other programs in the future and you are not dependant on *one* company.

ACK.

>Another gain is security. It is not for nothing that Microsoft have to
>show their source code to governments around the world. There is no
>trick in putting in spyware in a close source Microsoft Windows OS.

And another gain is: If Microsoft ever gets out of business, we don't
have Windows anymore, because it is closed source. :->

Still, open or closed source doesn't make software more or less
robust. But with open source at least you might be able to fix it
faster. :)


Vinzent.

-- 
Parents strongly cautioned  --  this  posting  is  intended for mature
audiences  over  18.  It  may  contain some material that many parents
would not find suitable for children and may include intense violence,
sexual situations, coarse language and suggestive dialogue.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
>>Seriously. The gain of Open Source developments is that I can make
>>programs/tools in my spare time that I myself and many more may benifit
>>from.
> 
> Well, that's not quite it (only a part of it). Free software in the
> sense of public domain and freeware existed. This has nothing to do
> with Open Source in general.

No, Freeware is *not* free. 

> Still, open or closed source doesn't make software more or less
> robust. But with open source at least you might be able to fix it
> faster. :)

Not only that, you are able to inspect the code before using it. And,
with Open Source you cannot try to do "Security through Obscurity".


-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

RE: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <mailman.7.1060747174.299.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>, "Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> writes:

> Even though my profession (scientist) was started by medieval monks, I am
> against poverty, chastity and obedience.

You are against chastity ?

Even between consenting adults ? :-)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
>>Seriously. The gain of Open Source developments is that I can make
>>programs/tools in my spare time that I myself and many more may benifit
>>from.
> 
> Well, that's not quite it (only a part of it). Free software in the
> sense of public domain and freeware existed. This has nothing to do
> with Open Source in general.
> 
> Robert Dewar's Keynote Presentation from the SIGAda2002 is now online
> (well, ironically in Microsoft Power Point format):
><URL:http://info.acm.org/sigada/conf/sigada2002/SIGAda2002-CDROM/SIGAda2002-Proceedings/Dewar-Keynote.pps>

Yes I agree with Dewar. Open Source software is not necessarily Free
software, but Free Software is Open Source.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Vinzent Hoefler]

Preben Randhol wrote:

>Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
>> Preben Randhol wrote:
>> 
>> Well, that's not quite it (only a part of it). Free software in the
>> sense of public domain and freeware existed. This has nothing to do
>> with Open Source in general.
>
>No, Freeware is *not* free.

Depends on the viewpoint. "Free" as in "free beer" not as in "free
speech". :)

That's why I said, it has nothing to do with open source.

>Not only that, you are able to inspect the code before using it. And,
>with Open Source you cannot try to do "Security through Obscurity".

Strong ACK.


Vinzent.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Georg Bauhaus]

Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote:

: them free of charge. The guys who developed it can stare at RedHat's 
: profit line and wish they had it, but they have nobody to blame but 
: themselves.

It might seem surprising, however, there are people who do not
just look at profit lines. They have different sets of rules
which make them decide that their efforts have or have not been
in vain.

: They voluntarily put up the "sweat equity" in RedHat and 
: didn't get a single share of stock in return. That's their decision and 
: they are the ones that have to live with it.

Interesting questions, to be answered empirically, not by
implying world views, are,
- "Do they feel like they have to live with some loss?"
- "Do they feel just happy?"
- "Is the return higher/lower than expected, in their view?"
- ...

(As for sample data, Bruce Perens' "no return" hobby project was orbitting
in space which seems to have given him more satisfaction than celebrating
some SGI graphics software.)


: The minute someone wants to put it into a product 
: and sell it, I want some piece of the action.

Among humans, that may or may not have something to do with the
license. You can always ask users of your software for compensation.
Some authors of GPLed software do. Some do actually receive money
or other opportunities in return for giving away free software.
Some did, but don't any longer like the author of lcc.

: I think that's basic 
: justice and that's why I wouldn't release anything I wrote under the GPL 
: - unless, possibly, there was a business case to be made as to why this 
: particular piece of software would make me money if released under the GPL.

Can I assume that you consider this a rare opportunity?  Any
figures? If the share of commercially working GPLed products is
shrinking, this might be interpreted to mean that the view that it
won't work (commercially) is turning into a selffulfilling prophecy,
by the usual social mechanisms. And it doesn't matter then that
the interpretation might be wrong.

: Dr. Leif and I disagree on some of the particulars of his ADCL, but we 
: both wholeheartedly agree on the basic concept behind it - that if 
: someone develops software that another party wants to use to make a 
: profit, the developer ought to get something out of it.

If turned into an evil analogy, you will then be mobsters ;-)


Georg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> Depends on the viewpoint. "Free" as in "free beer" not as in "free
> speech". :)
> 
> That's why I said, it has nothing to do with open source.

Free Software is defined (on the net) as Free Speech software (from the FSF
definition).

Gratis Software is something else :-)

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
 >
 > That depends on what you consider RedHat's product to be. I think
 > that their product is the distribution - that is, the rational
 > assembly of the available GNU/Linux elements into a system whereby it
 >  can be readily installed, updated, and maintained, and also support
 > for that distribution.
 >
O.K. O I suppose it is all right for me to assemble various digital
recordings from the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Who, et alia and
come out with my own "Remember the 70's" Rock Anthology album and sell
it wherever I can. I'm providing the *exact* same "service" that RedHat
does and I owe nothing to the original artists? I got nothing of any
real value from them because its all about the packaging and
distribution? I think there would be people who would disagree with that
position. And they'd have lawyers and district attorneys behind them too.



 >
 > RedHat is a struggling company, and their profit, when they have it,
 > is tenuous.

Making a profit or not still does not alter my original claim that
RedHat got their R&D done for them free of charge. There is more to
making a profit than just R&D costs. Companies succeed or fail for all
sorts of reasons. But in starting up a new venture, that initial product
development cost is a very significant contribution to the venture.
RedHat didn't spend any of their own money building that initial
product. The developers who wrote it were the ones who funded that part
of the venture and didn't get a single share in RedHat (or any of the
other companies out there that package and sell Linux)

 >
 > The people behind BeOS followed your model. They kept their code
 > proprietary and closed, and attempted to profit off the the fruits of
 >  their labor instead of giving it away. Now the company is out of
 > business and the software is dead.
 >
Now you are misinterpreting "my model". I never said that my model had
anything to do with "proprietary" or "closed". To the extent that I have
a model, it would go like this: You can have this software in source
form and use it and modify it and share it with your friends all day
long. And I won't even *force* you to adopt my model if you decide to
build some of your own software on top of my software. Your part of the
software can be as proprietary and closed as you like. You just can't
sell it in a product or bundle it with a "service" or whatever
circumstance has my software adding value to your for-profit venture. If
you wish to do so, come see me and we'll talk turkey about how much
you'll pay me to get the right to incorporate my stuff in a for-profit
venture.

Oh, yes. I nearly forgot. Microsoft followed the model you outlined (not
mine - the proprietary and closed model) and last I checked they had
money coming out of their ... ears. Seems like that model *can* be the
right one in at least some cases.



 >
 > What you fail to see is that no one wants to be bothered with this,
 > trying to keep track of a myriad different licenses, and trying to
 > figure out what constitutes commercial gain, what constitutes making
 > bombs, and all the other idiosyncracies that people toss into their
 > licenses. Releasing under such a license will get you just as ignored
 >  as if you did not release at all.
 >
99.9% of all "open source" software out there gets ignored by commercial
efforts. (And 86% of the people who quote statistics make them up as
they go along. ;-) I also never said that companies want to deal with a
few thousand different developers or different licenses. And I think
that if you actually considered the idea as a possibility rather than
dismiss it out of hand, you might be
able to imagine a large number of ways in which it could be practical.
When you buy a book - say a dictionary that had a large number of
contributors - did you have to deal with each one to get the right to
use that book? When you listen to the radio, did you have to personally
get permission from each songwriter to use that music? Systems have been
set up to distribute copyrighted material and compensate authors that
don't leave individuals or companies having to cut a thousand deals to
use some product.



 > It's possible that things might be different if you released some
 > enormously useful piece of software under such a license that people
 > found so necessary that they would jump through hoops to get it, but
 > how many times doe sthat happen?
 >
In reality - about as often as it happens with GPLed material. Let's be
realistic here. Most of the stuff that gets released under the GPL is
really not all that special or wonderful that someone is going to pay
$$$ to get it - or even bother to use it at all. Even if it was
moderately useful, companies may look at
the GPL and not want to infect their own code with it and say "The R&D
cost to build my own unit isn't that huge, so why should I use a GPLed
unit?"

In this respect, Dr. Leif's scheme of counting code and having a
repository could be useful. It is not unlike ASCAP - pay for what you
want to use commercially and the authors get compensated through the
clearinghouse. Or it could be done through what would effectively amount
to a publishing house - buy the copyrights from the authors for some
nominal fee and pay them a royalty based on sales. In any event, you
have a point about jumping through hoops. If the effort level for the
user gets too high or the cost becomes too much, they abandon that path
and develop their own. Hence whatever scheme got adopted, it needs to be
simple and inexpensive.


 >
 > And I say again that the logistics of trying to do this, especially
 > for products which are agglomerations of hundreds of such packages,
 > are so onerous that no distributor would bother incorporating any but
 >  the most important ones.
 >
And I'll say again, Amen. And it isn't any different for GPLed code. And
once again, I'll say that a solution does exist. Your presumption is
that the model for constructing software is to have hundreds or
thousands of developers each adding little bits and pieces in a totally
uncoordinated way and someone then goes and assembles the whole
conglomerate into a product. Since it is obvious that not all software
is built this way, I'll suggest that other models might be used to
construct useful products and/or distribute them. Not all software has
much monetary value and the GPL is a fine enough way to distribute it.
If you think that what you wrote *might* have some marketable potential,
you might want to try a different model.

MDC
-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

I never said "parasite" did I? I said they got their R&D work done for 
free by a bunch of guys who voluntarily gave it away. I never disparaged 
RedHat and I don't say that they did anything wrong. The guys who wrote 
Linux put it out there under the GPL and RedHat simply took advantage of 
what was freely available. Perhaps the Linux authors *like* working for 
free and doing charity work for struggling young capitalists. That is 
their right. Viewed from that perspective, it might even have a certain 
nobility to it. But it sure didn't get them compensated for doing the 
R&D work that spawned a whole industry, did it?

MDC


Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
> Well RedHat has released their products under GPL. They financed the GTK
> development f.ex. Owen Taylor is an employee of RedHat. Of course that
> is not the only product. So RedHat is far from any kind of parasite.
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Micro$oft can't "steal" the market - the market has to be seduced. And 
last time I checked, Micro$oft was not the *only* company selling 
software, so obviously other players are able to get in. Hence, this 
also disproves the claim that the GPL is the *only* way to get into the 
market.

I think it would be more productive to look at what made Micro$oft a 
success and learn their strengths and weaknesses if your aim is to kill 
Micro$oft. If you really want them to go away, you'll have to become a 
good, skilled, knowledgable capitalist to do it. GPL won't kill 
Micro$oft. They'll adapt. Thats what businessmen do. You can't stop the 
game - just change the rules.

MDC

Luke A. Guest wrote:
> 
> 
> Open source software only happened because of companies like M$ stealing
> all of the market with shoddy software and not letting anyone else get any
> way in unless you work for them.
> 
> GPL is not the only way to develop software, but, it is the only way to
> develop software that can get into the market. Simple as that.
> 
> When M$ is dead, OSS will no longer need to exist and probably won't.
> 
> Luke.
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Frank J. Lhota]

"Larry Kilgallen" <Kilgallen@SpamCop.net> wrote in message
news:FJsNLcl65ZmO@eisner.encompasserve.org...
> In article <mailman.7.1060747174.299.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>, "Robert C.
Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> writes:
>
> > Even though my profession (scientist) was started by medieval monks, I
am
> > against poverty, chastity and obedience.
>
> You are against chastity ?
>
> Even between consenting adults ? :-)

Yes, I believe that chastity should be limited to non-consenting adults.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

"Shoddy" or not, Micro$oft must be making *something* that the market 
likes or they wouldn't be as successful as they are. Hence, it pays to 
ask "What does Micro$oft provide to the distributors and consumers of 
its products that make it so successful?" Answer that question and it 
will provide a guide for those who would compete with them.

MDC


Wesley Groleau wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
>> and couldn't. MS software isn't at all shoddy. It's just that certain
> 
> 
> I think you meant "MS software isn't all shoddy"
> to which I would reply, "No, not all, only most."
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Probably, more accurately, they were not "defrauded" of anything. They 
voluntarily gave up rights to something that had potential value. When 
the actual value was realized (and who is going to dispute that there is 
"value" in Linux?) they were out in the cold by their own doing. Nobody 
put a gun to their head and made them do it. If they were "defrauded" at 
all, it was possibly in being "seduced" by the anti-capitalist rhetoric 
that occasionally surrounds the GPL and its more ardent adherents.

MDC

Preben Randhol wrote:
> rleif wrote:
> 
>>This is the typical argument for GPL, which I totally reject. By any
>>economic standard, the developers were defrauded of the fruits of their
>>labor.
> 
> 
> No, just that the fruits /= money.
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> O.K. O I suppose it is all right for me to assemble various digital
> recordings from the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Who, et alia and
> come out with my own "Remember the 70's" Rock Anthology album and sell
> it wherever I can. I'm providing the *exact* same "service" that RedHat
> does and I owe nothing to the original artists? I got nothing of any
> real value from them because its all about the packaging and
> distribution? I think there would be people who would disagree with that
> position. And they'd have lawyers and district attorneys behind them too.

When did RedHat distribute non Free software? I really don't understand
where you are going with this.


-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
 >
 > Interesting questions, to be answered empirically, not by implying
 > world views, are, - "Do they feel like they have to live with some
 > loss?" - "Do they feel just happy?" - "Is the return higher/lower
 > than expected, in their view?" - ...
 >

I cannot possibly testify as to how another human being "feels" about
anything.

Let me be *REALLY* clear about this: There are FAR more important things
in life than simply making money. I do *LOTS* of things - including
charity - that vastly exceed in importance the making of money.

That said, let me now clarify: I write software for a living. That's how
I pay the bills. I trade my labor in exchange for fungible assets and
everyone wins. Hence, I have a tendency to not want to work for free so
that some other party can make money from my labor. That is a kind of
"charity" to capitalists that I don't feel the need to make. If I'm 
going to work for free, perhaps there are more deserving recipients of 
my charity than RedHat?


 >
 > If turned into an evil analogy, you will then be mobsters ;-)
 >
I have no idea what you mean here. I regularly develop software and am
compensated for doing so. I give software to my employer and he gives me 
a paycheck. How is this in any way "evil"? How does this make me a 
"mobster"? What would you call it if I gave my labor to my employer and 
he gave me nothing in return? Theft? Fraud? Slavery? Don't those terms 
denote something far more "evil" than "Free Trade"?

MDC

-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

I don't get the connection between getting paid for developing software 
and "closed" software that nobody can look at, read, study, learn from 
or modify. Where do you see that?

MDC

Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
> But are you for that all scientific research should be closed? That one
> should not publish the finding so others can also benifit from them and
> bringing science a step ahead? Because it sound like it.
> 
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

I never said they distributed non-free software. I disputed the notion 
that there was little to no value in the "free" software they got 
because most of their business is in the packaging and distribution of 
the software.

Recording artists give up the copyrights to their material to companies 
that package and distribute it. They get hefty checks in return. The 
bulk of the cost is in the packaging and distribution, but does that 
mean that what the recording artist produced is of little-to-no consequence?

MDC

Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
> When did RedHat distribute non Free software? I really don't understand
> where you are going with this.
> 
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> I never said "parasite" did I? I said they got their R&D work done for 
> free by a bunch of guys who voluntarily gave it away. I never disparaged 
> RedHat and I don't say that they did anything wrong. The guys who wrote 
> Linux put it out there under the GPL and RedHat simply took advantage of 
> what was freely available. 

It almost sounds like RedHat is the only company out there doing this.

> Perhaps the Linux authors *like* working for free and doing charity
> work for struggling young capitalists. 

Your mind is set on that programming is always work. I would say that in
stead of playing soccer or cruising around in cars or chasing girls at
the shopping malls or other activity, they program on their spare time
and contribute to the Linux out of interest. As to making money on
programming for Linux, RedHat, SUSE etc.. have people employed that work
solely on Linux. E.g. Alan Cox is working at RedHat. Thorvalds Linus was
working at Transmeta and they gave him time to work at Linux too.  Bruce
Peren worked at HP etc...

> That is their right. Viewed from that perspective, it might even have
> a certain nobility to it.  But it sure didn't get them compensated for
> doing the R&D work that spawned a whole industry, did it?

But they are not asking for that. As somebody once wrote in the
announcement of a piece of software (quote from my memory so it is not
exact in words):

   "I have gotten so many excellent tools and programs that it is time I
    contribute something myself."

I remember when I was young and doing athletics, the parents came and
helped arrange competitions and other events. They didn't ask to be
reimbursed if some of us won a medal. I guess the first trainer of the
Olympic winners don't expect to get money for helping the athlete
building the foundation of his career?

It is a dangerous to think that money is the only means of trade.

Anyway, the advantage and probably the future of RedHat and others lie
in support and security. There are many Linux distributions out there
and a lot of software. So packaging and inspecting the code is something
I think will be the main tasks for RedHat, SUSE and other companies in
the future. One company like this is the Norwegian company 

Trustix => http://www.trustix.net/ or http://www.trustix.com/

which makes secure Linux distributions. I think this is the future.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> "Shoddy" or not, Micro$oft must be making *something* that the market 
> likes or they wouldn't be as successful as they are. 

Yes a good marketing divition. Besides they have done everything one can
to either buy competitors or to implement protocols etc. in a non
standard way so that it does not work well with other platforms. Besides
the extreme cost of entering the OS market.

> Hence, it pays to ask "What does Micro$oft provide to the distributors
> and consumers of its products that make it so successful?" Answer that
> question and it will provide a guide for those who would compete with
> them.

Nothing. Resistance is Futile. The only reason Linux is still around an
gaining is because it *cannot* be bought.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> Probably, more accurately, they were not "defrauded" of anything. They 
> voluntarily gave up rights to something that had potential value. When 

No, they still have their copyrights.

> the actual value was realized (and who is going to dispute that there is 
> "value" in Linux?) they were out in the cold by their own doing. Nobody 
> put a gun to their head and made them do it. If they were "defrauded" at 
> all, it was possibly in being "seduced" by the anti-capitalist rhetoric 
> that occasionally surrounds the GPL and its more ardent adherents.

You percieve the thousands of contribiutors as *one* thinking being. It
is more a for of reverse "collective irrasjonality"[*]. But the
development of Linux is far from over and thousands of voluntareers are
still working on it.

[*] in the meaning "collective rasjonality".

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> I never said they distributed non-free software. I disputed the notion 
> that there was little to no value in the "free" software they got 
> because most of their business is in the packaging and distribution of 
> the software.
> 
> Recording artists give up the copyrights to their material to companies 
> that package and distribute it. They get hefty checks in return. The 
> bulk of the cost is in the packaging and distribution, but does that 
> mean that what the recording artist produced is of little-to-no consequence?

Hmm, I thought you meant to say that you could steal the works of the
artist and repackage and distribute it. That would break the license.


-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> That said, let me now clarify: I write software for a living. That's how
> I pay the bills. I trade my labor in exchange for fungible assets and
> everyone wins. Hence, I have a tendency to not want to work for free so
> that some other party can make money from my labor. That is a kind of
> "charity" to capitalists that I don't feel the need to make. If I'm 
> going to work for free, perhaps there are more deserving recipients of 
> my charity than RedHat?

Well me for instance. Not that I need charity, but I and thousands other
normal people benifit from what you might want to make in your spare
time and publish. At any rate if I wanted to install RedHat on my
computer I need not pay for it. The benifits of RedHat and other
companies is that they help improve Linux.


-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Marin David Condic wrote:

> I don't get the connection between getting paid for developing
> software and "closed" software that nobody can look at, read, study,
> learn from or modify. Where do you see that?

One does not get paied for doing research? One doesn't publish the
results?

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Vinzent Hoefler]

Marin David Condic wrote:

>O.K. O I suppose it is all right for me to assemble various digital
>recordings from the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Who, et alia and
>come out with my own "Remember the 70's" Rock Anthology album and sell
>it wherever I can.

Did the bands your talking about release their music under the GPL?
Said, it's free to use and distribute? I don't think so.
BTW, it seems you have a good taste in music. ;)

>I'm providing the *exact* same "service" that RedHat
>does and I owe nothing to the original artists?

Exactly that *would* be the case.

BTW, <URL:http://sensoryresearch.com/~starkeff/beatallica.html>:

|One more thing.. we now have a copyright notice on the webpage (at the
|very end). This does not mean that you can't download the songs for
|free. Download all you want! Burn CD-R's for your friends! Just don't
|sell them, OK?

So these people didn't release their music under the GPL, but it's
still free.


Vinzent.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Stephane Richard]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4426 bytes --]

I see that there's a good debate towards how and what should be
comemrcialised, why, and the rest of the 5 W's :-)....in the meantime,
anyone actually developping something that is a viable commercial OTS
solution?  Or are we all debating but no one's creating? :-)....

This thread is definitately an interesting thread to read, it's no wonder
everyone's posting, at least we do get some good ideas out of this thread
:-)....the PDF on your website, is very interesting to read too, made me
think and I like it when something makes me think :-).

It suggests that individuals can get together and develop commercial
software, now I ask, who is teamed up with who (if any) and what's being
done in the areas of "getting Ada known everywhere" and "commercial
development".  I've seen past projects lists, good exhaustive ones at that.
How about we start a "futur project list" instead?

Seems to be enough time has been spent, in ada and in most other languages,
making the computer do what we dotn want to....(calculations, data
processing, repetitive tasks of all kinds whether in database related or non
related fields).... I think it's time to really start "creating new fields"
of applications.  New generations of computing technologies....once that
haven't been touched before, or not as much as they should have.  Could be
any type of project, from virtual reality (I'm not saying to make our own 3D
Studio Max here, I'm saying making a full real time virtual reality OS, one
in which you can do things like walk through your files for example...really
innovative stuff like that is what I'm suggesting.  this is but an example
of so many things that could be done, and I know Ada is just the language to
do it in :-)......sure this one is a big project, but it can definitaly be
cut done to reaonable sized modules that can be humanly maintainted :-).

And that was my 0.02 cents worth :-).....

--
St�phane Richard
Software Developer

"Some people take the past to create their present....
 Other's Take the present to make their future."
Which category do you fall under?  :-)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
"rleif" <rleif@cox.net> wrote in message
news:mailman.1.1060420392.299.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org...
> I agree that an Ada OS is too large a project. However, a real-time core
> that could be used with Linux and that had Ada interfaces to XML
constructs
> should be viable. The problem with Linux core components is that one is
> making a donation to IBM, RedHat, etc. However, a POSIX type binding that
> could be used with Linux might solve that problem. An Ada version of
Xforms
> that worked under SVG would actually cover many embedded devices.
>
> The Ada page of my web site, www.newportinstruments.com has articles on
how
> multiple individuals can get together for two noble causes: 1) Spreading
the
> use of Ada. And 2) Making money.
> Bob Leif
>
> Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
> Email rleif@rleif.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marin David Condic [mailto:nobody@noplace.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 4:52 AM
> To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
> Subject: Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.
>
> An OS is a pretty serious project - even if you're looking at an
> embedded OS of some sort. If you start with too big an objective, you'll
> likely not achieve it. You might try taking some existing OS and porting
> it. That would be a good start and might be achievable in a reasonable
> time span. There was an RTOS out there written in Ada - RTEMS if I
> recall the name correctly. One called MaRTE also springs to mind. Try:
>
> http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/457082.html
>
> MDC
>
> Luke A. Guest wrote:
> >
> > Well, for one, I have been (although not recently) researching operating
> > systems and want to design one. I know what I want to achieve on this
but
> > I haven't actually been able to do any work on it for ages :-(
> >
>
>
>
> --
> ======================================================================
> Marin David Condic
> I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
> My project is: http://www.jast.mil/
>
> Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g
>
>      "In general the art of government consists in taking as
>      much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
>      to the other."
>
>          --  Voltaire
> ======================================================================
>
>

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Hyman Rosen]

Marin David Condic wrote:
 > I suppose it is all right for me to assemble various digital recordings

The difference is that the bands you mention didn't give anyone
permission to do this, while the software developers did. But
you know that, obviously, so what is your purpose in drawing this
analogy? Are you trying to say that the developers didn't give
this permission? That they were duped? All of them?

> Oh, yes. I nearly forgot. Microsoft followed the model you outlined (not
> mine - the proprietary and closed model) and last I checked they had
> money coming out of their ... ears. Seems like that model *can* be the
> right one in at least some cases.

Everyone wants to be Microsoft. But most people who try wind up
being BeOS.

 > I also never said that companies want to deal with a
> few thousand different developers or different licenses.

Compnaies that make and distribute Linux distributions,
or BSD distributions for that matter, normally have
hundreds and perhaps thousands of packages in their
distribution. Those are the companies I was talking
about.

 > Systems have been set up to distribute copyrighted material
 > and compensate authors that don't leave individuals or
 > companies having to cut a thousand deals to use some product.

Congratulations! You have rediscovered Richard Stallman's
software tax idea. In any case, no one is stopping people
from setting up such systems. You could even try to do it
yourself. You will discover that a major problem is that
there is so little money to be made that the effort to
collect it will be more expensive than what you get.

Writing a piece of software and releasing it under the GPL
is infinitely easier than writing a piece of software and
trying to make money from it. The fact that some compnaies
are managing to earn money selling GNU/Linux distributions
may give some people the illusion that there is money to
be made in individual software packages, and for some tiny
percentage that would even be true. But not fro most.

> Most of the stuff that gets released under the GPL is really
 > not all that special or wonderful that someone is going to pay
> $$$ to get it

But they don't have to. And meanwhile, as long as the project
has some signs of life, distributors will pick it up and package
it, so it will be out there for anyone who might want it.

 > companies may look at the GPL and not want to infect their own
 > code with it and say "The R&D cost to build my own unit isn't
 > that huge, so why should I use a GPLed unit?"

One goal of the FSF is to have enough good GPLed code out so that
this cost differential becomes ever larger. In any case, no one
is stopping them from doing anything they want.

> Hence whatever scheme got adopted, it needs to be simple and
 > inexpensive.

Which means that the developers won't be paid much.

> And it isn't any different for GPLed code.

Anything under the GPL can just be distributed without a
second thought. It's very different from Joe's Own Version
of the No-Bomb Pay-Me-If-You-Use-It license.

> Your presumption is that the model for constructing software

How did we switch to talking about constructing software?
We were talking about RedHat, whose basic product *is* an
assembled conglomerate of the random work of hundreds or
thousands of people.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Hyman Rosen]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> They voluntarily gave up rights to something that had potential value.
 > When the actual value was realized they were out in the cold

That code that they "gave up rights to" is now in collections
distributed by companies who have "given up rights" as well.
You can go to RedHat, or SuSe, or the other GNU/Linux companies,
and download their software for free. If you get their CDs, you
can make as many copies as you want, and redistribute them if
you like. So anyone can be RedHat, can't they? Why doesn't any
developer who feels misused create his own distribution, and
begin collecting the profits?

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Stephane Richard wrote:
...
> Seems to be enough time has been spent, in ada and in most other languages,
> making the computer do what we dotn want to....(calculations, data
> processing, repetitive tasks of all kinds whether in database related or non
> related fields).... I think it's time to really start "creating new fields"
> of applications.  New generations of computing technologies....once that
> haven't been touched before, or not as much as they should have.  Could be
> any type of project, from virtual reality (I'm not saying to make our own 3D
> Studio Max here, I'm saying making a full real time virtual reality OS, one
> in which you can do things like walk through your files for example...really
> innovative stuff like that is what I'm suggesting.  this is but an example
> of so many things that could be done, and I know Ada is just the language to
> do it in :-)......sure this one is a big project, but it can definitaly be
> cut done to reaonable sized modules that can be humanly maintainted :-).

I don't believe we have to "create new fields" per say, because a
number of the existing (probably more mundane ones) have yet
to be adequately "solved".

Looking at some non-exhaustive needs/wants together, we have :

   1. GUI
   2. Database
   3. Net enabled

Individually, I think we can say these have been conquered. But
why then is software development so:

   - slow to develop ?
   - costly to create ?
   - unreliable in operation ?
   - hackable (unsafe) on the net ?

I firmly believe that this integrated side
of the problem remains relatively
unsolved (there have been products/attempts
to addressing these, but none seem to have
emerged a "generally accepted solution").

While you may not be able to solve this problem
for everyone, but it should be possible to look
at the SOHO situation (for example) and produce
a "programming environment" that supports the above,
in an integrated but rapid way, with improved safety
and protection from hacks (from the net enabled
apps).

Other "markets" could be similarly addressed.

In general, it is not yet easy enough to create new software
(at least beyond a simple teletype application).

As a point of comparison, VB was one "attempt" at
addressing this need, but falls far short on
a number of levels. Some of which includes:

   - database : poor/non-existant support of NULL values
   - database/GUI connection : widgets (like date) don't
     support NULL values,
   - database operations require clumsy/complex object
     interactions (COM/DCOM) objects etc.
   - VB code itself is ghastly at the safety/reliability level
     due to its check at runtime approach (vs Ada95)

This is all tip of the iceberg, but I believe there is ample
opportunity just making life easier for programmers alone,
not to mention for the "pseudo programmer SOHO person".

Just my $0.02 added. ;-)
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Marin David Condic wrote:
>  > I suppose it is all right for me to assemble various digital recordings
> 
> The difference is that the bands you mention didn't give anyone
> permission to do this, while the software developers did. But
> you know that, obviously, so what is your purpose in drawing this
> analogy? Are you trying to say that the developers didn't give
> this permission? That they were duped? All of them?
...
> Writing a piece of software and releasing it under the GPL
> is infinitely easier than writing a piece of software and
> trying to make money from it. The fact that some compnaies
> are managing to earn money selling GNU/Linux distributions
> may give some people the illusion that there is money to
> be made in individual software packages, and for some tiny
> percentage that would even be true. But not fro most.

As an individual, who is very greatful for GPL/free software,
means that I don't have to choose between being a Pirate and/or
paying out big bucks to develop software for myself at home.

I still remember in the 80's what it was like to have a nice
microcomputer in front of you, but only able to run canned
apps. The choice was to buy/pirate a copy of Microsoft's C
compiler and/or limit yourself to BASIC (at least that was
my experience at the time).

(1) Being grateful for gcc, Linux and all of those other wonderful
master pieces (like the X Window system, that is so easy
to take for granted!), I don't mind contributing something
back (my efforts are relatively small by comparison!)

(2) If I do a good job at developing something generally useful,
_and_ make it free/GPL'd, then I won't have to worry about it
being there in the future! Because others will find it useful,
it will be included in future distributions, with no effort
from myself. In fact, someone may make amazing contributions
to them without me. In this way, I win again on a number of
levels.

Much GPL'd software is created because it needed to exist,
but didn't.

Compare this to:

I create something amazing useful (at least to some people), but
I license it under terms like M$ EULA. Well, this will just drive
many people using it for personal use into piracy, or will just
eliminate it being used generally.

What do I get out of this?  Maybe a few license fees.

I know this, because I have been through this cycle (sure,
maybe I don't know how to market products, but that is
another issue ;-)

Conclusion:

I am not against people charging for software (that is their
choice). But I think that for some cases at least,
you can profit more, by giving it away (GPL is IMO, fair
enough).

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Marin David Condic wrote:

> "Shoddy" or not, Micro$oft must be making *something* that the market 
> likes or they wouldn't be as successful as they are. Hence, it pays to 
> ask "What does Micro$oft provide to the distributors and consumers of 
> its products that make it so successful?" Answer that question and it 
> will provide a guide for those who would compete with them.
> 
> MDC

M$ has the enviable position of being able to release buggy software,
and then get everyone to pay again for the bug fixes. The bug fix
releases of course include new features, which come complete with
a new chain of bug fixes in the making, which are coming down the
pipe... which you'll shell out for again... ;-)

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Marin David Condic wrote:

...
> I think it would be more productive to look at what made Micro$oft a 
> success and learn their strengths and weaknesses if your aim is to kill 
> Micro$oft. If you really want them to go away, you'll have to become a 
> good, skilled, knowledgable capitalist to do it. GPL won't kill 
> Micro$oft. They'll adapt. Thats what businessmen do. You can't stop the 
> game - just change the rules.
> 
> MDC

Their success?  M O N O P O L Y

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
>> They voluntarily gave up rights to something that had potential value.
> 
>  > When the actual value was realized they were out in the cold
> 
> That code that they "gave up rights to" is now in collections
> distributed by companies who have "given up rights" as well.

And THIS, is precisely one of the benefits!  You don't have to
go fishing for, or create a purchase order for a C compiler, or
an Ada compiler. GCC comes standard with these distributions
for example.

Whoever wrote the GNU tar utility, now benefits from having it
available on new Linux releases, without pulling it out of his
own private archives. I benefit too, because I didn't have write
my own version of tar from scratch (saving me much personal time!)
We both benefit, because files he creates are guaranteed to work
with my version of tar (same code base!)

And.. none of us were tempted to pirate "tar" from an individual,
AT&T System V, or SCO ;-) either. Surely this is worth
something too.

I just think we sometimes forget about how things used to be.
We forget what benefits we are profiting from now, thanks to FSF
types of efforts.

Again, this does not mean that charging for services is evil, but
simply let's not forget the benefits of free software.

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Hyman Rosen]

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> Their success?  M O N O P O L Y

They have a monopoly because they are so successful,
not vice versa.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Georg B.]

Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote:
: 
:  I have a tendency to not want to work for free so
: that some other party can make money from my labor.

This is essential. There might be a balance between you making
enough money to pay your bills and some other party taking away
your money (price dumping, other tricks.)

: That is a kind of
: "charity" to capitalists that I don't feel the need to make.

Does that define a capitalist as someone who regularly takes
everything and gives nothing?

: If I'm 
: going to work for free, perhaps there are more deserving recipients of 
: my charity than RedHat?

Possibly. Any ideas?

: > If turned into an evil analogy, you will then be mobsters ;-)
: >
: I have no idea what you mean here.

I think "exclusive group" is the technical term. The group establishes
rules and mechanisms to make sure their work gets what they define to
be a proper reward. 
These rules do not usually involve trusting prospective customers,
as far as fair and *unsolicitous* payment is concerned.
(As opposed to the words of the president of the USA
about reestablishing trust. Has it ever been there or is he only
referring to knowning and trusting the rules?)
The usual Hobbesian world view combined with the necessities of making
money :-)
Indeed if more people had an opportunity to learn about voluntary mutual
payment (dreaming for a moment), we wouldn't have to pay a myriad of
accountants and lawyers.

: I regularly develop software and am
: compensated for doing so.

Compensation is the point. Can we give circumstances and rules as to
when GPLed software results in enough compensation, and when not?

: I give software to my employer and he gives me 
: a paycheck. How is this in any way "evil"? How does this make me a 
: "mobster"?

Not this, but establishing exclusive groups and only by an analogy,
if the groups' rules are allegedly good for the members and bad for
anyone else. You write software that pays you and you collegues who
have helped writing the software. Software that pays off is "your thing".
How, by analogy, is that different from making writing software your
"cosa nostra", literally, and by an evil analogy?

So the force implied is essential. You aren't payed
because people understand that you must pay rent etc, but because
they stay uninformed and must be forced to pay.
That may be a sad reality, but just adapting to this reality
won't change it either.

: What would you call it if I gave my labor to my employer and 
: he gave me nothing in return?

This is a fairly frequent case, so frequent in fact, that there
is law covering employee's inventions (over here at least).
I'd guess that what you get in return in an employee ownded company
might differ from what you get at some other company.

: Theft? Fraud? Slavery?

There are definitely some known cases where employees have felt
like slaves, because they did all the clever work and the company took
all the lovely money. But this is what many contracts say...
Turned to the negative, if in some company something goes really
wrong like some container full of dangerous chemicals explodes,
who will have to leave? The lawyers? This might depend on where
in the world the company is located, but still...

Who has to leave if some software malfunctions? Management?
This is not a rhetorical question.

: Don't those terms 
: denote something far more "evil" than "Free Trade"?

If only we knew what concept Free Trade is referring to *exactly*,
so that we can make comparisons :-) I'm fond of the notion of Free
Trade, but I do currently see how free this actually is, and how much
it has to do with someone playing golf.

(In this particular case,
we have started thinking whether it wouldn't be an act of justice
to make some of our software Free Software just to stop the golf player
company from disrupting contrator after contractor and employee after
employee, by using a promising-sucking-throwing away exploiting technique.)


Georg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Hyman Rosen]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> I write software for a living. That's how I pay the bills.
 > I trade my labor in exchange for fungible assets and everyone wins.
 > Hence, I have a tendency to not want to work for free so
> that some other party can make money from my labor.

But how much of GPLed code was actually written for free?
A lot of it was written under grants, or in universities,
or under government contracts. I would guess that most
GPLed code was written by people who were being paid in
some fashion for the work they were doing. One obvious
example is that Linus Torvalds himself was working on
Linux while being employed by TransMeta. Another is the
set of contributions that IBM has made to Linux.

So IBM makes money, RedHat makes money, ACT makes money,
Zope makes money. They all employ programmers who are making
money working on free software.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Dale Stanbrough]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> > Their success?  M O N O P O L Y
> 
> They have a monopoly because they are so successful,
> not vice versa.

DrDos was a competing DOS implementation that was crushed
because of the FUD that Microsoft managed to spread.

I think the FUD worked because they had pretty much a
monopoly status at the time, so I think this is at least
one example of their success being drawn from their monopoly
position.

Dale

-- 
dstanbro@spam.o.matic.bigpond.net.au

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Robert I. Eachus]

Preben Randhol wrote:

> Oh it isn't? So how come every time I use Windows Update to fix security
> issues in XP I get some other kind of problems with the machine? Last
> was that the sound card stoppped working. Why is it that when I search
> for a file on the system it slows down to almost an halt? etc...

The problem with Microsoft updates is almost an FAQ issue.  The 
Microsoft update program assumes that ANY Microsoft driver is better 
than a driver from some third party.  It doesn't ask, it just installs 
it.  So if you have a device that doesn't have a driver comes from 
Microsoft you WILL have to reinstall the driver after every time you run 
the Microsoft update program.  This applies even if Microsoft includes a 
driver from the third party in their distribution which is crazy.  For 
example, Microsoft WILL install as updates older version of nVidia video 
card drivers.

-- 
"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." -- Jacques Chirac, 
President of France
"As far as France is concerned, you're right." -- Rush Limbaugh

RE: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Luke A. Guest]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 20:58:06 -0700, Robert C. Leif wrote:

> Even though my profession (scientist) was started by medieval monks, I am
> against poverty, chastity and obedience.

I'm all for kinky sex, but what has this to do with my original post? ;-P

Luke A. Guest, kind of BSc(Hons) can't be bothered with Ph.D, etc. ;-)
 
> Bob Leif  
> 
> Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
> Email rleif@rleif.com

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Luke A. Guest]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:20:39 -0400, Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
>> Their success?  M O N O P O L Y
> 
> They have a monopoly because they are so successful,
> not vice versa.

Yes, they *have* a M O N O P O L Y, but they got that from blatant theft.
They have *never ever* published software that was developed in house
other than Windows.

Every piece of software they have published has been either stolen due
to really dodgy handshake deals (DOS) or forcing company's out of
business, Word, Visual Studio based products, i.e. C++ and Basic, Excel,
etc.

Aaaaaaaand, all of their software is shoddy and well, dangerous (if you're
a manager looking for a real-time OS, don't look at Windaz). I certainly
wouldn't touch their dodgy crap.

Luke.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Alexander Kopilovitch]

Robert I. Eachus wrote:

> The problem with Microsoft updates is almost an FAQ issue.  The
> Microsoft update program assumes that ANY Microsoft driver is better
> than a driver from some third party.  It doesn't ask, it just installs
> it.  So if you have a device that doesn't have a driver comes from
> Microsoft you WILL have to reinstall the driver after every time you run
> the Microsoft update program.  This applies even if Microsoft includes a
> driver from the third party in their distribution which is crazy.  For
> example, Microsoft WILL install as updates older version of nVidia video
> card drivers.

Exactly.

But I don't see other way for Microsoft, given that it has tremendous quantity
of unskilled users, many third parties involved, and at the same time it
reasonably wants to restrict its responsibility, at least separate itself from
those third parties. How can Microsoft test an update if it do not replace
foreign drivers? Then, if the update installer will ask user, this will mean
that responsibility for subsequent failure (incompatibility) will be somehow
divided. While with current mode of operation the issue of responsibility is
much cleaner - if Windows works properly after update, but fails after subsequent
re-installation of some third-party driver then it is easy to blame the driver
and to defend this position.



Alexander Kopilovitch                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia

RE: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Robert C. Leif]

Actually, it is NOT monopoly. Microsoft has had the splendid luck of having
really dumb competitors. IBM made Microsoft when it told its customers that
they would need Microchannel PCs to run OS/2. IBM was also stupid enough to
stay with the Intel 286, with the result that Compact brought out the first
386 PC. WordPerfect gave the word-processing market to Microsoft, when they
changed their look and feel for the Windows version of WordPerfect from that
of the DOS version. Lotus killed off Improv and did not incorporate any of
its functionality into 123. Improv was the only software engineered
spreadsheet. 

Some of the competitors first converted from assembly to C, then to C++, and
now to Java. If any one of them had the brains to use Ada, it would have
been a real fight. Sun is now sinking because its brilliant marketing of
Java did nothing to help its operating system, Solaris, which is still in C
and C++. In fact, they have not even replaced the Sparc microprocessor with
a J chip. IBM has embraced Java. This will continue them to deserve their
nickname Inferior But Marketable.

Bob Leif

Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
Email rleif@rleif.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG [mailto:ve3wwg@cogeco.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 9:54 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

Marin David Condic wrote:

...
> I think it would be more productive to look at what made Micro$oft a 
> success and learn their strengths and weaknesses if your aim is to kill 
> Micro$oft. If you really want them to go away, you'll have to become a 
> good, skilled, knowledgable capitalist to do it. GPL won't kill 
> Micro$oft. They'll adapt. Thats what businessmen do. You can't stop the 
> game - just change the rules.
> 
> MDC

Their success?  M O N O P O L Y

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
>> Their success?  M O N O P O L Y
> 
> They have a monopoly because they are so successful,
> not vice versa.

No

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Alexander Kopilovitch wrote:

> But I don't see other way for Microsoft, given that it has tremendous
> quantity of unskilled users, many third parties involved, and at the
> same time it reasonably wants to restrict its responsibility, at least
> separate itself from those third parties. How can Microsoft test an
> update if it do not replace foreign drivers? Then, if the update
> installer will ask user, this will mean that responsibility for
> subsequent failure (incompatibility) will be somehow divided. While
> with current mode of operation the issue of responsibility is much
> cleaner - if Windows works properly after update, but fails after
> subsequent re-installation of some third-party driver then it is easy
> to blame the driver and to defend this position.

How come this works flawless on Linux then? If there is a security hole
in the OS or some other program I do not see the reason for installing
other versions of my drivers.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Luke A. Guest]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 01:04:03 +0000, Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Luke A. Guest wrote:
>> Open source software only happened because of companies like M$ stealing
>> all of the market with shoddy software and not letting anyone else get any
>> way in unless you work for them.
> 
> It happened because Richard Stallman wanted to change a printer driver
> and couldn't. MS software isn't at all shoddy. It's just that certain
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Have you actually used it? I have and it is!

> people are tinkerers, and get frustrated when they can't.

BTW, I'm very surprised that someone who wanted to change a printer driver
started to develop a Unix clone, seems overkill to me. But then, he chose
Mach (which is a very good kernel) but he never updated his idea to
Mach-4.0 or L4 (which HURD is now being ported to, as a separate project).

Luke.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Luke A. Guest wrote:
> BTW, I'm very surprised that someone who wanted to change a printer driver
> started to develop a Unix clone, seems overkill to me. But then, he chose

Stallmann didn't create Linux.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Dmytry Lavrov]

Robert C. Leif wrote:
> 
> Actually, it is NOT monopoly. Microsoft has had the splendid luck of having
> really dumb competitors. IBM made Microsoft when it told its customers that
> they would need Microchannel PCs to run OS/2. IBM was also stupid enough to
> stay with the Intel 286, with the result that Compact brought out the first
> 386 PC. WordPerfect gave the word-processing market to Microsoft, when they
> changed their look and feel for the Windows version of WordPerfect from that
> of the DOS version. Lotus killed off Improv and did not incorporate any of
> its functionality into 123. Improv was the only software engineered
> spreadsheet.
> 
> Some of the competitors first converted from assembly to C, then to C++, and
> now to Java. If any one of them had the brains to use Ada, it would have
> been a real fight. Sun is now sinking because its brilliant marketing of
> Java did nothing to help its operating system, Solaris, which is still in C
> and C++. In fact, they have not even replaced the Sparc microprocessor with
> a J chip. IBM has embraced Java. This will continue them to deserve their
> nickname Inferior But Marketable.

Do you want J chip???
Do you readed JVM description?
It's qite hard to make non-java-to-java compiler(like for ada).
There is some needed for almost all langs except java instructions
missed.(like PushAtTopOfStackDataFromStackAddressN,instead of that,you
should declare local variables in LocalVariablesTable in Java like
style!).
JVM is not universal VM.It's specially for Java. Any other language have
problems with compiling for it.

> 
> Bob Leif
> 
> Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
> Email rleif@rleif.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG [mailto:ve3wwg@cogeco.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 9:54 AM
> To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
> Subject: Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.
> 
> Marin David Condic wrote:
> 
> ...
> > I think it would be more productive to look at what made Micro$oft a
> > success and learn their strengths and weaknesses if your aim is to kill
> > Micro$oft. If you really want them to go away, you'll have to become a
> > good, skilled, knowledgable capitalist to do it. GPL won't kill
> > Micro$oft. They'll adapt. Thats what businessmen do. You can't stop the
> > game - just change the rules.
> >
> > MDC
> 
> Their success?  M O N O P O L Y
> 
> --
> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
> http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

-- 
-
http://dmytrylavrov.narod.ru

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Nope. The only claim I am making is that developing software and making 
it available under the GPL can and does provide an investment in someone 
else's business, but is not compensated. People do that voluntarily and 
occasionally there are circumstances where they gain some advantage by 
doing so. However, I think the situation would be more just if authors 
were compensated in some manner for what they make available to someone 
who has a for-profit use for it.

MDC

Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
> Hmm, I thought you meant to say that you could steal the works of the
> artist and repackage and distribute it. That would break the license.
> 
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

And that has absolutely nothing to do with my point. Releasing it under 
the GPL makes it "legal" and the original artists may have absolutely no 
grounds to cry about it and so on. I *never* said that they did. What I 
*did* say was that what you get via the GPL and then use in a for-profit 
venture represents a contribution to the venture that is not 
compensated. This is a simple statement of fact that ought to be 
intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer. I pick up the work 
of another - something that has value - and use it to make money. That 
is an uncompensated contribution to a business.

People are absolutely free to go do charity work for corporations if 
they like. I won't stop them. If they want to come over to my house and 
mow my lawn next weekend, they can do that to. Personally, I'd rather 
give my charity time to more deserving recipients and give my software 
development time to those who will offer me compensation. But that's 
just me. :-)

Thanks for the vote of confidence on my musical tastes. ;-)

MDC


Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> 
> 
> Did the bands your talking about release their music under the GPL?
> Said, it's free to use and distribute? I don't think so.
> BTW, it seems you have a good taste in music. ;)
> 
> 
>>I'm providing the *exact* same "service" that RedHat
>>does and I owe nothing to the original artists?
> 
> 
> Exactly that *would* be the case.
> 
> BTW, <URL:http://sensoryresearch.com/~starkeff/beatallica.html>:
> 
> |One more thing.. we now have a copyright notice on the webpage (at the
> |very end). This does not mean that you can't download the songs for
> |free. Download all you want! Burn CD-R's for your friends! Just don't
> |sell them, OK?
> 
> So these people didn't release their music under the GPL, but it's
> still free.
> 
> 
> Vinzent.


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

One more time... with feeling. :-) This has absolutely nothing to do 
with my point. Yes, the developers *did* give their permission. *No* 
they have no right to complain having done so. *Yes* RedHat is totally 
within its rights and hasn't done anything wrong.

The *point* is, a body of software developed by one party has *value* 
and that if it is used by another party in a for-profit venture, the 
other party is getting a contribution to his business without any 
compensation being given to the author. Why that isn't plainly obvvious 
to even the most casual observer, I don't know. What the GPL does to 
somehow or other stop the software contribution from having value, I 
don't know. The software has value. You use it to make a profit. You 
give nothing to the author. It isn't illegal when its under the GPL. It 
doesn't defraud the original developer who voluntarily gave away his 
valuable property to you in the first place. It simply means that the 
developer wasn't compensated when the developer had every moral right to 
have insisted on it had he not voluntarily done some charity work for 
your business venture.

Like I said elsewhere, people have an absolute God-given right to freely 
do charity work for business ventures if they so choose. I'd question 
the wisdom of that and wouldn't do so myself, because my work has value 
and if you want to use it to make money, you'll have to share it with 
me. But that's just me. ;-)

MDC

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> The difference is that the bands you mention didn't give anyone
> permission to do this, while the software developers did. But
> you know that, obviously, so what is your purpose in drawing this
> analogy? Are you trying to say that the developers didn't give
> this permission? That they were duped? All of them?
> 

-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Why not some middle ground? Its not as if its an either/or proposition. 
Either you give away the software totally free of charge & restriction 
or you lock it up in a vault and insist on millions for it? Why not do 
something that says "Here is this software in source code form. You can 
use it at home or on your job. You can modify it if you like. You can 
pass it on to your friends. You can build something bigger using it and 
I won't make you adopt my license for your software. What you *can't* do 
with my software is sell it for profit or incorporate it into some other 
product/service wherein it adds value. Not unless you compensate me."

We could worry about how to collect the compensation as a separate 
matter, but it seems reasonable to me that the above form of license 
would provide all the good things you identified for the GPL without 
depriving you of the right to get compensated if you happen to release 
the next Linux to the next RedHat.

MDC


Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:

> 
> Compare this to:
> 
> I create something amazing useful (at least to some people), but
> I license it under terms like M$ EULA. Well, this will just drive
> many people using it for personal use into piracy, or will just
> eliminate it being used generally.
> 
> What do I get out of this?  Maybe a few license fees.
> 

-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

They do not now, nor have they ever, had the only operating system in 
the world. Other capitalists with their own OS's simply have dropped the 
ball when it comes to competing with Micro$oft. Hence Micro$oft has the 
lion's share of the market, but not the total market. So I'd suggest 
that other businesses that own or could develop other operating systems 
might just do so successfully and compete effectively with MS iff they 
learn what has helped MS get where it has and look for the chinks in the 
armor.

MDC

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> 
> 
> Their success?  M O N O P O L Y
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Hyman is absolutely right. How can you suggest that they got their 
market dominance in any other way than being successful businessmen? Did 
they get it by government fiat? There was a law passed that gave them 
the total market? Communism came back and nobody noticed?

They got big because people bought their products.

MDC

Preben Randhol wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
>>Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
>>
>>>Their success?  M O N O P O L Y
>>
>>They have a monopoly because they are so successful,
>>not vice versa.
> 
> 
> No
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

And how does that conflict with the license strategy I've been 
advocating? (That strategy being to allow personal and business use but 
not allowing packaging for sale or value adding without compensation.) 
You'd get my software and presumably send me a nice "Thank You!" card in 
the mail. I'd get my warm-fuzzy feeling of having done charity work for 
the deserving middle-class geeks. RedHat would have to come to me and 
offer me some stock or some cash or some other compensation if they 
wanted to use my software as a business venture. Seems to me everyone wins.

MDC

Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
> 
> Well me for instance. Not that I need charity, but I and thousands other
> normal people benifit from what you might want to make in your spare
> time and publish. At any rate if I wanted to install RedHat on my
> computer I need not pay for it. The benifits of RedHat and other
> companies is that they help improve Linux.
> 
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Hyman Rosen]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> Stallmann didn't create Linux.

Not Linux, the Hurd. And I think the time scales have
been a little compressed here. Stallman has been at
this for a long time.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Georg B. wrote:
> 
> Does that define a capitalist as someone who regularly takes
> everything and gives nothing?
> 
Where did I say that? A capitalist gives something of value to his 
customer in exchange for something else he values more. Its only tyrants 
  that take something away and give nothing in return.

> : If I'm 
> : going to work for free, perhaps there are more deserving recipients of 
> : my charity than RedHat?
> 
> Possibly. Any ideas?
> 
I've been saying elsewhere that an alternative form of license is 
possible that permits personal and business use without allowing 
for-sale use. Details TBD. Read the rest of this thread.


> 
> Not this, but establishing exclusive groups and only by an analogy,
> if the groups' rules are allegedly good for the members and bad for
> anyone else. You write software that pays you and you collegues who
> have helped writing the software. Software that pays off is "your thing".
> How, by analogy, is that different from making writing software your
> "cosa nostra", literally, and by an evil analogy?
> 
> So the force implied is essential. You aren't payed
> because people understand that you must pay rent etc, but because
> they stay uninformed and must be forced to pay.
> That may be a sad reality, but just adapting to this reality
> won't change it either.
>
Where do you get this from? Every business must by this analogy be a 
"mobster" because it is pretty much by definition an "exclusive group" 
and that distributes its products for the benefit of its members and the 
detriment of other vendors.

Where was I suggesting that we put guns to people's heads and insist 
that they use our products and not someone else's? That is a "mobster". 
Developing a superior product and out-competing other vendors and 
playing within the bounds of the law is a perfectly moral and decent 
thing to do.

MDC
-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Hyman Rosen]

Robert C. Leif wrote:
 > Sun is now sinking because its brilliant marketing of
> Java did nothing to help its operating system, Solaris,
 > which is still in C and C++. In fact, they have not even
 > replaced the Sparc microprocessor with a J chip.

My, what a unique point of view. Linux, which is not sinking,
is written in C. There are tens or hundreds of thousands of
programs which run on Solaris and are written in C and C++.
Sun's customers wouldn't run to embrace a J chip. They would
run to embrace one of the competitors' machines.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> Nope. The only claim I am making is that developing software and making 
> it available under the GPL can and does provide an investment in someone 
> else's business, but is not compensated. People do that voluntarily and 
> occasionally there are circumstances where they gain some advantage by 
> doing so. However, I think the situation would be more just if authors 
> were compensated in some manner for what they make available to someone 
> who has a for-profit use for it.

Well, then you must release it with a different license although I doubt
it would be much used.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> The *point* is, a body of software developed by one party has *value* 
> and that if it is used by another party in a for-profit venture, the 
> other party is getting a contribution to his business without any 
> compensation being given to the author. Why that isn't plainly obvvious 
> to even the most casual observer, I don't know. What the GPL does to 
> somehow or other stop the software contribution from having value, I 
> don't know. 

Of course it doesn. Why isn't it plainly obvious to you that the GPL
ensures that any additional work done must also be GPL. So if I make a
library and you add more things to it I can use that too. If you use the
GMGPL then you must be aware that other may use your work to make a
close sourced tool and charge a lot of money for it and you won't get a
penny and neither any software.

> The software has value. 

Nothing has value unless there is a market for it.


> You use it to make a profit. You give nothing
> to the author. It isn't illegal when its under the GPL. It doesn't
> defraud the original developer who voluntarily gave away his valuable
> property to you in the first place. It simply means that the developer
> wasn't compensated when the developer had every moral right to have
> insisted on it had he not voluntarily done some charity work for your
> business venture.

Well say that this business fixed X bugs in the software, the author can
thus take this version and continue his work on that.

> Like I said elsewhere, people have an absolute God-given right to
> freely do charity work for business ventures if they so choose. I'd
> question the wisdom of that and wouldn't do so myself, because my work
> has value and if you want to use it to make money, you'll have to
> share it with me. But that's just me. ;-)

Well if you do other kind of work there are always somebody who earns
money from it. Say you collect a lot of used clothes to send to a
country in need. The company you send it with will charge you money for
the shipment.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> Hyman is absolutely right. How can you suggest that they got their 
> market dominance in any other way than being successful businessmen? Did 
> they get it by government fiat? There was a law passed that gave them 
> the total market? Communism came back and nobody noticed?

I said. Clever marketing divition. Microsoft started as a cheap Lada
(russian car not noticed for it's quality) of OS and one could buy this
in stead of the expensive Unixes. From there they have done everything
in their power to keep the market in their grasph. They have even
resortet to illegal actions.


-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> And how does that conflict with the license strategy I've been 
> advocating? (That strategy being to allow personal and business use but 
> not allowing packaging for sale or value adding without compensation.) 

Because then I have to package Linux myself and if you look at Debian
GNU/Linux it has more than 8710 packages. That is extremely hard work
for *one* man.

Sound very odd though. Say you make a share market program. You will
lett Wall Street use it for free to earn heaps of money, but a company
that builds, package and test your Linux distribution you won't allow to
make some money to stay in bussiness?

> You'd get my software and presumably send me a nice "Thank You!" card in 
> the mail. I'd get my warm-fuzzy feeling of having done charity work for 
> the deserving middle-class geeks. RedHat would have to come to me and 

What about the upperclass business man?


-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Preben Randhol wrote:
>> Stallmann didn't create Linux.
> 
> Not Linux, the Hurd. And I think the time scales have
> been a little compressed here. Stallman has been at
> this for a long time.

Microsoft Windows didn't exist even when Stallman began.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Robert I. Eachus]

Alexander Kopilovitch wrote:

> But I don't see other way for Microsoft, given that it has tremendous quantity
> of unskilled users, many third parties involved, and at the same time it
> reasonably wants to restrict its responsibility, at least separate itself from
> those third parties. How can Microsoft test an update if it do not replace
> foreign drivers? Then, if the update installer will ask user, this will mean
> that responsibility for subsequent failure (incompatibility) will be somehow
> divided. While with current mode of operation the issue of responsibility is
> much cleaner - if Windows works properly after update, but fails after subsequent
> re-installation of some third-party driver then it is easy to blame the driver
> and to defend this position.

Which assumes that Windows will work properly after the update.  But the 
reality is that the third party vendor had a reason for distributing an 
update to their driver.  Reinstalling the earlier version that is part 
of Windows is going to break something, or reinstall a security hole 
that the user thought he had fixed.

IF Microsoft asked before replacing a third-party driver, and had all 
sorts of warnings about why you might have problems if you don't that 
would be fine.  And of course that is the DEFAULT behaviour of the 
Microsoft supplied installer when used with other company's 
applications.  AFAIK, only Microsoft overrides it so there is neither a 
warning or a record of what was done.

-- 
"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." -- Jacques Chirac, 
President of France
"As far as France is concerned, you're right." -- Rush Limbaugh

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> Why not some middle ground? Its not as if its an either/or proposition. 

True enough. I was merely implying that experience may favour my
statement, rather than not.

> Either you give away the software totally free of charge & restriction 
> or you lock it up in a vault and insist on millions for it? Why not do 
> something that says "Here is this software in source code form. You can 
> use it at home or on your job. You can modify it if you like. You can 
> pass it on to your friends. You can build something bigger using it and 
> I won't make you adopt my license for your software. What you *can't* do 
> with my software is sell it for profit or incorporate it into some other 
> product/service wherein it adds value. Not unless you compensate me."

That indeed is a possibility.

Which is pretty much (note the qualifier) what the GPL does. It does not
permit someone else from profiting from your work, except enough to
cover distribution costs (and I'll add that IANAL).

Obviously there are different levels of freedom, ranging from public
domain all the way back to Redmond.

The problem with the model you present is that there are complications
like:

  "Not unless you compensate me."

Well, then, "how much?". "Under what terms?" "For how long?" "Can I
compete?"  "Can I sell it to 3rd parties? To terrorists? To the
military?" "Can I modify and redistribute it?"

And, "are these terms permissible 'here'?", whereever here is?

How is the compensation made? Beer? Pay Pal? VISA? Money Order.
Cash: what currency?

What delivery method?  How quickly?  What are the penalties for
paying late?

Invoices?  Do you have an accounts receivable department?

Do you have to charge and collect tax(es)? GST? VAT?

> We could worry about how to collect the compensation as a separate 
> matter, but it seems reasonable to me that the above form of license 
> would provide all the good things you identified for the GPL without 
> depriving you of the right to get compensated if you happen to release 
> the next Linux to the next RedHat.
> 
> MDC

Sure you can decide not to discuss "collection", but it too is now
part of the whole process and concern. It cannot be ignored. It can
in the GPL case, because there is no collection in that process.

All I am saying is that yes, anyone can license the software and go
to the hassle of collecting fees if he chooses to do so. But as soon
as you cross that line, your buy yourself and your clients a lot of
added "hassle".

For small things, like the "tar" command that we all take for granted
under Linux, CYGWIN etc., it is simply nowhere near worth the effort.

OTOH, if the FSF were to set up a contributors registry, and they
worked out some fair source code metric, then maybe a different
situation could be achieved. However, I doubt that this effort
would be worth anyone's trouble.

I seem to recall that the blank tape/CD tax that they're collecting
in Canada (US?) to renumerate the music artists, is in a similar
pickle. The registration process is huge and complex. And which
artists deserve more than the others. Heck, I should get a piece
of that too, since my _software_ (not music) is floating around on
CD distributions all over the place. Why should just musicians get
this piece of the pie?!?!

> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
>>
>> Compare this to:
>>
>> I create something amazing useful (at least to some people), but
>> I license it under terms like M$ EULA. Well, this will just drive
>> many people using it for personal use into piracy, or will just
>> eliminate it being used generally.
>>
>> What do I get out of this?  Maybe a few license fees.
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Marin David Condic wrote:

> Hyman is absolutely right. How can you suggest that they got their 
> market dominance in any other way than being successful businessmen? Did 
> they get it by government fiat? There was a law passed that gave them 
> the total market? Communism came back and nobody noticed?
> 
> They got big because people bought their products.
> 
> MDC

Robert Lief brought up a good point in an email to me (cc this group?)
that M$ has also been very lucky to have competetors that bungled any
chance of successfully competing with them (OS/2 was named as one
example).

> Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
>> Hyman Rosen wrote:
>>
>>> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
>>>
>>>> Their success?  M O N O P O L Y
>>>
>>> They have a monopoly because they are so successful,
>>> not vice versa.
>>
>> No

I don't think the reason for their current MONOPOLY, makes much
difference now. Because they enjoy this current advantage, they
are likely to for the forseeable future, unless they bungle it
themselves, or something else becomes a serious choice for most
consumers (Linux/Mac?)

The point is, they now enjoy a monopoly, regardless of how they
got there.
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Marin David Condic wrote:

> They do not now, nor have they ever, had the only operating system in 
> the world. 

Ok Marin, ask your grandmother/mother what operating system
they will purchase with their next (first?) PC?  If they
know what an O/S is, then we can readily guess what their
choice would be! ;-)

Or, tell me what the store sales
guy is going to sell?  No difference in answer!  At BEST,
you _might_ get a choice if you shop at Walmart, where
Linux/Lindows are offered.

Unless your grandmother/mother had a life in IT, or enjoyed
it as a hobby, I can only see one "real choice" emerging
as an answer.

That says to me "monopoly".

Windows today is what once long ago was like "the phone company".

> Other capitalists with their own OS's simply have dropped the 
> ball when it comes to competing with Micro$oft. Hence Micro$oft has the 
> lion's share of the market, but not the total market. So I'd suggest 
> that other businesses that own or could develop other operating systems 
> might just do so successfully and compete effectively with MS iff they 
> learn what has helped MS get where it has and look for the chinks in the 
> armor.
> 
> MDC
> 
> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
>>
>> Their success?  M O N O P O L Y

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Georg B. wrote:

> Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote:
> : 
> :  I have a tendency to not want to work for free so
> : that some other party can make money from my labor.
> 
> This is essential. There might be a balance between you making
> enough money to pay your bills and some other party taking away
> your money (price dumping, other tricks.)

Actually, that is a very good point that is easy to overlook
(price dumping)!

You could expend a half a lifetime developing something like
a Netscape browser, and then market it. M$ sees how useful this
is and either tries to buy you out, or just creates one of its
own and then just gives it away. Based on history, I'd say you'd
be better off taking the M$ offer, given the way the outcome
works. But you'd have to be left "feeling dirty" with M$
money. ;-)

This has happened at all software size levels, from what I can
see. Where is the profit in this?  If I release my software free,
(under the GPL), this actually puts M$ at a disadvantage. That
thought, warms my heart ;-)

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Luke A. Guest]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:58:24 +0000, Preben Randhol wrote:

> Luke A. Guest wrote:
>> BTW, I'm very surprised that someone who wanted to change a printer driver
>> started to develop a Unix clone, seems overkill to me. But then, he chose
> 
> Stallmann didn't create Linux.

I didn't say that he did.

Luke.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Hyman Rosen]

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> That says to me "monopoly".

No one disputes that MS has a monopoly. But it's not
illegal to have a monopoly in the US. Companies which
have a monopoly have extra regulations that they must
follow in order to prevent them from using their status
to avoid competition.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Stephane Richard]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1641 bytes --]

In a perfect world maybe....in the legal world, it's all about money.  Sure
legally you can take microsoft to court for whatever reason...but how many
times can a company afford to do that?  How many times can Microsoft afford
to do it?  Who has the advantage?

Tak that last even with Intertrust, Intertrust wants 25,000,000 for an
infringement, Microsoft is going to appeal this....in that time it takes for
the appeal to happen how much money is microsoft making?  a heck of a lot
more than the 25 million, I'll tell you that much....so it all ends up going
to be paid with money they dont even have yet, not enough to make a dent.
Why?  Because they got the money for it.

See I'm not saying the legal system is  corrupt here.  Chances are people
will win against microsoft (like intertrust did), the legal system is pretty
good as far as copyright and patents goes.  What makes the legal system
corrupt is the money.  You'll win...Microsoft will appearl, you might even
win again...but how much dammage actually occured in your company as
compared to the damage that occured at microsoft?

It's all about the point of view you take when analysing what can happen in
ratio to what will happen :-)

--
St�phane Richard

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1060883245.957247@master.nyc.kbcfp.com...
> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> > That says to me "monopoly".
>
> No one disputes that MS has a monopoly. But it's not
> illegal to have a monopoly in the US. Companies which
> have a monopoly have extra regulations that they must
> follow in order to prevent them from using their status
> to avoid competition.
>

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Pascal Obry]

Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> writes:

> I said. Clever marketing divition. Microsoft started as a cheap Lada
> (russian car not noticed for it's quality) of OS and one could buy this
> in stead of the expensive Unixes. From there they have done everything
> in their power to keep the market in their grasph. They have even
> resortet to illegal actions.

Ok, that is business's definition :)

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595

RE: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Robert C. Leif]

I should note that I must be in favor of scientific publications, since I
authored 85 of them, edited 9 books, and refereed innumerable publications.
All for free. However, I patent and copyright as much of my work as
possible. 

I might note that the publishers of scientific journals have thoroughly
ripped off the authors, referees, and the US taxpayers. We scientists do not
charge for the publications; and the taxpayers support our research. The
publishers are inefficient, overcharge and have done everything possible to
interfere with the publications being available for a reasonable cost over
the Internet. A reasonable cost is the same as that for a patent, $3.00.
Hopefully, the publishers will be disintermediated and replaced by the
scientific societies posting their publications directly on the Internet.

I consider GNU the Socialistic approach to software development. I favor my
fellow technocrats and hope to maximize their return on their labor.

Bob Leif
Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
Email rleif@rleif.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Preben Randhol [mailto:randhol+abuse@pvv.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:14 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

Robert C. Leif wrote:
> Again, there is this utter confusion concerning release of the sources to
> the customers, users, whatever; and charging for one's intellectual
> property. These two subjects should NOT be linked! I still believe that
even
> Karl Marx ever foresaw the workers receiving an absolutely miniscule share
> of the proceeds from the sale of the product.

Why do you keep linking Open Source and Karl Marx?

> Even though my profession (scientist) was started by medieval monks, I am
> against poverty, chastity and obedience.

But are you for that all scientific research should be closed? That one
should not publish the finding so others can also benifit from them and
bringing science a step ahead? Because it sound like it.


-- 
<I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.>
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Alexander Kopilovitch]

Robert I. Eachus wrote:

> > But I don't see other way for Microsoft, given that it has tremendous quantity
> > of unskilled users, many third parties involved, and at the same time it
> > reasonably wants to restrict its responsibility, at least separate itself from
> > those third parties. How can Microsoft test an update if it do not replace
> > foreign drivers? Then, if the update installer will ask user, this will mean
> > that responsibility for subsequent failure (incompatibility) will be somehow
> > divided. While with current mode of operation the issue of responsibility is
> > much cleaner - if Windows works properly after update, but fails after subsequent
> > re-installation of some third-party driver then it is easy to blame the driver
> > and to defend this position.
>
>Which assumes that Windows will work properly after the update.

Yes, Microsoft's part of Windows (including Microsoft-certified third-party
components), and not exactly "properly", but just not worse then the previous
version from Microsoft (which may include corresponding versions of third-party
components)

> But the 
> reality is that the third party vendor had a reason for distributing an 
> update to their driver.  Reinstalling the earlier version that is part 
> of Windows is going to break something, or reinstall a security hole 
> that the user thought he had fixed.

Yes. This is certainly inconvenient for us professional programmers, who have
some system knowledge. But perhaps it is somehow convenient for Microsoft, as
it faces millions of users. It is just hard to imagine (from an outside) the
spectre of possibilities, which are real for a vendor with that number and
diversity of customers.

> IF Microsoft asked before replacing a third-party driver, and had all 
> sorts of warnings about why you might have problems if you don't that 
> would be fine.

It is well-known that most users will not read/understand those warnings and
will simply press a button. Anyway, they don't know anything about the drivers
in their Windows ("oh, my son, a student, installed something when he was here
on his recent vacation" or "yes, Michael Goose installed something on all
computers in our office, but he left us two weeks ago").

> And of course that is the DEFAULT behaviour of the 
> Microsoft supplied installer when used with other company's 
> applications.  AFAIK, only Microsoft overrides it so there is neither a 
> warning or a record of what was done.

So we can reasonably suppose that it is not an oversight, and that "proper"
way do not require extra effort - therefore it is deliberate Microsoft's
choice and perhaps Microsoft has a reason... well, possibly non-technical.

Anyway, I think that it is not too hard to develop an utility, which "corrects"
that aspect of installer's behaviour. So, if there were noticeable demand for
that feature then probably that utility must be already waiting for download
(at www.sysinternals.com or elsewhere),



Alexander Kopilovitch                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia

RE: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Robert C. Leif]

Fortunately, ASIS can be employed to solve the problem of determining the
distribution of royalties. Therefore, since Warren Gay is correct for the
rest of the software world, however, Ada developers have a very significant
advantage.

Returning to operating systems: Since Microsoft has been traumatized by its
X Box running Linux and the Sony game machine also runs Linux, these
machines and their successors can provide a very lucrative market for Ada
software. The battle is for the Home Entertainment Server (receiver-digital
recorder) for digital TV including high-resolution TV. The new game systems
and PCs contain most of the hardware except for the high-resolution tuner.
Since an operating system in today's market includes the GUI, a portable
operating system GUI must be created. However as Microsoft obviously knew,
the browser can take over most of the graphical user interface
functionality. Most of the Office 2003 applications can be run as XML and
have schemas. 

Fortunately, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)is an independent
organization. A very good GUI and application builder could be based on
XForms and a partial implementation of SVG, scalable vector graphics.
XForms, which provides most of the user interaction can, in principle, be
hosted under SVG. XForms has a schema, which can be the source of most of
the Ada data-types and SVG has a first implementation of a schema, which can
also be used as a source of the data-types. Microsoft is not using XForms.
It would be logical to extend a present Ada GUI product for this purpose. 

If someone wishes to produce an improved word processor with the
functionality of my favorite, FrameMaker, add XSL-Fo components.
Unfortunately, Adobe the manufacturer of FrameMaker, charges for upgrades
but has not removed long-standing bugs or added support for schemas.
Microsoft has added schemas to Word. As we all know, design can be more work
than coding. The W3C has donated very good designs.

I believe that many of the necessary real-time Ada components have been
created to run under Linux. If they run under other POSIX operating systems,
the authors of the Ada components could be able to escape from the Free
Software monopolistic practice of forcing one to use their copyleft.

Bob Leif

Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
Email rleif@rleif.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG [mailto:ve3wwg@cogeco.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 9:46 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

Marin David Condic wrote:
> Why not some middle ground? Its not as if its an either/or proposition. 

True enough. I was merely implying that experience may favour my
statement, rather than not.

> Either you give away the software totally free of charge & restriction 
> or you lock it up in a vault and insist on millions for it? Why not do 
> something that says "Here is this software in source code form. You can 
> use it at home or on your job. You can modify it if you like. You can 
> pass it on to your friends. You can build something bigger using it and 
> I won't make you adopt my license for your software. What you *can't* do 
> with my software is sell it for profit or incorporate it into some other 
> product/service wherein it adds value. Not unless you compensate me."

That indeed is a possibility.

Which is pretty much (note the qualifier) what the GPL does. It does not
permit someone else from profiting from your work, except enough to
cover distribution costs (and I'll add that IANAL).

Obviously there are different levels of freedom, ranging from public
domain all the way back to Redmond.

The problem with the model you present is that there are complications
like:

  "Not unless you compensate me."

Well, then, "how much?". "Under what terms?" "For how long?" "Can I
compete?"  "Can I sell it to 3rd parties? To terrorists? To the
military?" "Can I modify and redistribute it?"

And, "are these terms permissible 'here'?", whereever here is?

How is the compensation made? Beer? Pay Pal? VISA? Money Order.
Cash: what currency?

What delivery method?  How quickly?  What are the penalties for
paying late?

Invoices?  Do you have an accounts receivable department?

Do you have to charge and collect tax(es)? GST? VAT?

> We could worry about how to collect the compensation as a separate 
> matter, but it seems reasonable to me that the above form of license 
> would provide all the good things you identified for the GPL without 
> depriving you of the right to get compensated if you happen to release 
> the next Linux to the next RedHat.
> 
> MDC

Sure you can decide not to discuss "collection", but it too is now
part of the whole process and concern. It cannot be ignored. It can
in the GPL case, because there is no collection in that process.

All I am saying is that yes, anyone can license the software and go
to the hassle of collecting fees if he chooses to do so. But as soon
as you cross that line, your buy yourself and your clients a lot of
added "hassle".

For small things, like the "tar" command that we all take for granted
under Linux, CYGWIN etc., it is simply nowhere near worth the effort.

OTOH, if the FSF were to set up a contributors registry, and they
worked out some fair source code metric, then maybe a different
situation could be achieved. However, I doubt that this effort
would be worth anyone's trouble.

I seem to recall that the blank tape/CD tax that they're collecting
in Canada (US?) to renumerate the music artists, is in a similar
pickle. The registration process is huge and complex. And which
artists deserve more than the others. Heck, I should get a piece
of that too, since my _software_ (not music) is floating around on
CD distributions all over the place. Why should just musicians get
this piece of the pie?!?!

> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
>>
>> Compare this to:
>>
>> I create something amazing useful (at least to some people), but
>> I license it under terms like M$ EULA. Well, this will just drive
>> many people using it for personal use into piracy, or will just
>> eliminate it being used generally.
>>
>> What do I get out of this?  Maybe a few license fees.
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> Which assumes that Windows will work properly after the update.  But the 
> reality is that the third party vendor had a reason for distributing an 
> update to their driver.  Reinstalling the earlier version that is part 
> of Windows is going to break something, or reinstall a security hole 
> that the user thought he had fixed.

Actually I yesterday heard (after our university got attacked by the
MSBlast worm) that for one of our large equipments it was not allowed to
install windows updates because the program that controlled the
equipment (which is used for scientific work) would break. I told the
person in charge to contact the company and get the software fixed as we
cannot have a machine which is online so vunerable. Of course my point
is that the machine should not be online at all, but that is not so easy
to get through.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> No one disputes that MS has a monopoly. But it's not
> illegal to have a monopoly in the US. Companies which
> have a monopoly have extra regulations that they must
> follow in order to prevent them from using their status
> to avoid competition.

And one court case springs to mind. No it is not illegal, but it is as
unfortunate as any state monopoly. It kills off inovation and progress.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Luke A. Guest wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:58:24 +0000, Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
>> Luke A. Guest wrote:
>>> BTW, I'm very surprised that someone who wanted to change a printer driver
>>> started to develop a Unix clone, seems overkill to me. But then, he chose
>> 
>> Stallmann didn't create Linux.
> 
> I didn't say that he did.

OK thought you did :-) 

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Robert C. Leif wrote:
> I consider GNU the Socialistic approach to software development. I favor my
> fellow technocrats and hope to maximize their return on their labor.

Sure, but nobody needs to get filthy rich from crappy software.
Making software is something everybody can do if they want to. Making
large complex systems where you need expertice in other sciences is
something everybody cannot do. Just like everybody can paint, but only a
few actually manage to make a living out of it.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

ADCLing (was: Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.)

[Georg Bauhaus]

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote:
:  M$ sees how useful this
: is and either tries to buy you out, or just creates one of its
: own and then just gives it away. Based on history, I'd say you'd
: be better off taking the M$ offer, given the way the outcome
: works. But you'd have to be left "feeling dirty" with M$
: money. ;-)

There is also a broader economical problem with these free gifts:
Two examples: stream file formats, and in-computer encryption.

As for stream file formats, you get players from MS (and earlier Real)
for free. The content providers don't get stream producing software
for free, and come to depend on MS, moneywise and otherwise (software/
documentation/licenses for streaming software).
Why do they commit to this?
Because everyone of the majority of their customers has got this player,
and expects streams to play with their free players (Is any of the
recent Real players for free any more?)

So how would the ADCL work in this context? Who will give any
money to ADCL developers writing a streaming client and/or server
library for some file format that is or is not DMCA (Hollywood
copyright) related?
In view of the current media player situation, what are
the chances of a client/server solution to become successful?:

 client side
                       cost by license       incentive to buy
                       ---------------       ------------------
    MS offering        free                  d/c
    ADCLed offering    free/not free         voluntary/required
    GPLed offering     free                  voluntary

 server side (commerial for the sake of the argument)
                       ---------------       ------------------
    MS offering        not free              required
    ADCLed offering    not free              required
    GPLed offering     free                  voluntary

Will companies pay (conribute) voluntarily? They might.
Look at IBM for an example.
Who else will pay, and for what?

As for in-computer encryption, what kind of security does this
offer? I'd guess it is the kind of security known in stock
trading or secret services. :-)
You can get hardware based "security" like in that Xbox, (another
stolen name BTW) and software based "security" by downloading the
recent media players.  So if you feel you had better not use a
"signing computer" because you have something to tell to Amnesty
International about your dictator e.g., what do you do? If all
communication is signed by hardware, you will be pretty near a
Big Brother is Watching You situation. If it is only signed by
your free email client (viz. Outlook Express's free system add on
signing libraries), an alternative way of sending an email through
the wire might help.

What eMail client software will have more supportive customers
in the view of a free one by MS? An ADCLed one,
or a GPLed one? What speculations are there on which an answer can
be based?

Will we still be able to communicate in c.l.ada without signedness
of postings?...


: This has happened at all software size levels, from what I can
: see. Where is the profit in this?  If I release my software free,
: (under the GPL), this actually puts M$ at a disadvantage. That
: thought, warms my heart ;-)

And there are situations in which to do this is moral and decent!
:-)


Georg

Re: ADCLing (was: Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.)

[Preben Randhol]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> As for stream file formats, you get players from MS (and earlier Real)
> for free. The content providers don't get stream producing software
> for free, and come to depend on MS, moneywise and otherwise (software/
> documentation/licenses for streaming software).
> Why do they commit to this?
> Because everyone of the majority of their customers has got this player,
> and expects streams to play with their free players (Is any of the
> recent Real players for free any more?)

Yes or another example, PDF from Adobe. 

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Georg Bauhaus]

Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote:
: Georg B. wrote:
:> 
:> Does that define a capitalist as someone who regularly takes
:> everything and gives nothing?
:> 
: Where did I say that?
you didn't that is why I have asked to make sure.

: 
:> : If I'm 
:> : going to work for free, perhaps there are more deserving recipients of 
:> : my charity than RedHat?
:> 
:> Possibly. Any ideas?
:> 
: I've been saying elsewhere that an alternative form of license is 
: possible that permits personal and business use without allowing 
: for-sale use. Details TBD. Read the rest of this thread.

I have tried to give an example in another post.

: Where do you get this from? Every business must by this analogy be a 
: "mobster" because it is pretty much by definition an "exclusive group" 
: and that distributes its products for the benefit of its members and the 
: detriment of other vendors.

Not necessarly, I think. A traditional view is to "live and let live".
I don't know how popular this view is in the USA's economy though.
So there might be some moral reserve to just blindly distribute products
knowing that this will ruin other vendors.
This has happened, but it hasn't always succeeded.

If you look at the Mickey Mouse copyrights, things become more
involved in that the "Disney gang" seems to have (co-)managed
modifying factors external to business to "better protect" their
source of income, establishing favorable rules (law). IOW, they used
techniques of influencing outsiders (polititians) and can now rely
on techniques of law enforcement. If you think of this in terms of
the mob, are there thechnical differences? :-)

: Where was I suggesting that we put guns to people's heads and insist 
: that they use our products and not someone else's? That is a "mobster". 

What I have had in mind is the requirement of the license
to pay you for commercial use of the software as opposed to you asking
for a voluntary contribution, or requiring payment for your support,
not for use of your software. (You do not just drive the lorry loaded
with the liqueur bottles, you sell the liqueur too, and you make sure
that your liqueur recipe cannot be used commercially without fee.)

: Developing a superior product and out-competing other vendors and 
: playing within the bounds of the law is a perfectly moral and decent 
: thing to do.

If you make a superior product and out-compete other vendors,
what does this mean? Does it mean that these other vendors will
have to find a new job? Do we have to have it that way?

Suppose you develop a superior software
and offer it under a BSD-style or GNAT-style license. Who will take your
software and build a business around it that spoils you, the
originators? That might well happen, but, in the long run,
will it succeed?
- you know the software, because you are the
  developer, others will first have to make an investment to
  learn about your software
- any semi-smart manager will know that software use requires
  knowledge of the software, and people to provide that knowledge.
Iff this is known, it shows that supported software is the crucial
thing, not just software. This is, I think, one of the reasons
why the GPL model can work, and also why it may be difficult, but
feasable to not be ACT and still offer support for GNAT.
Or to offer another compiler under an interesting license and
attract customers who will take the compiler and buy the support.

Imagine what profit a software project using Charles might gain
from a personal introduction by Matthew Heaney?  (If you allow me
to assume that he wouldn't be opposed to being payed for this 
introduction.) Maybe someone who has made this (or a similar)
experience can comment?
Again, if you allow me to speculate, will the producer of Charles
have more or less bureaucratic cost if he switches to ADCL,
picking up an argument by Hyman Rosen?

Whether playing within the bounds of the law is a perfectly
moral and decent thing to do is, in my view,
a/ depending on what the law allows one to do
b/ oversimplifiying reality
Moral and decency and law are not necessarily implying each other
totally, for sure?

Georg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Georg Bauhaus]

Robert C. Leif <rleif@rleif.com> wrote:
: 
: I believe that many of the necessary real-time Ada components have been
: created to run under Linux. If they run under other POSIX operating systems,
: the authors of the Ada components could be able to escape from the Free
: Software monopolistic practice of forcing one to use their copyleft.

So you, as a scientist, say that a forcing license establishes
enough definitional grounds to warrant the characterisation of
an organisation as having a "monopolistic practice"?
If so then how does any organisation with a forcing license
fail to have monopolistic practice?

Sometimes even Ph.D.s seem to deviate from the very first principles
of conceptual soundness. Shouldn't you know better after a larger
number of publications?


Georg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Obviously it would need a different license. Whats wrong with a license 
that allowed all sorts of personal and business use, but not commercial, 
for-profit use? Why wouldn't that be much used?

MDC

Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
> 
> Well, then you must release it with a different license although I doubt
> it would be much used.
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Robert Leif came up with at least one mechanism for compensation in his 
ADCL. I have some reservations about it because of practical 
considerations where I think it might be difficult to get acceptance of 
it from a potential commercial exploiter. But the basic idea is sound.

I could probably come up with fifty ways of handling the licensing if I 
wanted to sit here and type all day. ;-)

Consider this: 90% of everything someone is turning loose out there 
under the GPL has little to no commercial value. At least not enough 
that its worth trying to find someone violating your license and 
prosecuting them. So a license that allows personal/business use but not 
commercial exploitation isn't really a problem, is it?

For the remaining 10% that might have some commercial resale potential 
you merely have to have a mechanism for establishing a suitable license 
and collecting/distributing the fees. You form up a clearinghouse or 
foundation or whatever you want to call it - some organization that is 
going to be responsible for handling this. It has a handful of 
commercial licenses available to a potential buyer and it has some 
algorithm for parceling out the profits to the contributors of any work 
that gets purchased.

Basically, if you released your work under the non-commercial license 
you'd have the option of registering the work with the clearinghouse so 
that one day, if it becomes the next Linux, RedHat comes to the 
clearinghouse and gets a resale license from them. Then you win, RedHat 
wins, the rest of the geek community wins, the clearinghouse wins, 
everybody wins.

MDC

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> 
>  "Not unless you compensate me."
> 
> Well, then, "how much?". "Under what terms?" "For how long?" "Can I
> compete?"  "Can I sell it to 3rd parties? To terrorists? To the
> military?" "Can I modify and redistribute it?"
> 

-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

And "Clever Marketing Division" is pretty much a textbook definition of 
"Successful Business Practices" and not one of "Monopoly". ;-)

It wasn't handed to them on a platter. They had to do *something* to 
satisfy the real needs of their customers or they wouldn't have got as 
big as they are without a government mandate that everyone must use 
their product. Hence, it is worth looking at what they *did* do to 
satisfy their customers.

Part of it was quite obviously price. They came along with something 
affordable when other companies were out there trying to sell software 
at prices that nobody could afford - or refusing to sell stuff at all. 
(DEC Had VMS and never saw the potential they could have had if they had 
been willing to sell it for hardware other than their own.) They found 
the reservation price that made their company successful and others had 
to follow suit or find themselves dropped on the wayside. Finding that 
price point is what a "Clever Marketing Department" is supposed to do.

MDC


Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
> I said. Clever marketing divition. Microsoft started as a cheap Lada
> (russian car not noticed for it's quality) of OS and one could buy this
> in stead of the expensive Unixes. From there they have done everything
> in their power to keep the market in their grasph. They have even
> resortet to illegal actions.
> 
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> 
> Robert Lief brought up a good point in an email to me (cc this group?)
> that M$ has also been very lucky to have competetors that bungled any
> chance of successfully competing with them (OS/2 was named as one
> example).
> 
Yup. Part of it was that the industry in general didn't really know 
where the market was going. Software was all a new thing and lots of 
companies just totally dropped the ball.

> 
> I don't think the reason for their current MONOPOLY, makes much
> difference now. Because they enjoy this current advantage, they
> are likely to for the forseeable future, unless they bungle it
> themselves, or something else becomes a serious choice for most
> consumers (Linux/Mac?)
> 

Just remember that there was once a company called "IBM" that pretty 
much had a stranglehold on the computer market. It was "IBM" vs "A bunch 
of insignificant 'also ran' companies". How the mighty have fallen? 
Goliath vs some little guy with a slingshot? Don't expect that Micro$oft 
has a permanent grip on the OS market. All it takes is a couple of guys 
in a garage with a better idea and a lot of determination and you could 
see Micro$oft reduced to a "partner" in the market rather than the 
definer of the market.

MDC
-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

I concede that MS has the bulk of the market. But please notice that 
other OS's *do* exist and/or *could* exist and they *could* be put into 
the market against Windows. Other companies have simply dropped the ball.

Also, please notice what happened to the phone company once they lost 
their government protected monopoly. They *were* huge and apparently 
undefeatable. Where are they now? No monopoly can survive forever 
because there are always alternatives and sooner or later something new 
comes up to change the market dynamics.

MDC

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> 
> That says to me "monopoly".
> 
> Windows today is what once long ago was like "the phone company".
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
> Because then I have to package Linux myself and if you look at Debian
> GNU/Linux it has more than 8710 packages. That is extremely hard work
> for *one* man.
> 
No, you still can have a RedHat or Debian or others packaging and 
supporting it. They just have to pay something to the authors to get 
that right.

> Sound very odd though. Say you make a share market program. You will
> lett Wall Street use it for free to earn heaps of money, but a company
> that builds, package and test your Linux distribution you won't allow to
> make some money to stay in bussiness?
> 
And if it was that obviously valuable, I'd put it in a shrinkwrap 
package and sell it to them as a "proprietary" product. :-)

Part of what makes GPL useful is in creating a market for software that 
people wouldn't otherwise buy for $$$, but might be willing to buy 
add-ons like documentation, training, support, etc. If you were willing 
to give it away uinder GPL, why wouldn't you be willing to give it away 
under my scheme? Just as GPL doesn't prevent you from selling software, 
neither does my scheme. The only difference is that in my scheme, if it 
looks like another Linux, I'll retain some rights to get paid by other 
companies that want to package and sell it.

> 
> What about the upperclass business man?
> 
The GPL guys are already giving him all the charity he needs. ;-)

MDC

-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Its called the "Free Enterprise System" and it is neither illegal nor 
immoral. It works to allocate resources in the most efficient means 
possible. Nobody "designed" it. Its what people do when you leave them 
alone.

Government regulation is needed to make sure that the rules get followed 
and the contest is "fair". After that, its like a football game. The 
guys with the better team win and the loosing team has to regroup and 
find out how to do it better next time. It creates enormous wealth that 
enables us all to live better lives.

That doesn't sound like gangsters to me. Perhaps you don't like free 
enterprise, but nobody has a better system yet.

MDC

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> 
> If you make a superior product and out-compete other vendors,
> what does this mean? Does it mean that these other vendors will
> have to find a new job? Do we have to have it that way?
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Boy, that sounds an awful lot like Linux to me! :-) And what is 
Microsoft whining about to anyone who will listen? About how Linux is a 
threat and is unfair because its "Free" (translation: "Dumping")

Now I'm going to have a good laugh! :-)

MDC

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> 
> 
> Actually, that is a very good point that is easy to overlook
> (price dumping)!
> 
> You could expend a half a lifetime developing something like
> a Netscape browser, and then market it. M$ sees how useful this
> is and either tries to buy you out, or just creates one of its
> own and then just gives it away. Based on history, I'd say you'd
> be better off taking the M$ offer, given the way the outcome
> works. But you'd have to be left "feeling dirty" with M$
> money. ;-)
> 
> This has happened at all software size levels, from what I can
> see. Where is the profit in this?  If I release my software free,
> (under the GPL), this actually puts M$ at a disadvantage. That
> thought, warms my heart ;-)
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> It wasn't handed to them on a platter. They had to do *something* to 
> satisfy the real needs of their customers or they wouldn't have got as 
> big as they are without a government mandate that everyone must use 
> their product. Hence, it is worth looking at what they *did* do to 
> satisfy their customers.

My point is that you cannot say that the quality of product A is good
because company which produce product A has 90% market share. 


-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> I concede that MS has the bulk of the market. But please notice that 
> other OS's *do* exist and/or *could* exist and they *could* be put into 
> the market against Windows. Other companies have simply dropped the ball.

They *could* if they are not bought up by M$ or that M$ stop using
illegal means to keep their position with more or less the blessing of the
current administration.


-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> Preben Randhol wrote:
>> 
>> Because then I have to package Linux myself and if you look at Debian
>> GNU/Linux it has more than 8710 packages. That is extremely hard work
>> for *one* man.
>> 
> No, you still can have a RedHat or Debian or others packaging and 
> supporting it. They just have to pay something to the authors to get 
> that right.

OK, and how much should they pay? 1$ per package per bundled
dristribution?

Btw Debian is not a company it is volunteer work by some 1000 people
from all over the world (of course there are somebody at the helm).


> And if it was that obviously valuable, I'd put it in a shrinkwrap 
> package and sell it to them as a "proprietary" product. :-)

Sure, but it was not what you said in the first place.

> Part of what makes GPL useful is in creating a market for software that 
> people wouldn't otherwise buy for $$$, but might be willing to buy 
> add-ons like documentation, training, support, etc. If you were willing 
> to give it away uinder GPL, why wouldn't you be willing to give it away 
> under my scheme? Just as GPL doesn't prevent you from selling software, 
> neither does my scheme. The only difference is that in my scheme, if it 
> looks like another Linux, I'll retain some rights to get paid by other 
> companies that want to package and sell it.

Actually I would probably place some of what I'm making now under GMGPL
which is even worse in your view as then you can snatch it and make a
closed source shrink wrapped commercial program based on this and make
money without giving me a penny :-). But of course not all of it would
be GMGPL :-)

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> Boy, that sounds an awful lot like Linux to me! :-) And what is 
> Microsoft whining about to anyone who will listen? About how Linux is a 
> threat and is unfair because its "Free" (translation: "Dumping")

Yes, one should outlaw gifts, voluntary work and non-profit organisations.
They are a menace to the corporate world and bring only grief and sorrow
to the fat cats. 

:-)

Actually what M$ is whining about is: "Buhu, we cannot buy Linux and
smash it, buhu we cannot use their code in our software. Buhu, it is
unfair. *sniff* I'll do some more digging in the sand in the playground."

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Chad R. Meiners]

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbjp6oi.1ru.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
> Making software is something everybody can do if they want to.

This is false.  I have met people that cannot construct software even though
they tried very hard to learn how to program.  Writing software is an
inherently complex task, like mathematics and other problem solving skills.

> Just like everybody can paint, but only a
> few actually manage to make a living out of it.

There are probably more people than you think that make their livings by
painting.  Remember if you paint houses or cars for a living, you are still
painting for a living ;-) (furthermore, the people that hold these jobs
rarely do so because they have a 'real talent' at painting a wall)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Chad R. Meiners wrote:
>> Making software is something everybody can do if they want to.
> 
> This is false.  I have met people that cannot construct software even though
> they tried very hard to learn how to program.  Writing software is an
> inherently complex task, like mathematics and other problem solving skills.

And I know people who cannot sing, dance, paint etc... :-)

>> Just like everybody can paint, but only a few actually manage to make
>> a living out of it.
> 
> There are probably more people than you think that make their livings
> by painting.  Remember if you paint houses or cars for a living, you
> are still painting for a living ;-) (furthermore, the people that hold
> these jobs rarely do so because they have a 'real talent' at painting
> a wall)

I meant art painting. But, to use your trickery of words ;-), one could
also say that everybody can program their coffee machine to make coffe
or the stove to cook a pizza etc... So programming doesn't need much
talent either ;-)

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Georg Bauhaus]

Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote:
: Its called the "Free Enterprise System" and it is neither illegal nor 
: immoral.

Nor is it legal or moral per se, because otherwise there were
no prosecutions.

: It works to allocate resources in the most efficient means 
: possible. Nobody "designed" it. Its what people do when you leave them 
: alone.

That's a world view "argument".

: Government regulation is needed to make sure that the rules get followed 
: and the contest is "fair".

And Government regulation is not independent, and sometimes
designed to help certain winning strategies.

: After that, its like a football game.

As long as the other team isn't so wounded that they cannot
go on, or the good player have been bought from the loosing
team before the match. That's the difference. Do you remember
the martial rhetorics of early Netscape etc.

: That doesn't sound like gangsters to me. Perhaps you don't like free 
: enterprise, but nobody has a better system yet.

I like really free enterprise, in a fair setting, not the
rediculous fighting for contracts and rectal visits that many
enterprises find themselves in. Maybe there isn't anything better.
What I don't like is that questions of managerial
perception of competence and questions of knowing the right people
matter more than anything else in far too many cases.

But we would end up again discussion whether a better product
is a product that just works better in its current market, or
one that is technically better, for example.


Georg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Georg Bauhaus]

Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote:
: Boy, that sounds an awful lot like Linux to me! :-) And what is 
: Microsoft whining about to anyone who will listen? About how Linux is a 
: threat and is unfair because its "Free" (translation: "Dumping")

So why did they undertake that study explaining how much cost
there is in supporting a Linux based server system vs a NT based
server system?

 
: Now I'm going to have a good laugh! :-)
 

Georg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Robert I. Eachus]

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:

> Or, tell me what the store sales
> guy is going to sell?  No difference in answer!  At BEST,
> you _might_ get a choice if you shop at Walmart, where
> Linux/Lindows are offered.
> 
> Unless your grandmother/mother had a life in IT, or enjoyed
> it as a hobby, I can only see one "real choice" emerging
> as an answer.
> 
> That says to me "monopoly".

More to the point, assume that your grandmother does know what an OS is, 
and intends to download Red Hat from the net for her new computer. 
Unless she puts the system together from parts, the probability that she 
won't end up paying the Microsoft tax is zero.

That more than any other issue is why Microsoft has a monopoly.  They 
offer the system builders a deal, either $X per system if you sell boxes 
without a Microsoft OS, or $Y per system if you sell every "desktop" or 
laptop computer with Windows.  And X >> Y, so that to be competitive, 
they have to sell you a Microsoft OS whether you want it or not.

They do the same thing with corporate licenses.  A company can pay 
Microsoft several million dollars for a Microsoft site license, but it 
will still require that the company pay for Windows with each new 
PC--whether or not it ever runs Windows.

Is this legal?  Not really.  But Microsoft points out that if you do 
things this way you don't have to worry about lawsuits if the SPA 
conducts an audit.  Of course, Microsoft is not going to send their tame 
dogs, the SPA after you unless you fail to sign their agreement, but if 
they do, the cost of the audit can be more than the cost of a Microsoft 
site license, and the site license is not cheap.  (Of course, my 
experience may be colored by being responsible for PCs in classified 
labs, and containing classified data or connected to classified 
networks.  I had a big box of (shrink wrapped and unopened) copies of 
Windows NT and Windows 2000, with each marked with the system name, just 
in case.

Oh, and to be honest, there were two other companies, both database 
vendors, whose site license polices were painful to comply with.  Oracle 
finally changed their policy to one that was much easier to administer, 
and the other, I won't even mention the name because their policy wasn't 
really designed to deal with classified software issues.  With Oracle we 
actually worked with Oracle to write an auditing tool and got its future 
results written into the site license.  (The Oracle auditing tool 
technically underreported the liability.  But as I said, it took awhile 
for Oracle to finally officially realize that if their database couldn't 
track it, they probably shouldn't ask compensation for it.  But as I 
said, they were willing to write the results of the auditing tool into 
their contract, so we didn't have to worry.)

-- 
                                              Robert I. Eachus

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." -- Jacques Chirac, 
President of France
"As far as France is concerned, you're right." -- Rush Limbaugh

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Chad R. Meiners]

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbjps0o.6vl.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
> I meant art painting.

Yes, I realised that you were using the term narrowly, but growing up on a
farm in Midwest America, I have observed more people that paint barns and
houses than on canvas ;-)  When I first read your statement, I used my
background for context since none was provided.  Henceforth I thought it
would be amusing and minorly enlightening to careful broaden the term to
other painting professions.

>But, to use your trickery of words ;-), one could
> also say that everybody can program their coffee machine to make coffe
> or the stove to cook a pizza etc... So programming doesn't need much
> talent either ;-)

While I did make $10 once for programming a neighbor's VCR, I would hardly
call that 'type' of programming a profession ;-)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Robert I. Eachus]

Preben Randhol wrote:

> Actually I yesterday heard (after our university got attacked by the
> MSBlast worm) that for one of our large equipments it was not allowed to
> install windows updates because the program that controlled the
> equipment (which is used for scientific work) would break. I told the
> person in charge to contact the company and get the software fixed as we
> cannot have a machine which is online so vunerable. Of course my point
> is that the machine should not be online at all, but that is not so easy
> to get through.

I think that you will find that the issue is with Microsoft Update, not 
with Microsoft security patches.  Of course, not running Microsoft 
Update and doing the patches yourself is more work.  But I for one have 
to do it that way or my system will be unusable until everything is 
reinstalled from scratch.

-- 
                                            Robert I. Eachus

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." -- Jacques Chirac, 
President of France
"As far as France is concerned, you're right." -- Rush Limbaugh

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Luke A. Guest]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 08:29:08 +0000, Preben Randhol wrote:

>>> Stallmann didn't create Linux.
>> 
>> I didn't say that he did.
> 
> OK thought you did :-)

Yeah, I mean't the HURD ;-P

Concerning that, I'm surprised that they didn't change to Mach-4.0 when it
came out, and then just change completely to L4 when that came out. Oh
well.

Luke.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Chad R. Meiners]

"Georg Bauhaus" <sb463ba@d2-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message
news:bhis4j$ndd$2@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de...
> So why did they undertake that study explaining how much cost
> there is in supporting a Linux based server system vs a NT based
> server system?

Probably for a reason similar to why a domestic steel producing company
might undertake in a study to understand the cost of using dumped foreign
steel versus using domestically produced steel.

RE: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Robert C. Leif]

If one develops software that is specific for and based upon Linux, then one
is obliged to use a GNU license. The GNU license does not permit one to stop
others from giving away or selling one's work. This requirement is more
stringent than anything Microsoft requires of developers that use Microsoft
tools. Monopoly status is not limited to capitalists and tends to be
exploited wherever it exists.
 
Bob Leif

Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
Email rleif@rleif.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Georg Bauhaus [mailto:sb463ba@d2-hrz.uni-duisburg.de] 
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 2:48 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

Robert C. Leif <rleif@rleif.com> wrote:
: 
: I believe that many of the necessary real-time Ada components have been
: created to run under Linux. If they run under other POSIX operating
systems,
: the authors of the Ada components could be able to escape from the Free
: Software monopolistic practice of forcing one to use their copyleft.

So you, as a scientist, say that a forcing license establishes
enough definitional grounds to warrant the characterisation of
an organisation as having a "monopolistic practice"?
If so then how does any organisation with a forcing license
fail to have monopolistic practice?

Sometimes even Ph.D.s seem to deviate from the very first principles
of conceptual soundness. Shouldn't you know better after a larger
number of publications?


Georg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Robert I. Eachus]

Robert C. Leif wrote:
> If one develops software that is specific for and based upon Linux, then one
> is obliged to use a GNU license. The GNU license does not permit one to stop
> others from giving away or selling one's work. 

Sigh, here we go again.  No, the GNU license does not require that.  It 
has two requirements.

First, if you modify the software subject to the GNU license, and 
distribute the modified code, you are required to distribute the source 
code for your modifications on the same basis as the GNU software.

Second, if your software is not directly linked to code produced by the 
copylefted software, you can sell it or distribute it any way you choose.

So if your system does require modifications to Linux, you have to make 
those modifications available to anyone who buys your product.  But 
nothing requires you to sell your product, or give your product, to 
anyone.  The point of the copyleft is to prevent someone from 
copyrighting a bug fix, and using that to make Linux or emacs or 
whatever proprietary.  It says nothing at all about all proprietary 
software.

At the interface, most libraries are subject to a modified license so 
that they can be linked either statically or dynamically as part of an 
executable image of a proprietary product.  So it may be that some 
library is incorrectly licensed, and that should be considered a bug to 
be fixed.  But the intent is not for Linux and GNU to be a virus that 
infects software it touches.  The licenses are designed to protect the 
status of Linux and other FSF software, and that is all.

ACT is a perfect example of how the copyleft is intended to work.  ACT 
does distribute some versions of GNAT as both free as in speech, and 
free as in beer, free software.  They have other versions, and other Ada 
tools which they do not distribute free in any way.  They put a lot of 
effort into insuring that the licenses in their software is as it should 
be so that their paying customers who are building commercial products 
can continue to use GNAT.  Obviously, their business would be hurt badly 
if their commercial customers could not use GNAT.  And, no, you don't 
need a contract with ACT to use GNAT in commercial products.

But be careful.  If you need a validated Ada compiler, you do need to 
contract with GNAT to get one.  If you only need a validated compiler 
for final delivery, you can wait on signing the contract.--But I don't 
recommend doing so, ACT's support is among the best compiler support I 
have ever seen, or provided.   (The reason for all this about validated 
compilers has little or nothing to do with making money.  ACT will be 
swearing that the compiler they provided you with is a validated 
compiler when used as you use it, on this hardware with, this operating 
system release, and these compiler options.  Compilers are not validated 
in a vacuum, and ACT needs to fill in the blanks, if you will, to give 
you a 'real' validation certificate.  If you felt like it, you could 
validate the GNAT compiler in your environment or pay someone else to do 
it for you.  But they would probably charge more than ACT. ;-)

-- 
                                              Robert I. Eachus

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." -- Jacques Chirac, 
President of France
"As far as France is concerned, you're right." -- Rush Limbaugh

RE: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[George Shapovalov]

Robert C. Leif wrote:
> If one develops software that is specific for and based upon Linux, then
> one is obliged to use a GNU license. The GNU license does not permit one
Um, do you mean Linux - the kernel or Linux - the system composed of
multiple packets working together (a superset of distribution is a sence)?
Somehow your below comment makes me think of a second interpretation:

> to stop others from giving away or selling one's work. This requirement is
> more stringent than anything Microsoft requires of developers that use
> Microsoft tools. Monopoly status is not limited to capitalists and tends
> to be exploited wherever it exists.

In this case you are grossly incorrect. Few examples, such as winex,
Win4Lin, Star Office, Word Perfect, QT come to mind. Some of them even work
on dual-licensing - "Use our GPL library if you develop Free Software or
buy a commercial license (which allows building commercial rpoduct upon +
usually some support is bundled) from us and earn money.."

You only have to be careful about what do you link against, and even there
LGPL stuff is fine, just as ACT's GMGPL is. You can even improve LGPL
library, if you wish to have something in it and this is only that library
that has to be open. Your app linking against it is fine..

Sure, it is not easy to plug into the kernel, but how often creator of
high-level app wants to do so (glibc, with which you interact most of the
time is LGPL, the kernel itself is the one which is GPL). Still even there
people find they way around (NVidia binary drivers).

George

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Alexander Kopilovitch]

Robert I. Eachus wrote:

> That more than any other issue is why Microsoft has a monopoly.  They 
> offer the system builders a deal, either $X per system if you sell boxes 
> without a Microsoft OS, or $Y per system if you sell every "desktop" or 
> laptop computer with Windows.  And X >> Y, so that to be competitive, 
> they have to sell you a Microsoft OS whether you want it or not.

This is generally well-known story, but what I can't get is why such a deal
was not immediately prosecuted by anti-trust law. Well, I don't know the code
of American law, but my understanding of the general spirit of anti-trust law
is that a company may not interfere (by any agreement) with the prices for goods,
which this company does not supply (at least parts or precursors of those goods
or services for them). And if it tries to do that then it must be prosecuted by
some chapter of anti-trust law.
  Can you explain this issue? (I certainly ask here for general, conceptual
explanation, not for detailed legal analysis.)



Alexander Kopilovitch                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> That more than any other issue is why Microsoft has a monopoly.  They 
> offer the system builders a deal, either $X per system if you sell boxes 
> without a Microsoft OS, or $Y per system if you sell every "desktop" or 
> laptop computer with Windows.  And X >> Y, so that to be competitive, 
> they have to sell you a Microsoft OS whether you want it or not.

Well this is so for the big computer bundlers. But what kind of deal is
it? I mean why do Microsoft subsidice (and also give their OS for free)
the bundling of computers? Is it only because they know one will buy MS
Office later?

I would think it was that if you bundled it with Windows you got it for
a buck or so, but if the computer bundler didn't take the deal with M$
then they had to pay some $200-300 for each Windows OS installed on the
machines and that would make their prices higher than the compotition?

I have noticed that if you go to smaller computer shops and order
a computer with the parts you want. They assemble and test it, but you
have to pay a full windows license price if you also want Windows
installed on the machine. I don't want Windows so I use them if I need a
new computer :-)


-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Alexander Kopilovitch wrote:
> This is generally well-known story, but what I can't get is why such a
> deal was not immediately prosecuted by anti-trust law. Well, I don't
> know the code of American law, but my understanding of the general
> spirit of anti-trust law is that a company may not interfere (by any
> agreement) with the prices for goods, which this company does not
> supply (at least parts or precursors of those goods or services for
> them). And if it tries to do that then it must be prosecuted by some
> chapter of anti-trust law.  Can you explain this issue? (I certainly
> ask here for general, conceptual explanation, not for detailed legal
> analysis.)

I think it depends on the sitting administration how they regard the
law.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Chad R. Meiners wrote:
> While I did make $10 once for programming a neighbor's VCR, I would hardly
> call that 'type' of programming a profession ;-)

My point exactly.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> 
> I think that you will find that the issue is with Microsoft Update, not 
> with Microsoft security patches.  Of course, not running Microsoft 
> Update and doing the patches yourself is more work.  But I for one have 
> to do it that way or my system will be unusable until everything is 
> reinstalled from scratch.

Where do one find the patches? Running Windows Update I of course,
*only*, choose the security updates, nothing else.

It really is a system worthy of Microsoft (read: crap).

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Luke A. Guest wrote:
> Concerning that, I'm surprised that they didn't change to Mach-4.0 when it
> came out, and then just change completely to L4 when that came out. Oh
> well.

After what I understand the development goes rather so and so due to
strong indviduals in the HURD team?

Anyway Tannenbaum seem to have converted to Windows 2000 now so I guess
micro-kernels was a nice idea, but ... :-)

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Chad R. Meiners wrote:
> 
> Probably for a reason similar to why a domestic steel producing company
> might undertake in a study to understand the cost of using dumped foreign
> steel versus using domestically produced steel.
> 

Free trade is nice as long as it only goes in your favour isn't it?



-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Robert C. Leif wrote:
> 
> If one develops software that is specific for and based upon Linux, then one
> is obliged to use a GNU license. 

FUD!

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Fair enough. I just never said anywhere in this train of thought that 
Microsoft got there by making a good quality product. What I said was 
that they didn't get there by "Monopoly" - but by being successful 
businessmen.

McDonalds makes something that only vaguely resembles food, yet they are 
very successful because their pseudo-food is served up really fast and 
cheap. (Remember the "Good", "Fast", "Cheap" algorithm?) Microsoft has 
done similar - they provided "Cheap" at a time when the market was 
aching for some sort of inexpensive OS. (The "High Quiality" ones were 
just way out of reach for the average consumer. Could you have afforded 
a VAX/VMS platform when those were all the rage?)

MDC


Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
> My point is that you cannot say that the quality of product A is good
> because company which produce product A has 90% market share. 
> 
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Yeah, but it seems to me that there was more than one guy out there that 
got started building PC's from inexpensive Asian boards in their garages 
and selling them cheaper than another big "monopoly" (that being IBM). 
What were ther names again? "Dell-somebodyorother"?, "Compaq-whosits?" 
"Gateway-idunno"? :-)

Lets say there is a significant "Windows Tax" on your garden variety PC. 
$100.00? Someone like Dell can get a price break on PC boards because of 
volume, but they've also got huge overhead associated with a large 
company. A couple of guys in a garage could start assembling Linux PCs 
and bundling a boatload of other GPLed software on them and shipping 
them without the $100 tax - maybe dropping prices even further with 
other creative strategies. Probably, they could provide all sorts of 
other "value added" features (like descent user's manuals?) and start a 
whole new market. Its not like this industry isn't loaded with examples 
of exactly that sort of formula working in the past.

My point is that it isn't exactly some sort of hopeless cause. Lots of 
people look at Ada as a "hopeless cause" (how's that for getting back on 
topic? ;-) but we're still here fighting the good fight. Toppling 
Micro$oft may seem like tilting at windmills, but it *could* be done. It 
has happened before with lots of other companies. Rather than complain 
about Microsoft and accuse Bill Gates' parents of not being married when 
they had him, why not dream up an alternative?

MDC



Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> 
> 
> More to the point, assume that your grandmother does know what an OS is, 
> and intends to download Red Hat from the net for her new computer. 
> Unless she puts the system together from parts, the probability that she 
> won't end up paying the Microsoft tax is zero.
> 
> That more than any other issue is why Microsoft has a monopoly.  They 
> offer the system builders a deal, either $X per system if you sell boxes 
> without a Microsoft OS, or $Y per system if you sell every "desktop" or 
> laptop computer with Windows.  And X >> Y, so that to be competitive, 
> they have to sell you a Microsoft OS whether you want it or not.

-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Well, I wouldn't say "worse" - the GMGPL has a place in the world. So 
does the GPL. Please try to understand, I don't "hate" the GPL or think 
it has no place in the world. I think there are better alternatives for 
certain sorts of software development efforts.

Here's a case - the Gnat compiler. It was originally developed under 
government contract, so basically I paid for it in the form of my taxes. 
Having done that, it made sense to allow me to get free access to the 
work I had already paid for and do so with the GPL. ACT picks it up and 
got their R&D done at my expense and in return to me as an investor, 
they occasionally release upgrades and other things. Meanwhile, they can 
make a profit by selling support, early releases, etc., to their 
customers. Its perfectly just and equitable, as well as providing all 
sorts of good marketing tools to ACT and Ada in general.

Similarly, the GMGPL has its place in the world. If the libraries in 
Gnat weren't under the GMGPL, there would be large numbers of potential 
users who would have to reject their use because they couldn't take the 
"infection" it would introduce into their own products. So if ACT hopes 
to get these customers using their compiler, it needs an alternative 
license.

Now if I, as a private individual, build some software that might be 
generally useful and I want to distribute it widely to start creating a 
market for it, I'd want something different in the way of a license. I 
want the distribution aspects of the GPL because it gets people to start 
using my stuff. But I want to be able to insure that I stand some sort 
of chance of getting compensated for my sweat equity if my spiffy little 
program starts looking good from a profit standpoint. I think such a 
scheme is possible and attractive.

But if you want to turn something loose under the GMGPL and let me pick 
it up and turn it into a billion dollar industry, you're free to do so. 
I'll be sure to send you a "Thank You" note. :-)

MDC


Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
> Actually I would probably place some of what I'm making now under GMGPL
> which is even worse in your view as then you can snatch it and make a
> closed source shrink wrapped commercial program based on this and make
> money without giving me a penny :-). But of course not all of it would
> be GMGPL :-)
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Stephane Richard]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5990 bytes --]


Well that is a "unique" way to get back on the topic.  Bravo :-)...

A windows Tax huh?  Pretty soon a criminal will be taken to court and asked
Which set of laws he wants to be judged under?  Federal, State or Microsoft?
This windows deal is really getting out of hand.  And to top that, the next
version of windows (so far anyways) wont allow you full access to your
system.  (not that any version in the past did either, but at least you had
DOS to really screw up your PC ;-)  Plus they're gonna charge you a Windows
tax?  well I say it's time for a change, for SURE!!!!

And yes it could be done, and with these new features that gets added like
non access to your system, all these little tips and tricks that make using
windows such a "flatulence to avoid cursing here :-)"  all I want to do is
install my Linux, and be happy with it.  Sure I'll admit that without
Windows today, the whole PC Industry, including Linux and all it's GUI might
not have gotten push this much forward, but now seems Microsoft is out of
tools of the trade.  They dont know what to do to keep their big share of
the market anymore, that hasn't been done already.  (hence the last
infringement settlement they'll have to pay to Intertrust).  But that's ok
although if I sit down, and create something new, like a new security
feature I'm not sure I'll want to publish it because these companies keep
their stuff so secret and private that I'm not 100% sure muicrosoft even
knew they were infringing.  Think about it.  You, in your basement office,
sit down develop what you believe to be a new concept, You did not copy
anything to your knowledge, but you code happens to do the same thing
someone else did and poof infringement.  (with everythign that's been built
so far as far as software, network and security goes) what are the odds of
something like this happening?  I'd say they're much higher than they were
back when Microsoft started.

But yeah, Microsoft with the new stuff coming up (although it does look good
as in feature related) definitaly shooting itself in the foot I think, and
there's only so much shooting a foot can withstand without falling
apart...Sure this new windows from the stuff I read online looks good, seems
to be a great concept blah blah blah...but at what price?  and what's next?
I dont know, but if it follows in the current trends of what Microsoft wants
to do with Windows itself, I'm not sure I want what's next.   It's gonna
help them yes, if a user can't screw up his system, lot less support calls
:-)....but that dont mean that windows wont screw itself up....then what?
And please understand that I'm not diminishing Microsoft but I just dont
support the new frame of mind, the new lack of control over their system
that microsoft will put in their new windows or are thinking of putting
(nothing seems to be official yet) so I dont want to talk bad before there's
bad to talk about :-)....

But all this to say that yes, I also believe that the window of opportunity
has just gotten bigger lately to tild a windmill :-)....


-- 
St�phane Richard
Senior Software and Technology Supervisor
http://www.totalweb-inc.com
For all your hosting and related needs

"Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message
news:3F3E0F7C.4020106@noplace.com...
> Yeah, but it seems to me that there was more than one guy out there that
> got started building PC's from inexpensive Asian boards in their garages
> and selling them cheaper than another big "monopoly" (that being IBM).
> What were ther names again? "Dell-somebodyorother"?, "Compaq-whosits?"
> "Gateway-idunno"? :-)
>
> Lets say there is a significant "Windows Tax" on your garden variety PC.
> $100.00? Someone like Dell can get a price break on PC boards because of
> volume, but they've also got huge overhead associated with a large
> company. A couple of guys in a garage could start assembling Linux PCs
> and bundling a boatload of other GPLed software on them and shipping
> them without the $100 tax - maybe dropping prices even further with
> other creative strategies. Probably, they could provide all sorts of
> other "value added" features (like descent user's manuals?) and start a
> whole new market. Its not like this industry isn't loaded with examples
> of exactly that sort of formula working in the past.
>
> My point is that it isn't exactly some sort of hopeless cause. Lots of
> people look at Ada as a "hopeless cause" (how's that for getting back on
> topic? ;-) but we're still here fighting the good fight. Toppling
> Micro$oft may seem like tilting at windmills, but it *could* be done. It
> has happened before with lots of other companies. Rather than complain
> about Microsoft and accuse Bill Gates' parents of not being married when
> they had him, why not dream up an alternative?
>
> MDC
>
>
>
> Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> >
> >
> > More to the point, assume that your grandmother does know what an OS is,
> > and intends to download Red Hat from the net for her new computer.
> > Unless she puts the system together from parts, the probability that she
> > won't end up paying the Microsoft tax is zero.
> >
> > That more than any other issue is why Microsoft has a monopoly.  They
> > offer the system builders a deal, either $X per system if you sell boxes
> > without a Microsoft OS, or $Y per system if you sell every "desktop" or
> > laptop computer with Windows.  And X >> Y, so that to be competitive,
> > they have to sell you a Microsoft OS whether you want it or not.
>
> -- 
> ======================================================================
> Marin David Condic
> I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
> My project is: http://www.jast.mil/
>
> Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g
>
>      "In general the art of government consists in taking as
>      much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
>      to the other."
>
>          --  Voltaire
> ======================================================================
>

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Oh, no! Absolutely not! I in no way want to discourage charitable works. 
What I'm laughing at is the notion that somehow or other "dumping" is 
"unfair" - unless the "dumping" is done by the FSF in the form of Linux. 
Suddenly then it becomes "fair"? O.K. I'll laugh at the double-standard. 
If "dumping" is "bad" then Microsoft has every right to cry about Linux 
being "unfair".

As for Microsoft crying about how they can't buy Linux and crush it, 
there may be some truth to that. But the GPL is not the only way to 
insure that. Suppose I wrote "Marin's OS" and it started becoming 
enormously popular. Bill gates comes around and wants to buy it from me 
and I don't want Microsoft to crush it. I say "O.K. You can buy it for 
Thirty Seven Trillion Dollars and you have to kiss my ass on PBS during 
their fund raisers for the next 5 years." You think he'd get the 
message? :-)

The point being that you can have an OS out there that is a for-profit 
concern that is capable of competing with Microsoft and might even win 
(thus making *that* company the next "Evil Empire") and it doesn't 
require the GPL to do it.

MDC


Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
> Yes, one should outlaw gifts, voluntary work and non-profit organisations.
> They are a menace to the corporate world and bring only grief and sorrow
> to the fat cats. 
> 
> :-)
> 
> Actually what M$ is whining about is: "Buhu, we cannot buy Linux and
> smash it, buhu we cannot use their code in our software. Buhu, it is
> unfair. *sniff* I'll do some more digging in the sand in the playground."
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Good point. Microsoft doesn't want you to give *their* software away and 
uses licenses to do that. They get called names and accused of 
"predatory" tactics, while you're still free to use their tools to 
develop your own things and keep the rights to your own work. But the 
FSF is determined not that you don't give away their work, but that you 
must give away *your*own* work, and that is somehow or other laudable? 
That isn't "predatory"?

MDC

Robert C. Leif wrote:
> If one develops software that is specific for and based upon Linux, then one
> is obliged to use a GNU license. The GNU license does not permit one to stop
> others from giving away or selling one's work. This requirement is more
> stringent than anything Microsoft requires of developers that use Microsoft
> tools. Monopoly status is not limited to capitalists and tends to be
> exploited wherever it exists.
>  

-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> As for Microsoft crying about how they can't buy Linux and crush it, 
> there may be some truth to that. But the GPL is not the only way to 
> insure that. 

No GPL has little or no part of that. It is because Linux isn't a
company but the collective works of thousands of people it cannot be
bought. How M$ is trying to crush it is to spread FUD and mess upp any
standard out there.

> The point being that you can have an OS out there that is a for-profit 
> concern that is capable of competing with Microsoft and might even win 
> (thus making *that* company the next "Evil Empire") and it doesn't 
> require the GPL to do it.

ACK, see above.


-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> Good point. Microsoft doesn't want you to give *their* software away and 
> uses licenses to do that. They get called names and accused of 
> "predatory" tactics, while you're still free to use their tools to 
> develop your own things and keep the rights to your own work. But the 
> FSF is determined not that you don't give away their work, but that you 
> must give away *your*own* work, and that is somehow or other laudable? 
> That isn't "predatory"?

This is completely wrong and borderlines FUD. Please tell me how you can
take a part of say Microsoft Studio and make an Ada Studio without
paying a hell of a lot of bucks to Microsoft for it. Then compare it to
that you use some GPL software and make your Ada Studio from that. You
don't pay money for the software you took, no you pay source code!

But that said. Most libraries that you would like to use on Linux comes
in either LGPL, GMGPL or some other license which allows the development
of closed source commercial software. So when people are saying that you
*must* release software for Linux as GPL it is blatant ignorance.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Georg Bauhaus]

Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote:
:  But the 
: FSF is determined not that you don't give away their work, but that you 
: must give away *your*own* work, and that is somehow or other laudable? 

You must give away your "own" work if and only if
a/ you distribute your "own" work
b/ your "own" work incorporates GPLed software.
I have put quotation marks around "own", because the GPL does _not_
force you to do anything with your own work, if it is your own work.

: That isn't "predatory"?

How could it? Free Software can only consist of parts that have
been deliberately licensed to the General Public.
If you can't make money from that, then they are not predators.
That would seem a strage logic to me.

If someone (A) deliberately offeres me (B) a chewing gum, and I take it,
then I am not a predator, am I?
If this person A says, "I'll give this to you (B) if you promise to give
your chewing gums away for free", then am I (B) a predator?
Is A a predator?
Do I have to take it?

Georg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Georg Bauhaus]

Chad R. Meiners <crmeiners@hotmail.com> wrote:
: While I did make $10 once for programming a neighbor's VCR, I would hardly
: call that 'type' of programming a profession ;-)

I a sense though it is, here. Namely, a fairly large number of
students are doing a lot of real work, at prices that are quite
attractive to companies. The wages are possible only because students
enjoy specially low conditions for tax, insurance, social security, etc.

I'd stop this immediately. This way this is just cutting wage rates
using public money in the end.

For example, students are also invited to design big content management
systems as part of their diploma. I'd like to know what the promise is
and what the bargain is. See the Lufthansa web site.


Georg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Ludovic Brenta]

Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> writes:
> Suppose I wrote "Marin's OS" and it started becoming enormously
> popular. Bill gates comes around and wants to buy it from me and I
> don't want Microsoft to crush it. I say "O.K. You can buy it for
> Thirty Seven Trillion Dollars and you have to kiss my ass on PBS
> during their fund raisers for the next 5 years." You think he'd get
> the message? :-)

Well, they'd have two alternative courses of action.

1) Reimplement the interesting and popular features of Marin's OS into
   Windows 2018.  (Do that in C, and badly, of course).  FUD your OS
   to death while the masses await the "new and improved Windows".
   The best way to do that is to declare Marin's OS "non-standard",
   thus implying that Windows 2018 is, or will be, "standard".  Then
   wait until you sue them for copyright or patent infringement.  By
   the time your complaint arrives before a court, you're out of
   business, and they can pay more lawyers than you can.

2) Sue *you* for patent infringement, over one of their 18,459
   software patents (though probably not the one that covers the "use
   of the colour blue in a screen that warns the user about a fatal
   condition that caused the operating system to become inoperative").
   You'd have no option but to give them your source code, for free,
   _and_ under NDA, so that no-one else will benefit from it.

I sympathise with your argument that the developer ought to have a way
to profit from their own work, but unfortunately, I am more and more
concerned that if your software is not open source, it doesn't stand a
chance against Microsoft.

Besides, there's another trend that I am observing.  The *users* of
software are starting to get the message that the purpose of Open
Source is to protect them, the users - not the programmers.  As a
result, more and more users are demanding access to the source code of
whatever software they use.  I think that, in the long run, the only
business model that will stand a chance in the marketplace will be
ACT's: sell services and support, give away the software.

Perhaps an intermediate position would be "ransom software" whereby
you release your software as closed-source until you've received
enough money for it ("enough" being defined by you within a time frame
also defined by you, but verified by a third party), at which point
you commit to releasing it as Open Source.  I've seen a page
explaining this somewhere on the Web.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Chad R. Meiners]

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbjs0j1.i2.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
>
> Free trade is nice as long as it only goes in your favour isn't it?

I never said that free trade does not have an ugly side; however, all
systems have ugly sides.
So what does your comment have to with my previous comment, anyway?

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Chad R. Meiners]

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbjs099.i2.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
> Chad R. Meiners wrote:
> > While I did make $10 once for programming a neighbor's VCR, I would
hardly
> > call that 'type' of programming a profession ;-)
>
> My point exactly.

Then your point is wrong!

My profession at the time was student.
People can paint houses, barns, cars, and canvas for a profession (their
primary observable duty is to paint).
People do not program their neighbors' VCR's for a profession (no stretching
of the definition of profession please.

I was staying within the confines of your argument

>Just like everybody can paint, but only a
>few actually manage to make a living out of it.

Your stretching of the context of programming does not.

If you want to discuss this more in detail, let's take it to email.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Chad R. Meiners]

"Georg Bauhaus" <sb463ba@d2-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message
news:bhld8s$6v5$2@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de...
> Chad R. Meiners <crmeiners@hotmail.com> wrote:
> : While I did make $10 once for programming a neighbor's VCR, I would
hardly
> : call that 'type' of programming a profession ;-)
>
> I a sense though it is, here.

What?!!?  I don't know about how things work in the rest of the world, but
when your parents ask you to drive over and help your neighbor with their
VCR problem, you go over and help them out.  Now it is not my fault if they
wanted to treat me to ice cream and give me $10 as a reward.  I acted in
charity, and they responded with charity.  Such actions are common in the
Midwestern US.  How does that covert my profession from "student" to "VCR
programmer"?

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Chad R. Meiners]

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbjs7cu.2q3.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
> Marin David Condic wrote:
> > Good point. Microsoft doesn't want you to give *their* software away and
> > uses licenses to do that. They get called names and accused of
> > "predatory" tactics, while you're still free to use their tools to
> > develop your own things and keep the rights to your own work. But the
> > FSF is determined not that you don't give away their work, but that you
> > must give away *your*own* work, and that is somehow or other laudable?
> > That isn't "predatory"?
>
> This is completely wrong and borderlines FUD. Please tell me how you can
> take a part of say Microsoft Studio and make an Ada Studio without
> paying a hell of a lot of bucks to Microsoft for it. Then compare it to
> that you use some GPL software and make your Ada Studio from that. You
> don't pay money for the software you took, no you pay source code!

Correct you have to pay both ways.  So Marin's point is not wrong!

> But that said. Most libraries that you would like to use on Linux comes
> in either LGPL, GMGPL or some other license which allows the development
> of closed source commercial software. So when people are saying that you
> *must* release software for Linux as GPL it is blatant ignorance.

No one said that.  Please try to carefuly read and understand what people
are writing as opposed to assuming you know what they intended.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Stephane Richard]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1109 bytes --]

I guess Ada does many wonderful things...hehehehe

-- 
St�phane Richard
Senior Software and Technology Supervisor
http://www.totalweb-inc.com
For all your hosting and related needs
"Chad R. Meiners" <crmeiners@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bhlsip$1dls$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
>
> "Georg Bauhaus" <sb463ba@d2-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message
> news:bhld8s$6v5$2@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de...
> > Chad R. Meiners <crmeiners@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > : While I did make $10 once for programming a neighbor's VCR, I would
> hardly
> > : call that 'type' of programming a profession ;-)
> >
> > I a sense though it is, here.
>
> What?!!?  I don't know about how things work in the rest of the world, but
> when your parents ask you to drive over and help your neighbor with their
> VCR problem, you go over and help them out.  Now it is not my fault if
they
> wanted to treat me to ice cream and give me $10 as a reward.  I acted in
> charity, and they responded with charity.  Such actions are common in the
> Midwestern US.  How does that covert my profession from "student" to "VCR
> programmer"?
>
>

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

"Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F3CD4C0.4000803@noplace.com...
> Robert Leif came up with at least one mechanism for compensation in his
> ADCL. I have some reservations about it because of practical
> considerations where I think it might be difficult to get acceptance of
> it from a potential commercial exploiter. But the basic idea is sound.
>
> I could probably come up with fifty ways of handling the licensing if I
> wanted to sit here and type all day. ;-)

But are you going to have 50 lawyers check each of those ways? ;-)

> Consider this: 90% of everything someone is turning loose out there
> under the GPL has little to no commercial value. At least not enough
> that its worth trying to find someone violating your license and
> prosecuting them. So a license that allows personal/business use but not
> commercial exploitation isn't really a problem, is it?

I haven't seen any metric on this, but it really would be interesting
(you'd have to define "having commercial value" first, however).
Without disputing the actual metric, I would tend to agree (after all,
how many programs and scripts do we need to list your directories in
colour?)  In fact, I have often suggested that one way a person
or organization could make a buck, is simply to provide a very
valuable service of sorting out the neat important contributions
from the fluffy flakey stuff that has limited value (like a colour
directory lister!)  My time is valuable, so I would actually pay
for such a service, to eliminate the need to evaluate software that
I might rate as crap.

> For the remaining 10% that might have some commercial resale potential
> you merely...

There is that word "merely" - aka "just".

> have to have a mechanism for establishing a suitable license
> and collecting/distributing the fees. You form up a clearinghouse or
> foundation or whatever you want to call it - some organization that is
> going to be responsible for handling this. It has a handful of
> commercial licenses available to a potential buyer and it has some
> algorithm for parceling out the profits to the contributors of any work
> that gets purchased.

But there are still many issues left:

  - how do you split the profits? Use ASIS? What if some code is
    considered rocket science while other code is "fluffy"?
  - How do you enforce your license?  Does every vendor have to
    write their own software "lock" software?
  - How do clients move their software to new machines (do you have
    to issues new keys, or does this org do it for you? Do they
    have front line customer support staff?)
  - Does the org have lawyers?
  - Does the org enforce on your behalf (ie. sue offenders, and
    take them to court? Do they break legs when they fail to pay?)
  - Does the org defend you when the client sues you because
    of your software's [perceived] quality or failure?

I get suspicious when I hear "just" or "merely" ;-)

I doubt this idea is new. I seem to recall there was some sort of
shareware org that was supposed to work along these lines. Where is
that today?  Where is the org that you're thinking of, today?

Don't get me wrong. Just because it ain't yet, doesn't mean it
cannot be. But it is often a sign of a "hill" that must be climbed.
Just who is going to do that? RedSplat?

> Basically, if you released your work under the non-commercial license
> you'd have the option of registering the work with the clearinghouse so
> that one day, if it becomes the next Linux, RedHat comes to the
> clearinghouse and gets a resale license from them. Then you win, RedHat
> wins, the rest of the geek community wins, the clearinghouse wins,
> everybody wins.
>
> MDC

The problem is that projects like Linux, would be severely less
popular if you didn't have the compiler, tools, X Window environment
and so on to go with it. Linus only worked the kernel, and the
present kernel also has numerous other contributions. The next Linux
would be no where, if one had to pay licenses to all of the other
support that is needed in addition to the kernel.

Your idea is OK, but Linux is a poor example of what may work in
that context, IMHO. GNU/Linux is clearly a huge community effort,
which I believe would not have got off of the ground if it got
heavily mired in licensing and compensation. GPL (and variants)
work well, because everyone wins, including the author. He gets
recognition as the author, and gets to see his work included with
distributions, saving him labour in new releases later.

BTW, authors of commercial software do not always get recognition.
Much of my code is running around the planet in commercial
software. But no one would know it unless they had the source
code (or some formal "credit" was given); or they had to purchase
it from me. When you work for someone else though, this honour
is usually lost on clients of the product.

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

"Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F3CD913.2040706@noplace.com...
> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> > I don't think the reason for their current MONOPOLY, makes much
> > difference now. Because they enjoy this current advantage, they
> > are likely to for the forseeable future, unless they bungle it
> > themselves, or something else becomes a serious choice for most
> > consumers (Linux/Mac?)
> >
>
> Just remember that there was once a company called "IBM" that pretty
> much had a stranglehold on the computer market. It was "IBM" vs "A bunch
> of insignificant 'also ran' companies". How the mighty have fallen?

I haven't forgotten that ;-)

> Goliath vs some little guy with a slingshot? Don't expect that Micro$oft
> has a permanent grip on the OS market. All it takes is a couple of guys
> in a garage with a better idea and a lot of determination and you could
> see Micro$oft reduced to a "partner" in the market rather than the
> definer of the market.
>
> MDC

I do believe that M$ will fall someday. But I believe that it will
take a combination of their own undoing and an aggressively funded
and brilliant execution to bring it about, if done commercially. No
garage effort "idea" is going to be enough to do it (remember the
'Mythical Man Month?' -- it takes 9 times the effort to bring a
product from a garage skunkworks to the quadrant where systems
fit together, and it is a product).

But the most promising turn of events IMHO is coming from Open
Software, where they cannot compete. This is my prediction:

- The day is coming when operating system software will be a
  commodity offering (free, or nearly so). The focus will shift
  from competing platforms (today) to competing application
  support and services.

This is already starting to happen in the UNIX world. All major
UNIX vendors have in some way embraced Linux -- even Sun). Eventually,
organizations will not want to pay for the O/S. Hence, hardware
vendors will move to a minimal Linux (say) support team, and
their teams will then compete on application software.

So the day may come when all (or most) UNIX vendors offer Linux
instead of Solaris, HPUX, Iris etc. They'll focus on the more
interesting pieces above the O/S. Another sign of this is the
general lack of extensive O/S research going on these days.

If Open development finally delivers a GUI interface that can
compete with M$, with the necessary apps and admin tools to
go with it, then M$ too may fall prey to this effect someday.

In my mind, it is now just a matter of picking the year in the
prediction. That's where my crystal ball fails me ;-)

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

"Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F3CDA4A.7070505@noplace.com...
> I concede that MS has the bulk of the market. But please notice that
> other OS's *do* exist and/or *could* exist and they *could* be put into
> the market against Windows. Other companies have simply dropped the ball.
>
> Also, please notice what happened to the phone company once they lost
> their government protected monopoly. They *were* huge and apparently
> undefeatable. Where are they now? No monopoly can survive forever
> because there are always alternatives and sooner or later something new
> comes up to change the market dynamics.
>
> MDC

The problem with this comparison, is that the gov't broke the
phone company up. Not competition. I don't see any evidence
of commercial competition coming close enough to effect the
same chain of events. Open source has reasons, but no
commercial competition has a chance.

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

"Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F3CDDDF.70205@noplace.com...
> Boy, that sounds an awful lot like Linux to me! :-) And what is
> Microsoft whining about to anyone who will listen? About how Linux is a
> threat and is unfair because its "Free" (translation: "Dumping")
>
> Now I'm going to have a good laugh! :-)
>
> MDC

ROTFL. I failed to see that when I posted, but yes!

There is still a difference to note however, and that is
that the work for Linux was volunteered to begin with.
OTOH, M$ pays/paid for infrastructure + salaries, and then
decides to give it away to in order to compete.  Their
economics allow them to get away with this. This creates
a tough situation for any commercial competition.

Free software however, is something that may bite M$
back someday.


> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> > Actually, that is a very good point that is easy to overlook
> > (price dumping)!
> >
> > You could expend a half a lifetime developing something like
> > a Netscape browser, and then market it. M$ sees how useful this
> > is and either tries to buy you out, or just creates one of its
> > own and then just gives it away. Based on history, I'd say you'd
> > be better off taking the M$ offer, given the way the outcome
> > works. But you'd have to be left "feeling dirty" with M$
> > money. ;-)
> >
> > This has happened at all software size levels, from what I can
> > see. Where is the profit in this?  If I release my software free,
> > (under the GPL), this actually puts M$ at a disadvantage. That
> > thought, warms my heart ;-)

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

"Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic.brenta@insalien.org> wrote in message news:m3wuddwt2n.fsf@insalien.org...
> Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> writes:
> > Suppose I wrote "Marin's OS" and it started becoming enormously
> > popular. Bill gates comes around and wants to buy it from me and I
> > don't want Microsoft to crush it. I say "O.K. You can buy it for
> > Thirty Seven Trillion Dollars and you have to kiss my ass on PBS
> > during their fund raisers for the next 5 years." You think he'd get
> > the message? :-)

I like your thinking here! 8-)

> 2) Sue *you* for patent infringement, over one of their 18,459
>    software patents (though probably not the one that covers the "use
>    of the colour blue in a screen that warns the user about a fatal
>    condition that caused the operating system to become inoperative").
>    You'd have no option but to give them your source code, for free,
>    _and_ under NDA, so that no-one else will benefit from it.

I find the software patents trend to be a very disturbing one. The
patent system will soon be so tied up that you will no longer be
able to sell anything without infringing upon someone's patented
rights. Of course they won't bother you while you're struggling to
get established. They'll sue you only after you have "made it",
or will sue you to put you out of business.

What is even MORE disturbing, is that you soon won't be able to
distribute or share software either, without infringing upon
some patented software process. Imagine that you discover some
very efficient way to produce thumbnails of images, and you
post and/or give the code away. You then get sued for patent
infringement on somebody's patented method that you discovered
independently!

If this goes its full course, there'll be few software development
companies in the business, and less software sharing. Geeks
will be forced back into a "black market", by the greed of
those taking advantage of the "law".

Is it any wonder that there are caustic lawyer jokes?

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Hyman Rosen]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> Obviously it would need a different license. Whats wrong with a license 
> that allowed all sorts of personal and business use, but not commercial, 
> for-profit use? Why wouldn't that be much used?

Because the people who put software on shiny disks and make them available
to the public for a fee will not be able to distribute yours. Any company
that wants to use the software will have to go through its purchasing and
legal departments, which means that that it will be used only if it is very
important and valuable because of that overhead - think of how much you will
charge for the software, as opposed to what it will cost for several hours
of corporate counsel time, cutting purchase orders, managing licenses, et al.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Hyman Rosen]

Robert C. Leif wrote:
> Fortunately, ASIS can be employed to solve the problem of determining the
> distribution of royalties.

Perhaps, only perhaps, ASIS can count the lines of code in some package
and in an entire program and report on this. If you think that determining
distribution of royalties has anything but the most tenuous relationship
to this count, then you are foolish indeed.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Simon Wright]

"Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@attbi.com> writes:

> But be careful.  If you need a validated Ada compiler, you do need to
> contract with GNAT to get one.  If you only need a validated compiler
> for final delivery, you can wait on signing the contract.--But I don't
> recommend doing so, ACT's support is among the best compiler support I
> have ever seen, or provided.   (The reason for all this about
> validated compilers has little or nothing to do with making money.
> ACT will be swearing that the compiler they provided you with is a
> validated compiler when used as you use it, on this hardware with,
> this operating system release, and these compiler options.  Compilers
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I seem to remember that this may be a problem: the options you need to
validate may not be those you would want/need to use in a real-world
application.

Apologies if this is FUD ...

> are not validated in a vacuum, and ACT needs to fill in the blanks, if
> you will, to give you a 'real' validation certificate.  If you felt
> like it, you could validate the GNAT compiler in your environment or
> pay someone else to do it for you.  But they would probably charge
> more than ACT. ;-)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Robert I. Eachus]

Simon Wright wrote:

> I seem to remember that this may be a problem: the options you need to
> validate may not be those you would want/need to use in a real-world
> application.
> 
> Apologies if this is FUD ...

Yes, it is true, but it is hardly FUD.  GNAT for example, has several 
dozen compiler options that normally result in an unvalidated compiler. 
  AFAIK, the only option you normally need to use in validation mode is 
-gnato.

But all that is irrelevant to YOU.  If you want to compile with some set 
of compiler options, ACT will do the work to validate with that option 
set.  This may mean that some ACATS tests will print failed, and ACT 
will have to document why it is "difficult or impossible" to pass those 
tests in your circumstances, or why those tests are not applicable in 
your situation.

A simple example is that you might want/need to compile with a 
non-Latin1 character set as your default in the run-time environment. 
In other words, you may be producing code that will run in an 
environment where the "standard" input and output is in Cyrillic, 
Hebrew, or Kanjii.  Your validation certificate will document that fact, 
and the test results will match.  Or you might not want to use Ada 
tasking and want to run in an environment where it is not supported.

Another example is that you might compile in a "non-standard" mode, with 
debugger support during development, and use a different set of compiler 
options for the production version.  Or you may insist on keeping the 
debugging support in the final code because you want to test the actual 
code you are going to use.  Your choice.  Again what you get for your 
validation effort is documentation of what the compiler will do in your 
intended environment.

It would be silly to pay for it, and not read the VSR (validation 
summary report). You can do that if all it really means to you is a 
check-off.  But it should say that you went to the effort because you 
needed the greater reliability that having a validated compiler 
promises.  And of course, part of that promise is that you will have 
available to you information that explains how your situation differs 
from the assumed standard environment.

-- 
                                              Robert I. Eachus

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." -- Jacques Chirac, 
President of France
"As far as France is concerned, you're right." -- Rush Limbaugh

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

I think you're over-complicating it. To start with, how do you enforce 
the GPL? Realistically, I bet there are thousands of examples of someone 
out there getting GPL'ed code and doing something with it and not 
distributing source or otherwise violating the license. How are they 
caught and prosecuted? They aren't. They are doing something so small 
that it falls below the radar. You're *never* going to enforce the 
license 100%, so get over that and look at what really counts - 
enforcing a license on the users big enough to get noticed.

How do you collect and distribute the revenue from the license? People 
are collecting revenues on software licenses every day. It doesn't take 
a team of lawyers to purchase some piece of software, read the license 
and understand what you're allowedd to do with it, so I think all the 
objections I've heard here about needing a team of lawyers is just plain 
FUD.

The only complication is how do you reasonably fairly distribute the 
revenues. That is also not insurmountable so long as you don't insist 
that it be absolutely, 100% equitable in every circumstance. (Is it ever 
100% equitable in life? Are salaries or bonuses ever 100% equitable?) 
You have two possibilities: A single author and multiple authors. If a 
license for X is sold and there is a single author, then the single 
author gets the license fee minus some overhead. For multiple authors, 
you need some agreed-upon percentage split of fees between the authors. 
A code counting tool of some sort could give a crude approximation. A 
deal agreed to by the authors upon submitting the product to the broker 
might be an option. Its not impossible to find some way of doing it that 
is reasonably fair and equitable.

The alternative, of course, is to just give away everything and ask for 
nothing in return. "Cashing my paycheck is so complicated! I've got to 
have a driver's license and a bank account and know how to sign my name 
and balance my checkbook and all that... I think I'll just rip it up and 
work for free." :-)

MDC


Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> 
> But there are still many issues left:
> 
>   - how do you split the profits? Use ASIS? What if some code is
>     considered rocket science while other code is "fluffy"?
>   - How do you enforce your license?  Does every vendor have to
>     write their own software "lock" software?
>   - How do clients move their software to new machines (do you have
>     to issues new keys, or does this org do it for you? Do they
>     have front line customer support staff?)
>   - Does the org have lawyers?
>   - Does the org enforce on your behalf (ie. sue offenders, and
>     take them to court? Do they break legs when they fail to pay?)
>   - Does the org defend you when the client sues you because
>     of your software's [perceived] quality or failure?
> 

-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Jeffrey Creem]

"Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3F3F703E.4080802@attbi.com...
> Simon Wright wrote:
>
> > I seem to remember that this may be a problem: the options you need to
> > validate may not be those you would want/need to use in a real-world
> > application.
> >
> > Apologies if this is FUD ...
>
> Yes, it is true, but it is hardly FUD.  GNAT for example, has several
> dozen compiler options that normally result in an unvalidated compiler.
>   AFAIK, the only option you normally need to use in validation mode is
> -gnato.
>

What about -fstack-check?


> But all that is irrelevant to YOU.  If you want to compile with some set
> of compiler options, ACT will do the work to validate with that option
> set.  This may mean that some ACATS tests will print failed, and ACT
> will have to document why it is "difficult or impossible" to pass those
> tests in your circumstances, or why those tests are not applicable in
> your situation.
>

I suspect as someone who probably gets paid to be an outside auditor
this will shock and astound you (and what I mean by that is not surprise you
at all :)....But in my experience, most of the time when a customer requires
validation
they don't really know why they are asking for it. They don't usually take
the time
to understand why they even want a validated compiler and will not dig into
the compiler option thing and are just happy if they see some piece of paper
that says validated......

Also, I can't tell you the number of times over the
years I have heard people say...oh...there is no validated compiler for
that, I guess
we have to use a C compiler (which of course is probably not validated at
all)....

The only thing worse than the validation/certification mess is the mind
numbing implementation  of the Joint
Technical Architecture (JTA)...perhaps especially the Army specific version
of the Joint Technical Architecture (Gotta love it...A branch specific
version of Joint standard
that they still call Joint....ugg)..

Note that the intent of the JTA (and even the JTA-A) seems pure enough but
the way these things get implemented makes one
really consider wanting to build happy meals instead of software.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Stephane Richard]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1755 bytes --]

From what I read, you're only required to distribute the used GPL source
code if you plan on distributing the source to your application.  If I want
to make a commercial application using as a basis some GPL source code and
building on it.  But I only want to distribute the binaries, nothing in the
GPL stops me from doing so, does it?

-- 
St�phane Richard
Senior Software and Technology Supervisor
http://www.totalweb-inc.com
For all your hosting and related needs
"Stephane Richard" <stephane.richard@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:SNu%a.2759$N37.205@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> I guess Ada does many wonderful things...hehehehe
>
> -- 
> St�phane Richard
> Senior Software and Technology Supervisor
> http://www.totalweb-inc.com
> For all your hosting and related needs
> "Chad R. Meiners" <crmeiners@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bhlsip$1dls$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu...
> >
> > "Georg Bauhaus" <sb463ba@d2-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message
> > news:bhld8s$6v5$2@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de...
> > > Chad R. Meiners <crmeiners@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > : While I did make $10 once for programming a neighbor's VCR, I would
> > hardly
> > > : call that 'type' of programming a profession ;-)
> > >
> > > I a sense though it is, here.
> >
> > What?!!?  I don't know about how things work in the rest of the world,
but
> > when your parents ask you to drive over and help your neighbor with
their
> > VCR problem, you go over and help them out.  Now it is not my fault if
> they
> > wanted to treat me to ice cream and give me $10 as a reward.  I acted in
> > charity, and they responded with charity.  Such actions are common in
the
> > Midwestern US.  How does that covert my profession from "student" to
"VCR
> > programmer"?
> >
> >
>
>

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Larry Kilgallen]

In article <EUK%a.8125$Cd2.3995@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>, "Stephane Richard" <stephane.richard@verizon.net> writes:

> From what I read, you're only required to distribute the used GPL source
> code if you plan on distributing the source to your application.  If I want
> to make a commercial application using as a basis some GPL source code and
> building on it.  But I only want to distribute the binaries, nothing in the
> GPL stops me from doing so, does it?

Yes it does.  You should read the GPL to understand.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Exactly 180deg backwards. The government *removed* its protection of the 
monopoly and allowed others to compete. ATT did not have a monopoly 
because they cornered the market. They had a monopoly because the 
government *said* they did and forbid competitors from entering into the 
business.

Remember, a monopoly is against the law and the only way ATT could have 
what they did have was with the permission, regulation and protection of 
the government.

MDC

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> 
> 
> The problem with this comparison, is that the gov't broke the
> phone company up. Not competition. I don't see any evidence
> of commercial competition coming close enough to effect the
> same chain of events. Open source has reasons, but no
> commercial competition has a chance.
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

Where did I *ever* say I was against "Open Source"???? I suppose if your 
definition of "Open Source" is "GPL" - even then I didn't say I was 
against it - just that I didn't think it was right for all types of 
software or business situations.

In the scheme I was proposing - some sort of allowed business and 
personal use, but not for resale (without consent & compensation) - I 
said *absolutely*nothing* about not providing source or not allowing 
modification, etc. I am fully in favor of providing source code.

MDC

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> 
> I sympathise with your argument that the developer ought to have a way
> to profit from their own work, but unfortunately, I am more and more
> concerned that if your software is not open source, it doesn't stand a
> chance against Microsoft.
> 

-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

No more than you have to take anything that Microsoft offers you. What 
is the point? If Bill Gates is "predatory" in offering software for sale 
to the public - you pay money to use his stuff - then isn't Richard 
Stallman a "predator" when he makes you pay for his stuff with source 
code? If Bill Gates is out trying to destroy Richard Stallman, isn't 
Richard Stallman out trying to destroy Bill Gates? And who started it 
anyway?

If the FSF is simply making an offer to you that you are free to accept 
or reject, isn't that essentially what Microsoft is doing? You can 
always say "no" and go get Linux or go buy a Sun machine or find some 
other alternative - including not using a computer at all.

MDC

Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> 
> If someone (A) deliberately offeres me (B) a chewing gum, and I take it,
> then I am not a predator, am I?
> If this person A says, "I'll give this to you (B) if you promise to give
> your chewing gums away for free", then am I (B) a predator?
> Is A a predator?
> Do I have to take it?
> 



-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================

RE: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Robert C. Leif]

The US patent law permits a prior art defense. Thus, if you are correct, the
expert witnesses should do very well. In the US, an inventor swears to the
correctness of his/her patent application. If a deliberate falsehood is
included in an application, in principle, perjury charges can be brought.
Unfortunately, this tactic does not seem to be used. However, it would serve
as a strong deterrent to prevent the abuses that you and others have
described.

I would favor changes to the patent law that would require mandatory
licensing for truly generic patents. I might note to those of you who are
members of the European Economic Community, that the sum of your individual
national patent costs is much greater than that of the US. Thus, both your
own and the US inventors are being ripped off.

Bob Leif

Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
Email rleif@rleif.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG [mailto:ve3wwg@cogeco.ca] 
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 4:34 PM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

"Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic.brenta@insalien.org> wrote in message
news:m3wuddwt2n.fsf@insalien.org...
> Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> writes:
> > Suppose I wrote "Marin's OS" and it started becoming enormously
> > popular. Bill gates comes around and wants to buy it from me and I
> > don't want Microsoft to crush it. I say "O.K. You can buy it for
> > Thirty Seven Trillion Dollars and you have to kiss my ass on PBS
> > during their fund raisers for the next 5 years." You think he'd get
> > the message? :-)

I like your thinking here! 8-)

> 2) Sue *you* for patent infringement, over one of their 18,459
>    software patents (though probably not the one that covers the "use
>    of the colour blue in a screen that warns the user about a fatal
>    condition that caused the operating system to become inoperative").
>    You'd have no option but to give them your source code, for free,
>    _and_ under NDA, so that no-one else will benefit from it.

I find the software patents trend to be a very disturbing one. The
patent system will soon be so tied up that you will no longer be
able to sell anything without infringing upon someone's patented
rights. Of course they won't bother you while you're struggling to
get established. They'll sue you only after you have "made it",
or will sue you to put you out of business.

What is even MORE disturbing, is that you soon won't be able to
distribute or share software either, without infringing upon
some patented software process. Imagine that you discover some
very efficient way to produce thumbnails of images, and you
post and/or give the code away. You then get sued for patent
infringement on somebody's patented method that you discovered
independently!

If this goes its full course, there'll be few software development
companies in the business, and less software sharing. Geeks
will be forced back into a "black market", by the greed of
those taking advantage of the "law".

Is it any wonder that there are caustic lawyer jokes?

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

RE: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Robert C. Leif]

ASIS can count both the lines of code and what software constructs were
used. You should visit my website www.newportinstruments.com and read that I
have discussed both function points and feature points. However, any
reasonable Ada specific heuristic would be better than a separate
negotiation for each library. In fact from my experience as an inventor, one
often does not have a clear idea of what will be the ultimate uses of one's
creations. 

A system that permits one to publish the Ada sources on a web site and
permit downloads after the user has identified themselves and electronically
signed a copyright agreement would be sufficient. I suspect that most of the
agreements would permit no charge individual and educational use. However,
if the component were used in the equivalent of Microsoft(R) Office(R), the
author would receive royalties based on the code that was actually used. 

Bob Leif

Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
Email rleif@rleif.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Hyman Rosen [mailto:hyrosen@mail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 1:26 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

Robert C. Leif wrote:
> Fortunately, ASIS can be employed to solve the problem of determining the
> distribution of royalties.

Perhaps, only perhaps, ASIS can count the lines of code in some package
and in an entire program and report on this. If you think that determining
distribution of royalties has anything but the most tenuous relationship
to this count, then you are foolish indeed.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Georg Bauhaus]

Chad R. Meiners <crmeiners@hotmail.com> wrote:
: 
: "Georg Bauhaus" <sb463ba@d2-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message
: news:bhld8s$6v5$2@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de...
:> Chad R. Meiners <crmeiners@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> : While I did make $10 once for programming a neighbor's VCR, I would
: hardly
:> : call that 'type' of programming a profession ;-)
:>
:> I a sense though it is, here.
: 
: What?!!?

In the following sense.
If you help some neighbour or friend installing the lates RPC
patch, once, or twice, then in a non-technical sense this isn't
professional work, for sure.
If organisations rely on cheap students' work to keep the computer
network running, then this is professional work, but not professional
payment, insurance, etc.

Walls in students' hostels are regularly painted by a handful of students
who will receive payment which seems lower than what painters would get.
Students are not painters in general, and this isn't charity
work either. Painters can't do their job because students are in a
position that allows them to be cheap. 

If in a city like Cologne (about 1Mio inhabitants) students would have
to be regular employees, instead of working for just the "cash of this evening"
the estimate is that the Cologne gastronomy would break down immediately.
(Professional waiters and students will pay quite different sums to health
insurance companies, and students usually do not pay for liability insurance
because that is done by their parents for the whole family, for example.)

If a student sees a handful of EUR for the delivery of some program
or service, he or she doesn't think that much about how this sum is
sufficient for a living as a professional. I see them as freelancers
but they charge much less, which is part of what companies find
attractive.

The effect of this kind of work, and employment, is that those who
do this work as their profession (programmers, painters, ...)
suffer from price dumping on the labour market.

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

"Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> wrote in message news:mailman.21.1061147150.299.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org...
> The US patent law permits a prior art defense. Thus, if you are correct, the
> expert witnesses should do very well. In the US, an inventor swears to the
> correctness of his/her patent application.

The fact that independently developed software can wind up in a
patent dispute, is all by itself very much a concern to me. In a
business with capital investment, this is a drain and
inconvenience (perhaps a serious one).

But for the free software developer, this is a complete nightmare. So
even if there is a "defence", it is one that comes at a great cost.

The net effect will be that free software developers will either
start to contribute anonymously, or will work around the legal
system (at least once the infringement is discovered). The path
of least resistance will be not to bother at all, since the
perceived risk will be too much. This too me is the greatest
crime of all possible outcomes.

The other issue at stake here is when the patent office (on any
continent), allows a wide ranging patent to be granted. Look at
the ones that have been in the news, ranging from web links to
1-click shopping. Currently small e-shops are caving in and paying
the blackmail, since it is cheaper than going to court.

This really bites my friends!

> If a deliberate falsehood is
> included in an application, in principle, perjury charges can be brought.
> Unfortunately, this tactic does not seem to be used. However, it would serve
> as a strong deterrent to prevent the abuses that you and others have
> described.

These types of deterents only work when the expense and hassle
of going to court are undertaken. Even then, I'd have to question
the practicality of making certain charges (you need strong proof,
which is not always possible).

> I would favor changes to the patent law that would require mandatory
> licensing for truly generic patents.

I'm not sure I understand this. How does this help? If you're talking
about a maintenance fee for held patents, this only keeps out a few
small fish. This doesn't stop the large corporations.

> I might note to those of you who are
> members of the European Economic Community, that the sum of your individual
> national patent costs is much greater than that of the US. Thus, both your
> own and the US inventors are being ripped off.
>
> Bob Leif

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

"Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F3F739A.8040308@noplace.com...
> I think you're over-complicating it. To start with, how do you enforce
> the GPL? Realistically, I bet there are thousands of examples of someone
> out there getting GPL'ed code and doing something with it and not
> distributing source or otherwise violating the license. How are they
> caught and prosecuted?

Granted this is true, but I am _less_ concerned about that,
than I would be about lost revenue!

> They aren't. They are doing something so small
> that it falls below the radar. You're *never* going to enforce the
> license 100%, so get over that and look at what really counts -
> enforcing a license on the users big enough to get noticed.

But this is my point. With free software, this never enters the
picture. With non-free software, the situation _does_ become
more complicated because you must make judgement calls about
how to enforce your licensing terms. Additionally, your _client_
must also worry about it, since he might be subject to software
audits etc.

> How do you collect and distribute the revenue from the license? People
> are collecting revenues on software licenses every day. It doesn't take
> a team of lawyers to purchase some piece of software, read the license
> and understand what you're allowedd to do with it, so I think all the
> objections I've heard here about needing a team of lawyers is just plain
> FUD.

No, not FUD, but a lot more worries than I've ever had to consider
with free software ;-)  IOW, much less "hassle". That is the only
point I am making.

> The only complication is how do you reasonably fairly distribute the
> revenues.

There's that word "only" ;-)  This is a big issue with the blank
CD and tape tax that is being collected. They have yet to agree on
how to divide it up! These are not necessarily trivial, nor are
they necessarily complex -- my point is that it can easily become
complex.

> That is also not insurmountable so long as you don't insist
> that it be absolutely, 100% equitable in every circumstance. (Is it ever
> 100% equitable in life? Are salaries or bonuses ever 100% equitable?)

You and I can probably agree on an arrangement. However, when you
get a large collection of people who have a stake
in the "pie", you'll have a tough time reaching concensous, because
a few will have unrealistic ideas about the worth of their own
contributions.

I am not suggesting that this is unsolvable. Perhaps the one way
to solve something like that is to have a very small group set
the ground rules up front. The blank tape and CD tax people have
AFAIK, decided to arrive at a "what's fair" later on. That is
asking for trouble AFAICS.

> You have two possibilities: A single author and multiple authors. If a
> license for X is sold and there is a single author, then the single
> author gets the license fee minus some overhead. For multiple authors,
> you need some agreed-upon percentage split of fees between the authors.
> A code counting tool of some sort could give a crude approximation. A
> deal agreed to by the authors upon submitting the product to the broker
> might be an option. Its not impossible to find some way of doing it that
> is reasonably fair and equitable.

It can be done, but it requires administration and overhead, which
too is OK. But I don't see many organizations like this around at
the moment, and one has to ask why this is so.

> The alternative, of course, is to just give away everything and ask for
> nothing in return. "Cashing my paycheck is so complicated! I've got to
> have a driver's license and a bank account and know how to sign my name
> and balance my checkbook and all that... I think I'll just rip it up and
> work for free." :-)
>
> MDC

I am not advocating that you work for your employer for nothing. We
are not talking about this kind of thing.

Your employer of course, not only has a payroll dept, an accounts
receivable dept, but also has lawyers on the payroll, or some
business association with a lawyer's office.

Compare this to the "hobby code something in your basement/garage"
scenario. You cannot even compare these two!

Sure if I was single, I could quit my job and try to start up a
business of my own. But we are not talking about business startups.

We _were_ talking about free vs licensed software. I am just suggesting
that the licensed kind usually requires more of the "business" model
than most software hobbyists are willing to muster. If someone
else were to handle this end of it, would there be much left
over? I have my doubts.

IOW, if most software contributions to the world (apart from
salaried jobs), are made by "software hobbyists", the most effective
license is usually a free type of license. The reason for it
is because it frees the contributor from worrying about
"business", and permits them to do what they like best.

That is, write software.

If someone wants to do "business" in software on their own, there
is nothing stopping them (yet -- see the concerns about patents
in another thread). But I hope you'll agree, that there is a
number of added hassles to be conquered in _that_ model, that are
over and above what free/GPL software demands.

Clearly for me at least, I feel a sense of gratitude for free
software I use today. So I am glad to contribute what I can in
return.

For special projects that I would consider marketing, so far
it has been my own limited experience that selling your own
software requires you to deal with too much "hassle" on the
business end of the stick.

But your tolerance level may vary!  ;-)

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Georg Bauhaus]

Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote:
: If the FSF is simply making an offer to you that you are free to accept 
: or reject, isn't that essentially what Microsoft is doing?

It is the same in so far as there are offers that you may be free
to accept or reject, but there seems to be a difference in the
kinds of offerings.

: You can 
: always say "no" and go get Linux or go buy a Sun machine or find some 
: other alternative - including not using a computer at all.

I don't think you can, if you are in computer business.
(I remember you writing "He who has the gold make the rules", roughly?)
It is the rules that are established in computer business that count for
many individual companies. If you look at the big picture, the IT market,
then questions to be answered include, "is this or that licensing scheme
good for the wealth of nations?"

There is not just one individual who makes a choice, but many.
The choices add up to the establishment of market constraints
by establishing an expectation of what is usually there
(for example, a windows media player with a number of codecs).
If some content provider now whishes to offer video streams, what
DMCA protection mechanism will they choose if any, and what will be
the cost of their choice? Do they really have a choice after
the more or less subtle and silent introduction of DMCA software
in windows media players? Do consumers and producers really have
the freedom to reject or accept DMCA players and MS streaming software?


Georg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

"Marin David Condic" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote in message news:3F3F8C38.2040801@noplace.com...
> Exactly 180deg backwards. The government *removed* its protection of the
> monopoly and allowed others to compete. ATT did not have a monopoly
> because they cornered the market. They had a monopoly because the
> government *said* they did and forbid competitors from entering into the
> business.

I believe this oversimplifies what actually happened, although
I'll admit I am short of hard facts.

There was a shared infrastructure to be considered. Someone had
to break the strangle-hold on that shared infrastructure that
they had, IIRC.

Another example (from Canada eh), was that our
Bell Telephone at one time would not permit a competitor's
phone to be pluged into a Bell line (you could only use
a Bell supplied phone, and rented at that -- buying a phone
came later).

For competition on the telephone handset to occur, the courts
had to declare that Bell had to permit other manufactured
sets to be plugged into the line, provided that they met
certain standard specs (IIRC, modems were beginning to
bring this issue to the forefront as well). I believe
something similar occured in the US.

Of course Bell still threatened the
customer (even today?) that if the telephone set causes a
line problem, that you may get billed for the repairs of
their line(s) to your home (of course this isn't the case
if you have a Bell phone). So they strongly suggest that
you should buy your telephone equipment from them.

> Remember, a monopoly is against the law and the only way ATT could have
> what they did have was with the permission, regulation and protection of
> the government.
>
> MDC

IIRC, they had a monopoly in the sense that the circuits
all/mostly belonged to them. Something had to happen to
decentralize the ownership/responsibility there. In that
sense, I maintain the monopoly was _then_ broken.
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Chad R. Meiners]

"Georg Bauhaus" <sb463ba@d2-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message
news:bhp1k4$6c9$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de...
> Chad R. Meiners <crmeiners@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : "Georg Bauhaus" <sb463ba@d2-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message
> : news:bhld8s$6v5$2@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de...
> :> Chad R. Meiners <crmeiners@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :> : While I did make $10 once for programming a neighbor's VCR, I would
> : hardly
> :> : call that 'type' of programming a profession ;-)
> :>
> :> I a sense though it is, here.
> :
> : What?!!?
>
> In the following sense.
> If you help some neighbour or friend installing the lates RPC
> patch, once, or twice, then in a non-technical sense this isn't
> professional work, for sure.

Okay. Thank you ;-)

> If organisations rely on cheap students' work to keep the computer
> network running, then this is professional work, but not professional
> payment, insurance, etc.

Well sure--I won't argue that a student cannot become a professional network
administrator and get underpaid.

> Walls in students' hostels are regularly painted by a handful of students
> who will receive payment which seems lower than what painters would get.
> Students are not painters in general, and this isn't charity
> work either.

> Painters can't do their job because students are in a
> position that allows them to be cheap.

So what?  It keeps the painters on their toes.  Anyway perhaps the
experience will allow one of the students to take up a profession in
painting.

> If in a city like Cologne (about 1Mio inhabitants) students would have
> to be regular employees, instead of working for just the "cash of this
evening"
> the estimate is that the Cologne gastronomy would break down immediately.
> (Professional waiters and students will pay quite different sums to health
> insurance companies, and students usually do not pay for liability
insurance
> because that is done by their parents for the whole family, for example.)
>
> If a student sees a handful of EUR for the delivery of some program
> or service, he or she doesn't think that much about how this sum is
> sufficient for a living as a professional. I see them as freelancers
> but they charge much less, which is part of what companies find
> attractive.
>
> The effect of this kind of work, and employment, is that those who
> do this work as their profession (programmers, painters, ...)
> suffer from price dumping on the labour market.

Then the professionals will need to offer something more than the students.
Don't worry though, the students will eventually becomes professionals and
have to deal with the students, too ;-)  An interesting social problem, but
one that we should take to email if you care to.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Chad R. Meiners]

"Georg Bauhaus" <sb463ba@d2-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message
news:bhp3p5$84l$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de...
> Do consumers and producers really have
> the freedom to reject or accept DMCA players and MS streaming software?

Yes, of course!

Remember freedom does not mean that all choices are equal.  We are all free
to act morally or wickedly, but we encounter many situations where it is
more difficult to be moral than wicked.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Chad R. Meiners wrote:
> 
> "Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnbjs0j1.i2.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
>>
>> Free trade is nice as long as it only goes in your favour isn't it?
> 
> I never said that free trade does not have an ugly side; however, all
> systems have ugly sides.

I'm talking about your steel protection tax which was ruled illegal.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Chad R. Meiners wrote:
> 
> "Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnbjs099.i2.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
>> Chad R. Meiners wrote:
>> > While I did make $10 once for programming a neighbor's VCR, I would
> hardly
>> > call that 'type' of programming a profession ;-)
>>
>> My point exactly.
> 
> Then your point is wrong!
> 
> My profession at the time was student.

> People can paint houses, barns, cars, and canvas for a profession
> (their primary observable duty is to paint).

> People do not program their neighbors' VCR's for a profession (no
> stretching of the definition of profession please.
> 
> I was staying within the confines of your argument

Exactly. We don't need a bunch of web-site "designers" making crappy web
sites and calling themselves programmers. We don't need costly buggy
office suits where your data is stored in a closed format. It is time
that some of the software out there gets to a higher level. Just as you
wouldn't fork out $1000 for a painting painted by somebody who had never
tired painting before.


-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Stephane Richard wrote:
> From what I read, you're only required to distribute the used GPL
> source code if you plan on distributing the source to your
> application.  If I want to make a commercial application using as a
> basis some GPL source code and building on it.  But I only want to
> distribute the binaries, nothing in the GPL stops me from doing so,
> does it?

Yes you cannot use GPL (I mean not LGPL or GMGPL) in a commercial source
application without licensing the application under the GPL.

But please when you reply use propper quoting. Don't reply at the top of
the article, but go to the place and reply there. And cut away the text
that isn't needed.


-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Chad R. Meiners wrote:
> 
> Correct you have to pay both ways.  So Marin's point is not wrong!

Yes it was because it has nothing to do with being predatory.

>> But that said. Most libraries that you would like to use on Linux
>> comes in either LGPL, GMGPL or some other license which allows the
>> development of closed source commercial software. So when people are
>> saying that you *must* release software for Linux as GPL it is
>> blatant ignorance.
> 
> No one said that.  Please try to carefuly read and understand what
> people are writing as opposed to assuming you know what they
> intended.

I think you should do that too.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Ludovic Brenta]

The Free Software Foundation is campaigning against software patents.
The arguments are well known by now.

First, software consists of algorithms, and algorithms are a special
form of mathematical proof.  Can you patent a mathematical proof?  For
example, can you patent to algorithm to compute the value of e using
the series: e = 1 + sum of (1/n!) ? The answer, historically, has been
a resounding NO.  Mathematical proofs are published under copyright
law, not patent law.  Software may also be construed as a kind of
musical partition, which is "played" by the computer.  And music is
not patentable.  What is patentable is the computer itself, i.e. the
hardware, and the process to manufacture it.

Second, the patent system was designed to promote the advancement of
technology.  By contrast, software patents tend to hinder such
advancement, as Warren pointed out.

Third, the patent system was created in the interest of the general
public.  Instead, software patents are being used in the interest of a
few mega-corporations.  They mainly use their portfolios of patents in
two ways.  One way (a) is to block smaller competitors from entering a
market; this includes SMEs, and hobbyist programmers who work for free
and cannot afford a lawsuit, _even if they win the lawsuit in the
end_.  The other way (b) is to enter into "cross-licensing agreements"
with their bigger competitors [2].  The only beneficiaries of these
"cross-license agreements" are the mega-corporations involved, _not_
their customers, certainly not their competitors, and certainly not
the general public.

These three reasons alone explain why there is a petition online [1]
where all US voters are invited to lobby against software patents.

Fourth, there is a geostrategic twist to this.  Europe does not have
software patents, but the US and Japan do.  American mega-corporations
are lobbying the European Parliament to pass a law that permits
software patents [3].  The European software industry is much smaller
than that in the US, and consists mainly of SMEs.  If the EP adopts
software patents, then these SMEs will become easy targets for the US
mega-corporations, as per (a).  More importantly, it may well be
possible for European governments, armies, and utilities to get sued
over use of patented cryptographic or other algorithms.  I dare not go
further into this reasoning, as the consequences could be
catastrophic.

[1] http://www.petitiononline.com/pasp01/petition.html
[2] http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/enterprise/story/0,2000048640,20272597,00.htm
[3] http://swpat.ffii.org/events/2003/europarl/07/

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Dale Stanbrough]

Marin David Condic wrote:

> People are absolutely free to go do charity work for corporations if 
> they like. I won't stop them. If they want to come over to my house and 
> mow my lawn next weekend, they can do that to. Personally, I'd rather 
> give my charity time to more deserving recipients and give my software 
> development time to those who will offer me compensation. But that's 
> just me. :-)

It's quite possible that the people who are developing Linux et al
feel that it is a charitable work. There are a number of poorer
countries that would be quite happy to be able to GPL software at
the "right price".

Perhaps you could view commercial explotation of this software as
bad, but perhaps it could also be viewed as a good thing if it helps
create a better product.

Dale

-- 
dstanbro@spam.o.matic.bigpond.net.au

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Georg Bauhaus]

Chad R. Meiners <crmeiners@hotmail.com> wrote:
: 
: "Georg Bauhaus" <sb463ba@d2-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message
: news:bhp3p5$84l$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de...
:> Do consumers and producers really have
:> the freedom to reject or accept DMCA players and MS streaming software?
: 
: Yes, of course!
: 
: Remember freedom does not mean that all choices are equal.  We are all free
: to act morally or wickedly, but we encounter many situations where it is
: more difficult to be moral than wicked.

:-) See Brecht's threepenny opera, How To Survive.

See also the latest EU's antitrust procedure involving Microsoft.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Chad R. Meiners]

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbk0t28.2kl.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
> Chad R. Meiners wrote:
> >
> > "Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
> > news:slrnbjs099.i2.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
> >> Chad R. Meiners wrote:
> >> > While I did make $10 once for programming a neighbor's VCR, I would
> > hardly
> >> > call that 'type' of programming a profession ;-)
> >>
> >> My point exactly.
> >
> > Then your point is wrong!
> >
>
> Exactly.

Look at this exchange ;-)

> We don't need a bunch of web-site "designers" making crappy web
> sites and calling themselves programmers.

I agree that people should by responsible enough to not misrepresent
themselves.  However, it is not going to happen.

> We don't need costly buggy
> office suits where your data is stored in a closed format.

People should also be responsible enough to choose their own financial
risks.

> It is time
> that some of the software out there gets to a higher level.

Some software out there is at a higher level.  See MULTOS
(http://www.sparkada.com/publications.html)

I agree that quality is very important in software.  I also think quality is
very important to people's arguments.

> Just as you
> wouldn't fork out $1000 for a painting painted by somebody who had never
> tired painting before.

I don't know; if the painting were a unique masterpiece, does it matter the
painter had never painted before?
;-)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Chad R. Meiners]

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbk0tgo.2kl.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
> Chad R. Meiners wrote:
> >
> > Correct you have to pay both ways.  So Marin's point is not wrong!
>
> Yes it was because it has nothing to do with being predatory.

But Marin's point is about a double standard that is present in the argument
of this thread.  You were arguing a different point.

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Alexander Kopilovitch]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> First, software consists of algorithms,

Well, first, this is only one view (others are quite possible), and second,
this is too inexact statement: actually, software consists of particular
representations of algorithms, not the algorithms themselves; and after all
(as Wirth pointed out by its well-known title, data structures is another
essential part of the programs, that is, of the software).

> and algorithms are a special form of mathematical proof.

Very special; and which is more important, algorithms usually have properties,
which are essential for their applications in software products, but largely
irrelevant for their interpretations as mathematical proofs: for example, two
algorithms for the same problem may differ in speed or in memory requirements
(as well as in other things).

> American mega-corporations
> are lobbying the European Parliament to pass a law that permits
> software patents

Why law itself still isn't patented? If it were then American government may
license that law to European Union. -;)

> The European software industry is much smaller
> than that in the US, and consists mainly of SMEs.  If the EP adopts
> software patents, then these SMEs will become easy targets for the US
> mega-corporations, as per (a).

But notice, that it may boost already quite strong European artificial
intelligence R&D. The volume of patent data and complexity of patent law
already reached levels at which an artificial intelligence approach is worth
of consideration.

>  More importantly, it may well be
> possible for European governments, armies, and utilities to get sued
> over use of patented cryptographic or other algorithms.  I dare not go
> further into this reasoning, as the consequences could be
> catastrophic.

Just curious about possible scenarios of that catastrophe. Don't you think
that the most vulnerable thing, which will break first of all, will be the law
itself?


Alexander Kopilovitch                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[chris]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> The Free Software Foundation is campaigning against software patents.
> The arguments are well known by now.

And no one pays any attention to the FSF in Brussels or anywhere else 
outside of the Open Source community.  Their all or nothing fanaticism 
makes it easy to dismiss them out of hand.

 > Europe does not have
> software patents, but the US and Japan do.  American mega-corporations
> are lobbying the European Parliament to pass a law that permits
> software patents [3].

Yes we do.  We are just very strict about how they are issued.  The new 
laws will just make it one hell of a lot easier to get them.  Member 
states also have sw patenting schemes, and as I understand it the UK has 
them although it's difficult to apply/enforce them here.

btw this would all be done and dusted and the law passed if they hadn't 
put it back.  I can't remember the reason, but you can still make you're 
feelings known until September iirc.

Chris

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Chad R. Meiners wrote:
>> >> Chad R. Meiners wrote:
>> >> > While I did make $10 once for programming a neighbor's VCR
> 
> Look at this exchange ;-)

See I can also change the content of a post so that your meaning alters
:-P

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Frank J. Lhota]

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbk0srd.2kl.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
> > I never said that free trade does not have an ugly side; however, all
> > systems have ugly sides.
>
> I'm talking about your steel protection tax which was ruled illegal.

FWIW, most supporters of free trade would agree with your objections to the
steel protection matters.

RE: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Robert C. Leif]

Why do you want a system that discriminates against software inventors? If I
invent a new chemical or use for that chemical or clinical instrument, I can
receive significant royalties. However, if I do the equivalent in software,
you and others believe that these intellectual contributions should be free.
I also believe that mathematicians should be able to profit from their
discoveries. Again, what you propose is the poverty, chastity, and obedience
nonsense. Most of the capitalists really like getting technology for free. I
still favor all power to the technocrats.

Bob Leif

Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
Email rleif@rleif.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Ludovic Brenta [mailto:ludovic.brenta@insalien.org] 
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 12:21 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?


The Free Software Foundation is campaigning against software patents.
The arguments are well known by now.

First, software consists of algorithms, and algorithms are a special
form of mathematical proof.  Can you patent a mathematical proof?  For
example, can you patent to algorithm to compute the value of e using
the series: e = 1 + sum of (1/n!) ? The answer, historically, has been
a resounding NO.  Mathematical proofs are published under copyright
law, not patent law.  Software may also be construed as a kind of
musical partition, which is "played" by the computer.  And music is
not patentable.  What is patentable is the computer itself, i.e. the
hardware, and the process to manufacture it.

Second, the patent system was designed to promote the advancement of
technology.  By contrast, software patents tend to hinder such
advancement, as Warren pointed out.

Third, the patent system was created in the interest of the general
public.  Instead, software patents are being used in the interest of a
few mega-corporations.  They mainly use their portfolios of patents in
two ways.  One way (a) is to block smaller competitors from entering a
market; this includes SMEs, and hobbyist programmers who work for free
and cannot afford a lawsuit, _even if they win the lawsuit in the
end_.  The other way (b) is to enter into "cross-licensing agreements"
with their bigger competitors [2].  The only beneficiaries of these
"cross-license agreements" are the mega-corporations involved, _not_
their customers, certainly not their competitors, and certainly not
the general public.

These three reasons alone explain why there is a petition online [1]
where all US voters are invited to lobby against software patents.

Fourth, there is a geostrategic twist to this.  Europe does not have
software patents, but the US and Japan do.  American mega-corporations
are lobbying the European Parliament to pass a law that permits
software patents [3].  The European software industry is much smaller
than that in the US, and consists mainly of SMEs.  If the EP adopts
software patents, then these SMEs will become easy targets for the US
mega-corporations, as per (a).  More importantly, it may well be
possible for European governments, armies, and utilities to get sued
over use of patented cryptographic or other algorithms.  I dare not go
further into this reasoning, as the consequences could be
catastrophic.

[1] http://www.petitiononline.com/pasp01/petition.html
[2]
http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/enterprise/story/0,2000048640,20272597,00.h
tm
[3] http://swpat.ffii.org/events/2003/europarl/07/

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Chad R. Meiners]

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbk1svg.73s.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
> Chad R. Meiners wrote:
> >> >> Chad R. Meiners wrote:
> >> >> > While I did make $10 once for programming a neighbor's VCR
> >
> > Look at this exchange ;-)
>
> See I can also change the content of a post so that your meaning alters
> :-P

*sigh*  I am not trying to twist your words.  I am showing you how the
structure of your replies is self-contradictory.
The contents I sniped were the supporting arguments for the line I did not
snip.

Me: While <...> VCR.
You: My point exactly
Me: Then your point is wrong. <supporting arguments snipped>
You: Exactly. <rest of text>

Your placement of the word 'exactly' indicates that you think that I am
right about you being wrong.  By reading further, I learn that this is not
true (no surprise here;-).  This is a very bad form when presenting an
argument.  I am perfectly willing to explain all of this in more detail via
private email if you wish.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Chad R. Meiners wrote:
> Some software out there is at a higher level.  See MULTOS
> (http://www.sparkada.com/publications.html)
> 
> I agree that quality is very important in software.  I also think quality is
> very important to people's arguments.

I have never said all software should be Open source or free in some
way. I guess most corporate software won't and shouldn't. What I'm
saying is that I don't see why John Doe should be milked so that Billy
the Goat gets fatter and fatter from his poor software. He and others
need a incentive to make something better to stay in business. To offer
better support for the software. So much time out of the working day is
wasted with different problems or errors in the software to keep other
from being effective in their work.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Chad R. Meiners]

"Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.24.1061231507.299.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org...
> I also believe that mathematicians should be able to profit from their
> discoveries.

Well sometimes they can if their discoveries lead to a product or process
that is marketable ;-)  Patenting a mathematical proof is just silly.  Who
would you charge for using the proof?  A proof is an argument about the
truth of a propertity.  People can use the propertity without using the
proof.  So what about patenting propertities?  This too is silly since
propertities are naturally occuring.   You might as well try to patent the
laws of nature.

Algorithms on the other hand are a slightly different beast as Alexander
pointed out.  At least people can 'use' an algorithm ;-)

-CRM

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Chad R. Meiners]

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbk28nm.73s.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
> Chad R. Meiners wrote:
> > Some software out there is at a higher level.  See MULTOS
> > (http://www.sparkada.com/publications.html)
> >
> > I agree that quality is very important in software.  I also think
quality is
> > very important to people's arguments.
>
> I have never said all software should be Open source or free in some
> way.

I never thought that you did ;-)

> I guess most corporate software won't and shouldn't. What I'm
> saying is that I don't see why John Doe should be milked so that Billy
> the Goat gets fatter and fatter from his poor software. He and others
> need a incentive to make something better to stay in business.

I agree that without competition certain companies, corporations, and
individuals have produced poor software.  One of the reasons I like GNU
software is that it provides a constant pressure on everybody to produce.  I
don't think that John Doe is getting 'milked'.  New revisions of OS are like
new revisions of text books.  John Doe buys a version of the text book and
gets a list of errata for corrections.  Same with OS's.  Renting OS's,
however, would be annoying.

> To offer
> better support for the software. So much time out of the working day is
> wasted with different problems or errors in the software to keep other
> from being effective in their work.

Yes, I understand, but such is life.  Not even GNU software is immune to
such things :(

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Hyman Rosen]

Robert C. Leif wrote:
> Why do you want a system that discriminates against software inventors?

We don't. We want to discriminate against inventors in general.

The patent system is a devil's bargain at the best of times, because
it drastically limits freedom of expression. It makes sense for some
cases where the costs of invention are high, the reproducilibilty is
cheap, and the invention is useless unless marketed. Developing new
drugs is such a thing - a drug company has no use for drugs except to
sell them; it itself isn't sick. Developing software usually fails the
third test, because much software is written to be used, not sold.
Ditto for business processes; Amazon developed one-click to enhance the
utility of its web shopping site.

What many people seem to forget is that the vast majority of people get
paid for the time they work, and no more. The people who erected MS's
office building do not receive payments for the software developed there.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Chad R. Meiners wrote:
> 
> Me: While <...> VCR.
> You: My point exactly
> Me: Then your point is wrong. <supporting arguments snipped>
> You: Exactly. <rest of text>

No. I was replying to the last paragraph that you wrote.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Frank J. Lhota wrote:
> 
> FWIW, most supporters of free trade would agree with your objections to the
> steel protection matters.

Yes. That is why I said that Free trade is nice (for them) only as long
as it goes in their favour.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Chad R. Meiners]

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbk2dt3.73s.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
> Frank J. Lhota wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, most supporters of free trade would agree with your objections to
the
> > steel protection matters.
>
> Yes. That is why I said that Free trade is nice (for them) only as long
> as it goes in their favour.

I agree. ;-)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Chad R. Meiners]

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbk2dq2.73s.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
> Chad R. Meiners wrote:
> >
> > Me: While <...> VCR.
> > You: My point exactly
> > Me: Then your point is wrong. <supporting arguments snipped>
> > You: Exactly. <rest of text>
>
> No. I was replying to the last paragraph that you wrote.

So you were either replying to

> I was staying within the confines of your argument
-or-
> Your stretching of the context of programming does not.
?

In either case, I think that we both can agree that while words can take on
many meanings, it is not good practice to use all the meanings at once. ;-)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Preben Randhol]

Chad R. Meiners wrote:
> 
> I agree that without competition certain companies, corporations, and
> individuals have produced poor software.  One of the reasons I like GNU
> software is that it provides a constant pressure on everybody to produce.  I
> don't think that John Doe is getting 'milked'.  New revisions of OS are like
> new revisions of text books.  John Doe buys a version of the text book and
> gets a list of errata for corrections.  Same with OS's.  Renting OS's,
> however, would be annoying.

You bought a computer with NT. Then NT gets dumped by M$ (no more
security fixes as the OS cannot be fixed there are too big problems with
it (this is was M$ are saying)) so you must buy 2000 or XP. That is $250
then you must buy Office for 2000 or XP because the old is not working
correctly probably around $500 for the package. So in order to use your
computer for anything useful you need at least to fork out $750 and then
you still get your data saved in a closed source file format. $750 is
actually more money than you spent on the hardware (evenif you had
bought a completely new machine). Then there are the tons of annoyances,
bugs, user unfriendly things and you sit there tearing your hair out.

The only problem is that either John Doe has a computer at his office so
he doesn't pay the $750 or he pirated the software. He then complains,
but he doesn't blame M$ the same way he would if he had paid this sum
out of his own pocket. And for some strange reasons people accept that
software should be buggy. I once got an error message in Windows 3.11
which I think came from an application, but I couldn't really tell. It
read: "Error: No Error" which says it all.

I mean would you not go and complain if your scooter (that you payed
$750 for) suddenly died every X miles and you had to start it up again.
Or suddenly the breaks stopped working and you had to manage to stop and
start it again?

> Yes, I understand, but such is life.  Not even GNU software is immune to
> such things :(

No life isn't such. It is the low quality of the industry and the lack
of complains. Sure there are some bugs in GNU software too, but I have
not have whole days go by just because I couldn't get a program to work
or that suddenly a program decided not to save my document so I had to
print it and write it all over again.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Preben Randhol]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Robert C. Leif wrote:
>> Why do you want a system that discriminates against software inventors?
> 
> We don't. We want to discriminate against inventors in general.
> 
> The patent system is a devil's bargain at the best of times, because
> it drastically limits freedom of expression. It makes sense for some
> cases where the costs of invention are high, the reproducilibilty is
> cheap, and the invention is useless unless marketed. Developing new
> drugs is such a thing - a drug company has no use for drugs except to
> sell them; it itself isn't sick. Developing software usually fails the
> third test, because much software is written to be used, not sold.
> Ditto for business processes; Amazon developed one-click to enhance the
> utility of its web shopping site.

But also that many of the patents are very banal and that malignant
companies are trying to get patents to steal money. Patents were
suppose to work so that a company that invest a lot of money into making
a technology could get this money back and make a decent earning by
being protected by the patent until it expires. However making the click
system at Amazon could hardly have taken much brain cycles nor coding.
It is therefore more an obstacle you place in the middle of the road and
hope the competition cannot get around than anything else. What about
the effort by a company which name slipped my mind to copyright the
hyperlinking "technology"? I consider this as trying to patent the use
of a fork to eat dinner.


-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Georg Bauhaus]

Robert C. Leif <rleif@rleif.com> wrote:
: Why do you want a system that discriminates against software inventors? If I
: invent a new chemical or use for that chemical or clinical instrument, I can
: receive significant royalties.

Patents, and software patents in particular, are not just about
protecting inventors. It looks like in software business, you need
a portfolio of patents in order to be able to negotiate agreements
with other holders of patent portfolios. If you do not look at
just one software inventor, but many, then when everything is patented
you will have to check whether writing software is still possible,
or whether you are in no good position to start negotiations about
the use of patented algorithms.

If there is a mapping from the set of software developers to the
set of wheighted cardinalities of their software portfolios, then
it becomes clear who will be able to write profitable software.

An individual might think that patents will provide him or her
with a reward, but, uninteded consequence, it will also provide
him or her with the requirement to pay fees when it comes to many
individuals.

: Again, what you propose is the poverty, chastity, and obedience
: nonsense. Most of the capitalists really like getting technology for free. I
: still favor all power to the technocrats.

Software patents won't protect you from the mechanics of capitalism,
if you look at how companies deal with patents today.

Do you pay craftspeople? If so, why? Do you pay developers of
Free software? If not, why not?


Georg
 

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Georg Bauhaus]

chris <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com> wrote:
: Ludovic Brenta wrote:
:> The Free Software Foundation is campaigning against software patents.
:> The arguments are well known by now.
: 
: And no one pays any attention to the FSF in Brussels or anywhere else 
: outside of the Open Source community.  Their all or nothing fanaticism 
: makes it easy to dismiss them out of hand.

I can't say that is true (not paying any attention)
GnuPG is funded by an EU goverment.
Some governments are seriously discussing and using open source
software, including GPLed software.
They do not want to depend on companies (read MS) or on developments
in anyhing they cannot really influence, like US law.


Georg

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Wojtek Narczynski]

"Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> wrote in message news:<mailman.21.1061147150.299.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>...

> I would favor changes to the patent law that would require mandatory
> licensing for truly generic patents.

Creating a Board of Almighty Bureaucrats who will decide wether a
patent is truely generic will not fix anything. A "true fix" to the
system would require making it go back to the roots, that is to
"promote progress" as the US Constitution empowers the Congress to. As
long as it only makes the rich richer, it only serves as a balance for
progressive taxes that try to make the rich poorer. +$1-$1 should be
$0, but will not; neanwhile the Board of Almighty will steal some
pennies for themselves.

Regards,
Wojtek Narczynski

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Wojtek Narczynski]

Hello,

> And no one pays any attention to the FSF in Brussels or anywhere else 
> outside of the Open Source community. Their all or nothing fanaticism 
> makes it easy to dismiss them out of hand.

I have been to Brussels with FFI. Believe me, we were not a group of
radicals. We were professors, lawyers, CEOs (incl. Robert Dewar of
ACT), people from the US FTC, people from ISO, people personally hurt
by patent lawyers. Indeed nobody (McArthy) gave a damn. It was
especially drastic for me, because remember the government telling me
that 2+2=5 and there it was happening again in the capital of EU,
which we were about to join.


Regards,
Wojtek

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:31:01 -0700, "Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com>
wrote:

>Why do you want a system that discriminates against software inventors?

It is already here. Patents are used to reward patent owners, which
are not necessarily the inventors. Nobody is against inventors, except
fundamentalists. The problem is that the system does not work as
expected and moreover it has lots of very nasty side effects raising
the question whether it is worth these effects.

>If I invent a new chemical or use for that chemical or clinical instrument, I can
>receive significant royalties. However, if I do the equivalent in software,
>you and others believe that these intellectual contributions should be free.

The problem is that the software you made belongs to the firm you are
working for. So the royalties. The patent law it its present state
could only work if people were working for themselves without large
investments. It is long time not the case, especially in modern
science and software industry.

>I also believe that mathematicians should be able to profit from their
>discoveries. Again, what you propose is the poverty, chastity, and obedience
>nonsense. Most of the capitalists really like getting technology for free. I
>still favor all power to the technocrats.

Have they? In fact even shareholders (capitalists) have not. It seems
that presently the highest and ruling class is the class of managers.
They do not invest, do not invent, but rein everything. Not that we
should get rid of them. It is that without a counterweight they became
almost uncontrolled.

---
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Wojtek Narczynski]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message news:<1061235392.884013@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>...
> Robert C. Leif wrote:

> It makes sense for some cases where the costs of invention are high,
> the reproducilibilty is cheap, and the invention is useless unless 
> marketed. Developing new drugs is such a thing - a drug company has 
> no use for drugs except to sell them; it itself isn't sick. 

Sounds like you actually believed in the drug industry spin. Maybe you
would wish to give it a second thought by asking yourself questions
like:

* What is necessary for the drug business to roll on?
* Why is the drug industry the most profitable in the world?
* What would happen to me if I ate all the drugs that are advertised
on TV as "must eat to be healthy".

Or more advanced:

* Are there any placebo studies in surgery?
* In which year will Americans spend a trillon dollars on drugs?

(Sorry for a totally offtopic post. I think I have reached my yearly
limit today so I will just shut up...)

Regards,
Wojtek

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Colin Paul Gloster]

Rob Leif said:

"[..] The added benefit
is that because of ASIS, Ada is by far the best language for profitable
cooperative software development. [..]"

Colin Paul Gloster confessed to being confused and said:

"Sorry, why?"

Robert C. Leif explained:

"Because ASIS provides the functionality to determine the actual contribution
of individual packages to the linked code. Imagined scenario: I supply you
with a one million line library and you use 100 lines of the code in a
commercial project. (The metric is unimportant). Do you pay me for the one
million or 100 lines? ASIS provides the technology to have you just pay me
for the 100 lines without both of our lawyers negotiating the deal and
eating up most of the profits. [..]"

Alright, thanks, but this could be done without ASIS.

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Hyman Rosen]

Wojtek Narczynski wrote:
> * What is necessary for the drug business to roll on?

The ability to defray large and often fruitless development
efforts by selling those drugs that are found to work at a
profit.

> * Why is the drug industry the most profitable in the world?

Because people die if they do not buy the products. Also because
men want to regrow hair and improve their sexual abilities.

> * What would happen to me if I ate all the drugs that are advertised
> on TV as "must eat to be healthy".

You would be healthy. Many other drugs are specific to various
conditions, but you could also take one of the antidepressants,
and then you would also be happy.

> * Are there any placebo studies in surgery?

Yes. There is a surgical placebo effect. Search in Google for
'placebo surgery' for references. What has that to do with drug
companies, which generally do not perform surgery?

> * In which year will Americans spend a trillon dollars on drugs?

This one?

RE: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Robert C. Leif]

Benjamin Franklin, one of the wisest founders of the US, was supported by
his patents and probably was instrumental in including the patent and
copyright section in our constitution. Frankly, patents are absolutely
essential for technological progress. They provide the motivation for
investment. Although the US Government has funded my work on developing new
technologies to detect cancer cells, it is the collection of patents that I
have created, which will be the next source of funding. Unfortunately, the
US Government's performance in protecting its citizens' intellectual
property in other countries has ranged for poor to pitiful.

Since Ada posses the technology to create software components, a method to
rigorously protect this type of intellectual property would greatly favor
the use of Ada. 

However, we should now end this argument, since both sides can read the
words of excellent advocates for their opinions.
http://www.cio.com/archive/080103/debate_intro.html

Bob Leif

Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
Email rleif@rleif.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Preben Randhol [mailto:randhol+abuse@pvv.org] 
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:58 PM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Robert C. Leif wrote:
>> Why do you want a system that discriminates against software inventors?
> 
> We don't. We want to discriminate against inventors in general.
> 
> The patent system is a devil's bargain at the best of times, because
> it drastically limits freedom of expression. It makes sense for some
> cases where the costs of invention are high, the reproducibility is
> cheap, and the invention is useless unless marketed. Developing new
> drugs is such a thing - a drug company has no use for drugs except to
> sell them; it itself isn't sick. Developing software usually fails the
> third test, because much software is written to be used, not sold.
> Ditto for business processes; Amazon developed one-click to enhance the
> utility of its web shopping site.

But also that many of the patents are very banal and that malignant
companies are trying to get patents to steal money. Patents were
suppose to work so that a company that invest a lot of money into making
a technology could get this money back and make a decent earning by
being protected by the patent until it expires. However making the click
system at Amazon could hardly have taken much brain cycles nor coding.
It is therefore more an obstacle you place in the middle of the road and
hope the competition cannot get around than anything else. What about
the effort by a company which name slipped my mind to copyright the
hyperlinking "technology"? I consider this as trying to patent the use
of a fork to eat dinner.


-- 
<I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.>
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[John R. Strohm]

"Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.lhota.adarose@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ah70b.11944$Cd2.2970@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> "Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnbk0srd.2kl.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
> > > I never said that free trade does not have an ugly side; however, all
> > > systems have ugly sides.
> >
> > I'm talking about your steel protection tax which was ruled illegal.
>
> FWIW, most supporters of free trade would agree with your objections to
the
> steel protection matters.

Most supporters of free trade have never bothered to think the problem all
the way through.

Re: Software Patent Concerns => (FSF is Robin Hood?)

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Robert C. Leif wrote:

> Why do you want a system that discriminates against software inventors? 

Most software patent holders are NOT the "software inventors"
(and this is the crux of the problem!) They are the
leaches that take existing pre-invented (ie. un-original) ideas,
and then take the trouble of patenting the idea (while the original
inventor, was willing to leave it free to the world).

Now why would I want to support "highway robbery"? This is what
the current "system" is supporting.

It does _not_ support the software inventor, who left the
idea "free", or those that want to make use of that
free idea. So the current system defends the "lawyer
minded", and offends everyone else.

> If I
> invent a new chemical or use for that chemical or clinical instrument, I can
> receive significant royalties. However, if I do the equivalent in software,
> you and others believe that these intellectual contributions should be free.

Writing software is very similar to writing a story. Each
piece of software is unique, and can be copyrighted (after
all, no two people are likely to code precisely the same
way, with the same variables and style, unless they be
extremely short and simple code segments, not worth
a discussion).

Software patents are similar to saying to a fiction writer
"you cannot write a story about 'Flying to the moon, inhabiting
that planet or space station'. This story idea has been
created and patented by person Z."  This would mean that if
you wanted to write your own fiction about a space station
around the moon, then you must license that right from Z to
do so (which is rediculous!)

Even worse, if you were to write about a space station
around the Earth, you might get sued because the idea would
be very similar to the one around the moon.

So this idea of software patents in my mind at least, is just
plain rediculous. Kinda smells like "you can't kill the
King's deer"!  Maybe the FSF is the Robin Hood of the
21st century!

Software needs to be as free as any other kind of creative
craft, including publishing and art. The creator is then
free to copyright his work, whether via GPL or a system
of his own choosing. But I maintain he should be able to
WRITE AS HE PLEASES!

No software patents please!

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Robert C. Leif wrote:

> Benjamin Franklin, one of the wisest founders of the US, was supported by
> his patents and probably was instrumental in including the patent and
> copyright section in our constitution. Frankly, patents are absolutely
> essential for technological progress. They provide the motivation for
> investment. Although the US Government has funded my work on developing new
> technologies to detect cancer cells, it is the collection of patents that I
> have created, which will be the next source of funding. Unfortunately, the
> US Government's performance in protecting its citizens' intellectual
> property in other countries has ranged for poor to pitiful.
> 
> Since Ada posses the technology to create software components, a method to
> rigorously protect this type of intellectual property would greatly favor
> the use of Ada. 
> 
> However, we should now end this argument, since both sides can read the
> words of excellent advocates for their opinions.
> http://www.cio.com/archive/080103/debate_intro.html
> 
> Bob Leif

Nothing in that link changes my opinion that software is
an art form, and needs to be free as such. If anything, the
articles only amplify how bad the whole process has become,
and demonstrates a need for change.
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Ed Falis]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:31:01 -0700
"Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> wrote:

> Why do you want a system that discriminates against software
> inventors? 

Because of people like the guy who claimed to have invented "threads" in
1986 that a patent lawyer asked my opinion of?  Or the one who claimed
to have invented the call stack in the early 80's?  Or some of the many
other patents granted to large corporations for common practice
algorithms, so they could use them to muscle other people in the
industry?

- Ed

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Wojtek Narczynski]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message news:<1061304237.13484@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>...

I will not answer you in the public, because of my offtopicity
self-censorship, and I cannot also answer you in private, because my
email has been blocked by some 'clever' spam filter, that (I presume)
did not like the word 'drug'.

Have a nice day,
Wojtek

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Patent Guy]

"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote in message news:<zWT%a.4145$q9.237570@read1.cgocable.net>...
> "Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> wrote in message news:mailman.21.1061147150.299.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org...
> > The US patent law permits a prior art defense. Thus, if you are correct, the
> > expert witnesses should do very well. In the US, an inventor swears to the
> > correctness of his/her patent application.
> 
> The fact that independently developed software can wind up in a
> patent dispute, is all by itself very much a concern to me. In a
> business with capital investment, this is a drain and
> inconvenience (perhaps a serious one).
> 
> But for the free software developer, this is a complete nightmare. So
> even if there is a "defence", it is one that comes at a great cost.
> 
> The net effect will be that free software developers will either
> start to contribute anonymously, or will work around the legal
> system (at least once the infringement is discovered). The path
> of least resistance will be not to bother at all, since the
> perceived risk will be too much. This too me is the greatest
> crime of all possible outcomes.

I am a patent attorney for a major hardware company which files many
software patents each year and has released subtantial code under OSS
licenses.  I'm also a computer hobbiest and am working on a couple of
projects which I plan to release under a BSD style license once they
are a bit more mature.  As a result, I believe I have a unique view on
software patents.  Please, note that the following are my personal
views and may not reflect the views of my employer.

I do agree that software patents present problems for
hobbiest/non-commercial developers.  However, I also believe that
abolishing software patents is unworkable.  My experience has been
that people who greatly oppose software patents generally do not have
a problem with hardware patents.  The problem is that most patents can
not easily be classified as a software patent or a hardware patent.  I
beleive there is a law/thereom/postulate/etc. that basically says
functionality that can be implemented in software can be implemented
in hardware and visa versa.  Take an MPEG codec for example.  There
are software codecs and hardware codecs.  If some one comes up with an
invention that greatly increases the compression of a MPEG stream, I
see no reason why that inventor should not be able to obtain rights in
harware, software, and hardware/software implementations of his
advancement in the art.

I believe the difference with software as compared to other industries
is that there is substantial non-commercial and hobbiest activity
which benefits the public at large.  So in my opinion is the key
question is how to we retain the benefits of non-commercial and
hobbiest activities without abolishing software patents?  I personally
think the best way is to lobby Congress for some type of
non-commercial/hobbiest defense to patent infringement.

Apparantly, there has been some success in this approach in the past. 
The most pertinent part of 35 USC 286(c)(1) states;

With respect to a medical practitioner&#8217;s performance of a
medical activity that constitutes an infringement under section 271(a)
or (b) of this title,
the provisions of sections 281, 283, 284, and 285 of this title shall
not apply against the medical practitioner or against a related health
care entity with respect to such medical activity.

281 - Says patentee has a civil action remedy for patent infringemnt
283 - Provides injunctive relief
284 - Provides monetary damages
285 - Provides attorneys fees

My understanding of this section is that it basically protects for
example a surgeon that performs a patentable procedure (e.g. a heart
by-pass).  I believe a similar approach could be used to protect the
developers and users of open source/non-commercial software.  If
drafted appropriately such a provision may even provide a carrot for
companies to open source some of their software to avoid potential
patent issues.

> 
> The other issue at stake here is when the patent office (on any
> continent), allows a wide ranging patent to be granted. Look at
> the ones that have been in the news, ranging from web links to
> 1-click shopping. Currently small e-shops are caving in and paying
> the blackmail, since it is cheaper than going to court.
> 

I really do not have a problem with the 1-click patent.  There are
many simple inventions that have been patented.  Also, in my opinion,
patents are very important for simple inventions.  Since they are
simple, every one and their brother can implement them once the
invention becomes known to the public.  Patents provide really the
only protection for such inventions.  There is a famous old patent
case involving a paper making machine.  There was a problem in the
industry that the paper coming off the rolls would break if the
machine was speed-up.  Many people tried to solve the problem without
success.  Then someone came-up with the idea to increase the incline
of the slurry hopper thus increasing the flow rate of slurry into the
machine.  Problem solved.  The issue was whether it was obvious.  The
courts ultimately decided it was not obvious.  The problem with simple
inventions is that they often look obvious in hindsight.  However,
many times the invention really is the identfication of the problem
(e.g. flow rate not fast enough).  Once the problem is identified the
solution is simple (e.g. increase incline of slurry hopper).

Also, most simple inventions are easily avoided.  For example, use a
2-click ordering system instead of a 1-click ordering system.  If you
really derive that much benefit from the removal of that extra click,
then you really are just strengthening the argument that it is
valuable and that should be protectable (assuming it is new).  Note:
my understanding of the 1-click patent is that much prior art applied
against the patent.  While many were close none showed a true 1-click
system.  Is it possible that Amazon was the first to develop 1-click
ordering and that all of fan fare is a result of people thinking
simple inventions should not be patentable?  I personally think that
the patent system is doing its best when it is protecting simple and
highly valuable inventions.


> This really bites my friends!
> 
> > If a deliberate falsehood is
> > included in an application, in principle, perjury charges can be brought.
> > Unfortunately, this tactic does not seem to be used. However, it would serve
> > as a strong deterrent to prevent the abuses that you and others have
> > described.
> 
> These types of deterents only work when the expense and hassle
> of going to court are undertaken. Even then, I'd have to question
> the practicality of making certain charges (you need strong proof,
> which is not always possible).
> 
> > I would favor changes to the patent law that would require mandatory
> > licensing for truly generic patents.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand this. How does this help? If you're talking
> about a maintenance fee for held patents, this only keeps out a few
> small fish. This doesn't stop the large corporations.
> 
> > I might note to those of you who are
> > members of the European Economic Community, that the sum of your individual
> > national patent costs is much greater than that of the US. Thus, both your
> > own and the US inventors are being ripped off.
> >
> > Bob Leif

RE: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Robert C. Leif]

I did not write anything about the drug business. However in the US, it is
really a software problem. Because of the complete lack of medical record
standards, FDA has a very hard time discovering problems with a marketed
drug. Therefore, FDA requires very expensive, comprehensive upfront testing,
which serves as a very effective barrier to competition.

Bob Leif

Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.
Email rleif@rleif.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Wojtek Narczynski [mailto:wojtek@power.com.pl] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 6:45 AM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Subject: Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:<1061235392.884013@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>...
> Robert C. Leif wrote:

> It makes sense for some cases where the costs of invention are high,
> the reproducilibilty is cheap, and the invention is useless unless 
> marketed. Developing new drugs is such a thing - a drug company has 
> no use for drugs except to sell them; it itself isn't sick. 

Sounds like you actually believed in the drug industry spin. Maybe you
would wish to give it a second thought by asking yourself questions
like:

* What is necessary for the drug business to roll on?
* Why is the drug industry the most profitable in the world?
* What would happen to me if I ate all the drugs that are advertised
on TV as "must eat to be healthy".

Or more advanced:

* Are there any placebo studies in surgery?
* In which year will Americans spend a trillon dollars on drugs?

(Sorry for a totally offtopic post. I think I have reached my yearly
limit today so I will just shut up...)

Regards,
Wojtek

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Chad R. Meiners]

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbk3gsj.mr.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
> You bought a computer with NT. Then NT gets dumped by M$ (no more
> security fixes as the OS cannot be fixed there are too big problems with
> it (this is was M$ are saying)) so you must buy 2000 or XP. That is $250
> then you must buy Office for 2000 or XP

I don't use Office.  I use TeX.  I consider my options and choose the most
appropriate application.  I also buy well made hardware parts before
building a computer.  If you choose wisely, you can get your features for a
good price.

> The only problem is that either John Doe has a computer at his office so
> he doesn't pay the $750 or he pirated the software. He then complains,
> but he doesn't blame M$ the same way he would if he had paid this sum
> out of his own pocket. And for some strange reasons people accept that
> software should be buggy.

Bugs are very hard to eliminate completely.  Needless to say there is other
software that customers can use...

> I once got an error message in Windows 3.11
> which I think came from an application, but I couldn't really tell. It
> read: "Error: No Error" which says it all.

Then you should have been using OS/2 back then ;-)

> I mean would you not go and complain if your scooter (that you payed
> $750 for) suddenly died every X miles and you had to start it up again.
> Or suddenly the breaks stopped working and you had to manage to stop and
> start it again?

Most physical machines are easier to design and debug than software.  It all
boils down to effort and cost to produce a product.  Furthermore, businesses
models need to be developed that make quality software profitable.

> > Yes, I understand, but such is life.  Not even GNU software is immune to
> > such things :(
>
> No life isn't such. It is the low quality of the industry and the lack
> of complains.  Sure there are some bugs in GNU software too, but I have
> not have whole days go by just because I couldn't get a program to work
> or that suddenly a program decided not to save my document so I had to
> print it and write it all over again.

Sure, everyone agrees that everything should be of the highest quality, but
most are not willing to pay the costs.  Until the time comes when we figure
out how to cost effectively produce quality software, life will be such.  If
the issue is so important to you, I recommend that you start up a business
that is devoted to producing high quality software.  It will improve the
world that we live in and is more productive than arguing how others should
act.

I recomend using Ada to produce the quality software ;-)

Remember you do not have to change the entire world; modifying the part that
you live in is usually sufficient.

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

>"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote in message news:<zWT%a.4145$q9.237570@read1.cgocable.net>...
>> "Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> wrote in message news:mailman.21.1061147150.299.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org...
>> > The US patent law permits a prior art defense. Thus, if you are correct, the
>> > expert witnesses should do very well. In the US, an inventor swears to the
>> > correctness of his/her patent application.
>>
>> The fact that independently developed software can wind up in a
>> patent dispute, is all by itself very much a concern to me. In a
>> business with capital investment, this is a drain and
>> inconvenience (perhaps a serious one).
>>
>> But for the free software developer, this is a complete nightmare. So
>> even if there is a "defence", it is one that comes at a great cost.
>>
>> The net effect will be that free software developers will either
>> start to contribute anonymously, or will work around the legal
>> system (at least once the infringement is discovered). The path
>> of least resistance will be not to bother at all, since the
>> perceived risk will be too much. This too me is the greatest
>> crime of all possible outcomes.
>
>I am a patent attorney for a major hardware company which files many
>software patents each year and has released subtantial code under OSS
>licenses.  I'm also a computer hobbiest and am working on a couple of
>projects which I plan to release under a BSD style license once they
>are a bit more mature.  As a result, I believe I have a unique view on
>software patents.  Please, note that the following are my personal
>views and may not reflect the views of my employer.
>
>I do agree that software patents present problems for
>hobbiest/non-commercial developers.  However, I also believe that
>abolishing software patents is unworkable.  My experience has been
>that people who greatly oppose software patents generally do not have
>a problem with hardware patents.

I believe this is generally true. Hardware is different
by nature.

>The problem is that most patents can
>not easily be classified as a software patent or a hardware patent.  I
>beleive there is a law/thereom/postulate/etc. that basically says
>functionality that can be implemented in software can be implemented
>in hardware and visa versa.

I don't fully buy this idea, though I have not read that
piece of law. How would you classify a computer's memory?
RAM? Core memory?  I can only imagine this as hardware.

You need memory to make software work. More on the "stored
program" later.

> Take an MPEG codec for example.  There
>are software codecs and hardware codecs.  If some one comes up with an
>invention that greatly increases the compression of a MPEG stream, I
>see no reason why that inventor should not be able to obtain rights in
>harware, software, and hardware/software implementations of his
>advancement in the art.

This is surely an interesting example. But I would suggest that
it requires hardware to "use" MPEG codecs, even for a fully
software implementation (no software runs without hardware!)

>I believe the difference with software as compared to other industries
>is that there is substantial non-commercial and hobbiest activity
>which benefits the public at large.

If there is a patent on XYZZY compression technique
does the patent law prevent me from writing
and using it in the privacy of my home?

Just curious. Where does the patent law stand on this?

If I then share that same XYZZY code, am I the software creator in
violation?

Or the user of the code?

>So in my opinion is the key
>question is how to we retain the benefits of non-commercial and
>hobbiest activities without abolishing software patents?  I personally
>think the best way is to lobby Congress for some type of
>non-commercial/hobbiest defense to patent infringement.

But how do you do that? I mean, will it be legal to write
and use MPEG codecs for hobby purposes in GPLed code? What
if businesses use internally, without selling/distributing
it?  What if they distribute Linux distros with it in it?

What about DVD decoders on Linux? There is a real _need_
for such, and the motion picture industry does not want
to provide any such thing for Linux. What choice
do the Linux users have? The only legal choice is not
to view DVDs under Linux. But many feel this is going
too far.

>Apparantly, there has been some success in this approach in the past.
>The most pertinent part of 35 USC 286(c)(1) states;
>
>With respect to a medical practitioner&#8217;s performance of a
>medical activity that constitutes an infringement under section 271(a)
>or (b) of this title,
>the provisions of sections 281, 283, 284, and 285 of this title shall
>not apply against the medical practitioner or against a related health
>care entity with respect to such medical activity.
>
>281 - Says patentee has a civil action remedy for patent infringemnt
>283 - Provides injunctive relief
>284 - Provides monetary damages
>285 - Provides attorneys fees
>
>My understanding of this section is that it basically protects for
>example a surgeon that performs a patentable procedure (e.g. a heart
>by-pass).  I believe a similar approach could be used to protect the
>developers and users of open source/non-commercial software.  If
>drafted appropriately such a provision may even provide a carrot for
>companies to open source some of their software to avoid potential
>patent issues.

I doubt that any hobbiest is ever going to receive the same kind of
treatment that a life-saving physician will get. It is easy to sell this
idea to law makers for saving lives, but much tougher in the name of the
FSF/GNU. First of all, they have a difficult time understanding how this
is in their best interest.

>> The other issue at stake here is when the patent office (on any
>> continent), allows a wide ranging patent to be granted. Look at
>> the ones that have been in the news, ranging from web links to
>> 1-click shopping. Currently small e-shops are caving in and paying
>> the blackmail, since it is cheaper than going to court.
>
>I really do not have a problem with the 1-click patent.  There are
>many simple inventions that have been patented.  Also, in my opinion,
>patents are very important for simple inventions.  Since they are
>simple, every one and their brother can implement them once the
>invention becomes known to the public.  Patents provide really the
>only protection for such inventions.....
>.....  The problem with simple
>inventions is that they often look obvious in hindsight.  However,
>many times the invention really is the identfication of the problem
>(e.g. flow rate not fast enough).  Once the problem is identified the
>solution is simple (e.g. increase incline of slurry hopper).

I have trouble agreeing that simple ideas need to be protected
in the first place. Here is a less simple idea, and look at how
it was handled: the concept of the "stored program".

This interesting account is described in "The Dream Machine: J.C.R.
Licklider and the Revolution That Made Computing Personal" by M.
Mitchell Waldrop. It is found in the section "The Last Transition"
in Chapter 2.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/014200135X/qid=1061341069/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/103-7651020-7144655

There is mentioned how John von Neumann created a paper that
described computer architecture, rather than focus on the
physical implementation of a computer. He was himself
of course, influenced by the work of others. The paper described
the five functional units of this abstract computer ("organs"),
one of which was the memory unit. He said that the computer's
memory should be an electronic scratch pad, where it stored data,
programs, intermediate results and answers. The great leap here
was the "stored programs" part.

The account goes on to describe how the paper was enthusiastically
received, and how Herman Goldstine typed up von Neumann's paper, which
was still lacking credit references that were meant in the blank spaces
left for the purpose. Later of course, the paper got widely circulated,
and then John Mauchly and J. P. Eckert became upset because they were
not receiving credit for their idea.

The problem was that Mauchly and Eckert had already discussed the idea
in 1944, half a year before von Neumann joined the EDVAC project. The
stored program concept now had great potential for a patent, as Mauchly
and Eckert were eager to do.

Eventually this gave way to Mauchly and Eckert wanting a patent, vs von
Neumann and Goldstine who were intent on keeping the stored program
concept free. Since Mauchly and Eckert had done their work on univeristy
time, the University of Pennsylvania denied any application for patent
(not to mention that the university was not  wanting to make claim on
this idea).

To make a long story short, after Mauchly and Eckert quit the
university, this whole nasty patent dispute  wound up in the lap of the
army (who funded ENIAC and EDVAC). Finally in 1947, "exasperated army
attorneys at last threw out everybody's patent claims on the ground that
von Neumann's 'First Draft' paper represented prior public disclosure."

    But that is not all.

"They decreed that the stored-program idea rightfully
belonged in the public domain."

And that is how it was decided, and we enjoy its  benefits today.


I believe there are a number of ideas that either do not deserve to be
protected, or are in the public's best interest to be in the public
domain (as the "stored program" was declared).

>Also, most simple inventions are easily avoided.  For example, use a
>2-click ordering system instead of a 1-click ordering system.

This only works until some enterprising individual recognizes
this and patent protects the 2-click idea. Pretty soon, you'll
have to throw away your mouse to do online shopping because
you can't n-click either, without paying royalties to the sap
that is sucking the system dry.

> If you
>really derive that much benefit from the removal of that extra click,
>then you really are just strengthening the argument that it is
>valuable and that should be protectable (assuming it is new).

What I would suggest is that this sort of thing belongs in
the realm of common sense. How else would one want to shop
online? Why click more times than needed?  Its like why
walk farther than you need to? Does this deserve a patent?
I certainly don't think so.

>Note:
>my understanding of the 1-click patent is that much prior art applied
>against the patent.  While many were close none showed a true 1-click
>system.  Is it possible that Amazon was the first to develop 1-click
>ordering and that all of fan fare is a result of people thinking
>simple inventions should not be patentable?  I personally think that
>the patent system is doing its best when it is protecting simple and
>highly valuable inventions.

I think one of the other things that are very wrong with the patent
system(s) today, is that they protect for far too long. Much too long.
How long has LZW been around? I just saw an announcement the other day
that it was finally set free. I seem to remember this from "way back".

I think the idea of patents is OK, when used for their
originally intended purpose.

What I hate to see, are the leaches of society that take someone else's
idea and uses patents for the express purpose of extorting the life out
of someone else. I also hate to see it for stupid common sense things.

So if I had to choose between the abuses of patents, or no patent office
all, the choice would be a simple one.

Eventually, I think enough people will get fed up and say -- fix it or
lose it!  Now that software is being dragged into court, I think it is
high time something be done about it.

For me, it all comes down to the bottom line. Do you satisfy a few
individual's need to have it all, or do you work for the common good?
The choice for me is a simple one.
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Wes Groleau]

>>not easily be classified as a software patent or a hardware patent.  I
>>beleive there is a law/thereom/postulate/etc. that basically says
>>functionality that can be implemented in software can be implemented
>>in hardware and visa versa.
> 
> I don't fully buy this idea, though I have not read that
> piece of law. How would you classify a computer's memory?
> RAM? Core memory?  I can only imagine this as hardware.

I don't know whether they can handle "any functionality"
or not, but there are people "writing" hardware in an
Ada-like language (VHDL) and in a C-like language (Verilog).

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Hyman Rosen]

Robert C. Leif wrote:
> I did not write anything about the drug business. However in the US, it is
> really a software problem. Because of the complete lack of medical record
> standards, FDA has a very hard time discovering problems with a marketed
> drug. Therefore, FDA requires very expensive, comprehensive upfront testing,
> which serves as a very effective barrier to competition.

The FDA saved Americans from the teratogenic effects of thalidomide.
Europeans and canadians weren't as lucky.

And didn't we just go through a long discussion about the need for
comprehensive upfront testing for the Ariane 5?

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Patent Guy]

"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote in message > I don't fully buy this idea, though I have not read that
> piece of law. How would you classify a computer's memory?
> RAM? Core memory?  I can only imagine this as hardware.

Yes some computer hardware inventions do not lend themselves as easily
to software implementations as others.  However, most can still have a
software implementation.  For example, a hardware emulation model. 
You may model you new RAM via VHDL, Verilog, Spice, cell libraries
etc, and test the correctness of the design without ever building
hardware.  You may even build a cell library that includes this RAM so
that it may be used in other designs.  A claim to a software
implementation may allow the patent holder to enforce his rights to
his RAM invention against hardware emulators, hardware library design
houses, software design and test tool manufacturers etc.

> > Take an MPEG codec for example.  There are software codecs and hardware codecs.

> This is surely an interesting example. But I would suggest that
> it requires hardware to "use" MPEG codecs, even for a fully
> software implementation (no software runs without hardware!)

Your correct that software achieves its utility when executed by
hardware.  But the general idea that ultimately resulted in the US
courts allowing software patents is that software basically configures
general-purpose hardware to perform in as special-purpose hardware. 
Why should the special-purpose hardware (e.g. hardware codec) be
protectable and the software/general-purpose hardware not be
protectable?

A US patent if drafted correctly can also cover essentially bits
stored in/on a medium (e.g. CD with stored executable program).  This
is a bit more of a stretch.  But I would argue that an executable
program has but one true purpose and that is to be executed and
therefore to configure general-purpose hardware (PC) to operate as
special-purpose hardware (e.g. MPEG codec).
 
> If there is a patent on XYZZY compression technique
> does the patent law prevent me from writing
> and using it in the privacy of my home?
> 
> Just curious. Where does the patent law stand on this?
Technically, yes the patent holder could prevent such activities.  The
reality is what is the likelihood that the patent holder 1) will know,
and 2) will care about such a deminimus?  It's vey unlikely that it is
in the patent holder's best interest to sue you under such a senario.
> 
> If I then share that same XYZZY code, am I the software creator in
> violation?
A patent generally gives a patent holder the right to prevent others
from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing the
invention.  As software creator you have probably infringed the making
right.
> 
> Or the user of the code?
Those people that receive the code are likely to infringee at some
future date the use right.

> >So in my opinion is the key
> >question is how to we retain the benefits of non-commercial and
> >hobbiest activities without abolishing software patents?  I personally
> >think the best way is to lobby Congress for some type of
> >non-commercial/hobbiest defense to patent infringement.
> 
> But how do you do that? I mean, will it be legal to write
> and use MPEG codecs for hobby purposes in GPLed code? What
> if businesses use internally, without selling/distributing
> it?  What if they distribute Linux distros with it in it?
It really depends on how such legislation is drafted.  For example, I
could see the FSF lobbying that all making, using, selling, offering
to sell, importing of GPL and LGPL software was non-infringing.

The OSI might want to expand this to include other open source
licenses.

My guess is that the legislation couldn't name a certain license (GPL,
BSD, etc) but would need to define characteristics of the software
(e.g. open sourced, freely copyable, freely distributable, freely
alterable, etc) that would fall under the exception.

> 
> What about DVD decoders on Linux? There is a real _need_
> for such, and the motion picture industry does not want
> to provide any such thing for Linux. What choice
> do the Linux users have? The only legal choice is not
> to view DVDs under Linux. But many feel this is going
> too far.
The problem here from my understanding is the DMCA (copyright) and not
patents.

> 
> I doubt that any hobbiest is ever going to receive the same kind of
> treatment that a life-saving physician will get. It is easy to sell this
> idea to law makers for saving lives, but much tougher in the name of the
> FSF/GNU. First of all, they have a difficult time understanding how this
> is in their best interest.
I agree that a life-saving physcian is more sympathetic.  However, I
also believe that a patent exception of OSS software is much more
tenable than abolish of software patents.  You may find segments of
the computer industry and business sector that support the exemption. 
I suspect that such industry support does not exist for abolish. 
Also, I think that an exemption truly achieves the FSF goals.  It
would keep open software open and free from patent issues.  It may
even spur more open software in order to avoid patent issues.
> 
> I have trouble agreeing that simple ideas need to be protected
> in the first place.
Let's say you came-up with a great idea for a toy.  With proper
marketing, distribution, etc you you could make millions on the toy. 
However, the toy is simple to make and once Milton Bradley or one of
the other toy makers notices your success they will be able to
undercut you and grab the whole market.  Without a patent, you are
basically screwed because there isn't much you can do to stop the
other manufacturers from appropriating your idea.  Do you still think
simple ideas should not be patentable.

> 
> "They decreed that the stored-program idea rightfully
> belonged in the public domain."
> 
> And that is how it was decided, and we enjoy its  benefits today.
If the patent had been filed in 1944, it would have expired roughly
1964.  I doubt that it's existence would have had much effect on the
computing industry from 1944 to 1964.

 
> >Also, most simple inventions are easily avoided.  For example, use a
> >2-click ordering system instead of a 1-click ordering system.
> 
> This only works until some enterprising individual recognizes
> this and patent protects the 2-click idea.
> have to throw away your mouse to do online shopping because
> you can't n-click either, without paying royalties to the sap
> that is sucking the system dry.
The problem here is that 2-click has been done.  As a result, if the
US patent office is doing their job right (which is a big assumption
since they are doing a crappy job in all areas not just software),
then such a patent will not issue.  Also by definition, a patent can
not cover a product that existed more than a year prior to the
patent's filing date.

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Wojtek Narczynski]

"Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> wrote in message news:<mailman.0.1061305632.321.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>...

Patents have already managed to hurt Ada development (to some small
extent).I recall some people saying that they cannot go on with
realtime study in Ada, because somebody has a patent on adding
"realtime api to a commodity OS". I think I could find you the exact
reference if you wish.

Feel free to show how patents have hepled Ada.

Because they have worked well for you and your family, it doesn't
imply that they are essential for progress. Look at the system as a
whole. Indeed there was 'some' progress in software in the times when
it was clear that software is not pattentable. There must have been
enough 'investment incentives'; look at Gates,  Ellison, Jobs - the
gretest fortunes of all times.

The link you have given only scratches the surface of the subject. Try
those:
http://petition.eurolinux.org/reference/
http://www.eurolinux.org/

Also, from what I know US FTC is working on some bombshell study on
patents, that should be made available in 4 months.

Patents are global resource waste, lawyer money, and time. Please
account the time you spent on reading my posts to it.

Regards,
Wojtek

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Jean-Pierre Rosen]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 682 bytes --]


"Wojtek Narczynski" <wojtek@power.com.pl> a �crit dans le message de news:5ad0dd8a.0308200255.4e00e2a9@posting.google.com...
> "Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> wrote in message news:<mailman.0.1061305632.321.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>...
>
> Patents have already managed to hurt Ada development (to some small
> extent).
To a bigger extent, remember the DEC patent on partially sharing generics.
Everybody thinks the patent is invalid, (i.e. the algorithm was public before DEC
patented it), but no vendor dared to use it.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Patent Guy wrote:
> "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote in message > I don't fully buy this idea, though I have not read that
>>>Take an MPEG codec for example.  There are software codecs and hardware codecs.
> 
>>This is surely an interesting example. But I would suggest that
>>it requires hardware to "use" MPEG codecs, even for a fully
>>software implementation (no software runs without hardware!)
> 
> Your correct that software achieves its utility when executed by
> hardware.  But the general idea that ultimately resulted in the US
> courts allowing software patents is that software basically configures
> general-purpose hardware to perform in as special-purpose hardware. 
> Why should the special-purpose hardware (e.g. hardware codec) be
> protectable and the software/general-purpose hardware not be
> protectable?

I would suggest the question should be "why not?"  There are
obvious reasons why it is done in special-purpose hardware,
that would suggest that using GP hardware is less than ideal.

So why not allow it in GP hardware?  You've already given up
the advantage.

>>If there is a patent on XYZZY compression technique
>>does the patent law prevent me from writing
>>and using it in the privacy of my home?
>>
>>Just curious. Where does the patent law stand on this?
> 
> Technically, yes the patent holder could prevent such activities.  The
> reality is what is the likelihood that the patent holder 1) will know,
> and 2) will care about such a deminimus?  It's vey unlikely that it is
> in the patent holder's best interest to sue you under such a senario.

This is one of the things I suspected, and don't like. I find
this scenario similar to the copyrighted material WRT backup
copies (like cassette music tapes). I think this is an example
of fair use, and it should be stated in law that way.

The fact that no one is likely to come after you, is not really
the point.

>>>So in my opinion is the key
>>>question is how to we retain the benefits of non-commercial and
>>>hobbiest activities without abolishing software patents?  I personally
>>>think the best way is to lobby Congress for some type of
>>>non-commercial/hobbiest defense to patent infringement.
>>
>>But how do you do that? I mean, will it be legal to write
>>and use MPEG codecs for hobby purposes in GPLed code? What
>>if businesses use internally, without selling/distributing
>>it?  What if they distribute Linux distros with it in it?
> 
> It really depends on how such legislation is drafted.  For example, I
> could see the FSF lobbying that all making, using, selling, offering
> to sell, importing of GPL and LGPL software was non-infringing.
> 
> The OSI might want to expand this to include other open source
> licenses.

You are probably right. It would certainly help the open
source movement, if it could be free of patent entanglements.

>>What about DVD decoders on Linux? There is a real _need_
>>for such, and the motion picture industry does not want
>>to provide any such thing for Linux. What choice
>>do the Linux users have? The only legal choice is not
>>to view DVDs under Linux. But many feel this is going
>>too far.
> 
> The problem here from my understanding is the DMCA (copyright) and not
> patents.

But they have tried to outlaw the code that decodes it. So this
goes beyond copyright infringement, because after all, the
same process must occur under Windows to view DVDs.

>>I have trouble agreeing that simple ideas need to be protected
>>in the first place.
> 
> Let's say you came-up with a great idea for a toy.  With proper
> marketing, distribution, etc you you could make millions on the toy. 
> However, the toy is simple to make and once Milton Bradley or one of
> the other toy makers notices your success they will be able to
> undercut you and grab the whole market.  Without a patent, you are
> basically screwed because there isn't much you can do to stop the
> other manufacturers from appropriating your idea.  Do you still think
> simple ideas should not be patentable.

Yes, simple ideas should not be patentable.

Firstly, you wouldn't do the whole 9 yards on the simple toy,
for the obvious reasons you meantioned. If you did, then you
would do it differently to reduce your risk (ie. competition
is good).

This would also free the patent office from having to mess
with trivial matters, and focus on the truly deserving items.

>>"They decreed that the stored-program idea rightfully
>>belonged in the public domain."
>>
>>And that is how it was decided, and we enjoy its  benefits today.
> 
> If the patent had been filed in 1944, it would have expired roughly
> 1964.  I doubt that it's existence would have had much effect on the
> computing industry from 1944 to 1964.

Yes of course. But the point was that it was seen in the
public's best interest to see this idea in the public
domain. I think many software patents belong in this
category.

But I'll have to admit, that some processes like MPEG codecs
may well represent a class of worthy patentable algorithms
(I need to ponder this more).  But 20 years(?), if that is
how long it is, is much too long!

I think that the real issue most people have with software
patents (and in general), is whether or not a patent award
was worthy or not. From what I read, I don't believe that
the patent office is doing a very good job of this. How can
they? If they were software experts, they'd probably be
employed in software! It's like the Radio Shack guy behind
the counter knowing about electronics. If he really did,
he'd be employed in the field.

So if a patent office cannot properly administer software
patents, I would say that the system needs to be
scrapped. But I recognize that this is unlikely.

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Dmytry Lavrov]

Wojtek Narczynski wrote:
> 
> "Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com> wrote in message news:<mailman.0.1061305632.321.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>...
> 
> Patents have already managed to hurt Ada development (to some small
> extent).I recall some people saying that they cannot go on with
> realtime study in Ada, because somebody has a patent on adding
> "realtime api to a commodity OS". I think I could find you the exact
> reference if you wish.
> 
> Feel free to show how patents have hepled Ada.
> 
> Because they have worked well for you and your family, it doesn't
> imply that they are essential for progress. Look at the system as a
> whole. Indeed there was 'some' progress in software in the times when
> it was clear that software is not pattentable. There must have been
> enough 'investment incentives'; look at Gates,  Ellison, Jobs - the
> gretest fortunes of all times.
> 
> The link you have given only scratches the surface of the subject. Try
> those:
> http://petition.eurolinux.org/reference/
> http://www.eurolinux.org/
> 
> Also, from what I know US FTC is working on some bombshell study on
> patents, that should be made available in 4 months.
> 
> Patents are global resource waste, lawyer money, and time. Please
> account the time you spent on reading my posts to it.
> 
> Regards,
> Wojtek

haha, USSR position on patenting ;-)

I think that i can't patent wheel because it's "widely used at this
moment"
and i can't patent software(source code) because there is no
explanations what things are under this patent,and whats aren't (and
this explanation size is bigger than program size by many times,or it's
too wide)

As any other laws,patent laws aren't as precize as phisical laws.There
is a many ways to patent wheel.Speculation possible on any laws,and of
course patents is not a exception.

Patents are good for me,say,if i will research new engine that have good
efficiency,i will spend a LOT of my time and money!Where i can get this
money back if here is no patenting?
I have some good ideas i will patent.It's not a patenting  wheel.

-- 
-
http://dmytrylavrov.narod.ru

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Patent Guy]

"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote in message news:<INN0b.5088$HB4.908348@news20.bellglobal.com>...

> >>This is surely an interesting example. But I would suggest that
> >>it requires hardware to "use" MPEG codecs, even for a fully
> >>software implementation (no software runs without hardware!)
"Fair use" is a copyright concept.  No similar concept exists for patents.

> This is one of the things I suspected, and don't like. I find
> this scenario similar to the copyrighted material WRT backup
> copies (like cassette music tapes). I think this is an example
> of fair use, and it should be stated in law that way.
> 
> The fact that no one is likely to come after you, is not really
> the point.
Understandable.

> >>What about DVD decoders on Linux? There is a real _need_
> >>for such, and the motion picture industry does not want
> >>to provide any such thing for Linux. What choice
> >>do the Linux users have? The only legal choice is not
> >>to view DVDs under Linux. But many feel this is going
> >>too far.

Develop a licensed DVD decoder for Linux.  The problem is there is
likely to be a royalty for the license thus necessitating charging Linux
users a fee for the DVD decoder.  I suspect the current market of Linux
users willing to pay for a DVD decoder is large enough for a company to
expend the resources.

> > 
> > The problem here from my understanding is the DMCA (copyright) and not
> > patents.
> 
> But they have tried to outlaw the code that decodes it. So this
> goes beyond copyright infringement, because after all, the
> same process must occur under Windows to view DVDs.

Nope.  It's a copyright and DMCA copy protection issue.  You need a key
to decrypt DVDs.  Only licensed software has the key.  Many licensed
software players exist for Windows.  Only unlicensed software players
with misappropriated keys (Movie Industry stance) exist for Linux.
(However, over a year ago, there was some press regarding a licensed
player for Linux, but I don't no the current status of this player.)

> 
> >>I have trouble agreeing that simple ideas need to be protected
> >>in the first place.
> > 
> > Let's say you came-up with a great idea for a toy.  With proper
> > marketing, distribution, etc you you could make millions on the toy. 
> > However, the toy is simple to make and once Milton Bradley or one of
> > the other toy makers notices your success they will be able to
> > undercut you and grab the whole market.  Without a patent, you are
> > basically screwed because there isn't much you can do to stop the
> > other manufacturers from appropriating your idea.  Do you still think
> > simple ideas should not be patentable.
> 
> Yes, simple ideas should not be patentable.
> 
> Firstly, you wouldn't do the whole 9 yards on the simple toy,
> for the obvious reasons you meantioned. If you did, then you
> would do it differently to reduce your risk (ie. competition
> is good).

You're a better man than me.  I'd feel cheated.  Without some sort of
protection you simply can not successfully develop a business or
licensing plan to extract value from your idea.  Once you have some
success others with more resources will take the market.  In the end,
you are very likely only to lose money on the deal while others profit.
As a result, why even bother pursuing your idea at all?  The patent
system was designed to give you an incentive to bring your ideas to
market.

> 
> This would also free the patent office from having to mess
> with trivial matters, and focus on the truly deserving items.

The problem is how do you measure trivial.  What's trivial to me is not
necessarily trivial to you and visa versa.  Also, what appears to be a
dumb idea at first blush may actaully be quite valuable.  Breathe-right
strips come to mind.  The first time I saw these I laughed.  But they
work and there is a decent market for them.

> But I'll have to admit, that some processes like MPEG codecs
> may well represent a class of worthy patentable algorithms
> (I need to ponder this more).  But 20 years(?), if that is
> how long it is, is much too long!

Then you must hate the copyright term which is on the order of 100
years.  In that light 20 years is not atrocious.  Also, if the copyright
on software were only 20 years, then there is a lot of software from the
1980's that would be in the public domain by now.  For example, early
arcade game ROMS would be in the public domain thus allowing you to
legally run them on an emulator (e.g. MAME).

One problem we have is a one size fits all patent term. 20 years may be
too long for software but may be too short of genetic or pharmaceutical
inventions.  In these later fields, the patent may expire before
economical uses are found for the inventions or before they recoup their
R&D costs.   However, I think having a different patent term for
different types of inventions would be unworkable.  It is more practical
to have a common patent term that on a whole accomplishes its goals.

> 
> I think that the real issue most people have with software
> patents (and in general), is whether or not a patent award
> was worthy or not. From what I read, I don't believe that
> the patent office is doing a very good job of this. How can
> they? If they were software experts, they'd probably be
> employed in software! It's like the Radio Shack guy behind
> the counter knowing about electronics. If he really did,
> he'd be employed in the field.
> 
> So if a patent office cannot properly administer software
> patents, I would say that the system needs to be
> scrapped. But I recognize that this is unlikely.

This is a quality issue which spans all technology areas.  A lot of
patents are issuing that should never issue regardless of technology
area.  The US patent office has taken some steps recently to improve
the quality of issued patents and plans to take further steps.  Only
time will tell whether they are able to improve quality.

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Robert I. Eachus]

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:

> "They decreed that the stored-program idea rightfully
> belonged in the public domain."
> 
> And that is how it was decided, and we enjoy its  benefits today.

I knew many of the people involved in this.  (Pres Eckart was best man 
at my parent's wedding, and my father at Pres's first wedding.)  But 
more than that I knew a number of people who actually worked on Eniac in 
addition to the principle players.

Pres's father was actually the one who pushed him to patent everything 
that wasn't nailed down.  AFAIK, Pres never met Atsenoff until much 
later, and knew nothing about the ABC computer.  (In any case, the ABC 
computer was very different in design and implementation.)  Oh, and as 
far as I am concerned, the half-adder, which was the key circut in most 
early vacuum-tube computers was invented by Pres.  I don't know who 
originally came up with the flip-flop.

Now back to the stored program concept.  Originally, the ENIAC was 
designed with a bank of rotary switches which could be used to program 
it.  There were twenty instruction registers in the original design. 
There was a similar bank of registers implemented using 10 tubes to 
create a ring counter.  (These were 6SN7 tubes, dual triodes, and were 
connected in pairs so that if one burned out its partner would carry on. 
  So five tubes allowed for ten different on states, and each tube had a 
indentical tube in series.  The way that the tubes usually failed was 
that the filament burned out in the inrush when the machine was turned 
on.  Of course the real solution was to keep it always on.)

As soon as the machine was built, plans were made for a second bank of 
instruction switches, to be used for storing constants.  Until it was 
ready, the instruction switch bank could also be used for constants. 
But often programs needed more than 20 instructions and constants, so 
the programmers for the machine--those who actually set the 
switches--got pretty proficient at putting constants in registers. 
Basically, they had a program to read constants from cards into the 
registers.

Then someone accidently submitted a program that would need the new bank 
of instruction switches.  He was flabbergasted to get results back. 
When he went to find out how it had been run--was the new instruction 
bank finished?--he was told, "No problem, we just did like we always do, 
costants after the twentieth go into the registers."  Of course, those 
first three constants were actually program instructions...

It then became instantly obvious to the mathematicians who generated the 
programs that they could use as many instructions as they wanted to by 
using some of the registers for instructions and changing them.  To me 
that is the key insight of stored programs.  And no one who was there 
was willing to take particular credit or give it to anyone else.

Now understand that at the time this happened, the ENIAC was still at 
the Moore School, and the staff using it was joint between the 
University of Pennsylvania and Aberdeen Proving Ground, the actual US 
Army customer.  So yes, that discussion and decision that the stored 
program concept was unpatentable did occur.  But it occurred in the 
context that the key features and advantages of a stored program system 
had been instantly obvious to those present.  And they were literally 
all the people skilled in the art of programming computers at the time.

Johnny von then wrote his infamous paper, recently declassified.  The 
reason for the omitted references became obvious when that happened. 
The Johnny von paper was prepared with an annex that described some of 
the details of the implementation and credited Pres and John Mauchley. 
But the paper was distributed at a time when it was felt that the fact 
the machine actually existed at present should be very closely held. 
But still most people who saw the (classified) paper never saw the 
annex.  Why? Because the annex discussed how to use ENIAC to replace the 
bombes used to decrypt Enigma messages.  The Johnny Von paper was only 
Top Secret.  That annex was literally classified as Ultra Secret, and 
only available to those in the know on Ultra.  (And again, AFAIK, my 
father did get to see the full paper, but Pres Eckert never did. 
However, I was not able to discuss that with my father until much, much 
later when I could show him an unclassified copy of the annex, so we are 
talking memories thirty years later.)
--
                                            Robert I. Eachus

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." -- Jacques Chirac, 
President of France
"As far as France is concerned, you're right." -- Rush Limbaugh

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Robert I. Eachus]

Ed Falis wrote:

> Because of people like the guy who claimed to have invented "threads" in
> 1986 that a patent lawyer asked my opinion of?  Or the one who claimed
> to have invented the call stack in the early 80's?  Or some of the many
> other patents granted to large corporations for common practice
> algorithms, so they could use them to muscle other people in the
> industry?

Actually, I have been in the situation of being deprived due to the 
patent system refusing software patents.  (I had a patent on a 
compressed file system refused in 1968.)  I have also been in the 
situation where I thought software patents were bad.  I have now come to 
the conclusion that the problem with software patents is the 20 year 
lifetime.  In every case where I have seen software patents used to do 
active harm, if the life of a software patent had been 10 years, the 
damage would have been minimal, and at five years non-existant.

Now if someone could patent say the graphics engine used in Unreal 
Tournament for five years, I would say "Great, you deserve the money you 
get."  But if someone with a patent on, say the original Doom engine 
could enforce it against UT, that would be a problem.

--
                                          Robert I. Eachus

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." -- Jacques Chirac, 
President of France
"As far as France is concerned, you're right." -- Rush Limbaugh

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Alexander Kopilovitch]

Patent Guy wrote:
 
> I am a patent attorney for a major hardware company which files many
> software patents each year and has released subtantial code under OSS
> licenses.  I'm also a computer hobbiest and am working on a couple of
> projects which I plan to release under a BSD style license once they
> are a bit more mature.  As a result, I believe I have a unique view on
> software patents.  Please, note that the following are my personal
> views and may not reflect the views of my employer.

Very good, at last we have an opportunity to see opinion of a professionally
qualified and experienced person, not just interested party.

> I do agree that software patents present problems for
> hobbiest/non-commercial developers.

The issue is not just about private interests. There are fundamental problems
inherently associated with algorithms, for example, generalization. And these
problems can easily produce unsolvable cases for patentability. For example.
comment, please, the following (quite real) situation:

Suppose one invented and patented algorithm A, and then another person invented
and patented another algorithm B. Both algorithms A and B solve the same
problem, but act very differently and have substantially different properties
- A is much faster, but takes huge amount of additional memory, while B is
slow, but needs no additional memory for itself. So far both patents aren't
compete and all seems OK.

Then, some third person invented a general algorithm, which is parametrized
with real variable t. This algorithm works (that is, solves the problem) for
all values of t between (including) 0 and 1, and for smaller t it is faster
and takes more memory, and for t=0 it is identical to algorithm A while for
t=1 it is identical to algorithm B.

How will legal patent system treat this situation, if:

a) inventor of the generalized algorithm wants to acquire patent for his
invention;

b) inventor of the generalized algorithm wants to give it away for free (for
example, under GPL or something alike).



Alexander Kopilovitch                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Robert I. Eachus]

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> The FDA saved Americans from the teratogenic effects of thalidomide.
> Europeans and canadians weren't as lucky.
> 
> And didn't we just go through a long discussion about the need for
> comprehensive upfront testing for the Ariane 5?

The thalidomide argument for drug patents is strong, but make sure you 
understand it.  The version of thalidomide submitted in this country had 
already been through in vitro testing that determined that it was an 
antagonist for Vitamin A.  Therefore the pill that was proposed AND 
tested in this country contained a slow dissolving vitamin A core.  The 
intent was to replace the destroyed vitamin A after the thalidomide had 
become active in the bloodstream.

In Italy at that time there were no patents on drugs.  Several companies 
got samples of thalidomide made their own versions and marketed them. 
But, since vitamin A is an oil and not soluable in water, and the form 
in the thalidomide pills was intended only to become effective when it 
reached the intestines.  So when the Italian drug companies "duplicated" 
thalidomide, they left out the vitamin A.

Then doctors in Italy started recommending it for morning sickness, and 
tragedy followed.  There were no "thalidomide babies" born in the US 
even among patients in the thalidomide study.

But if thalidomide had been approved in the US, I would probably be 
taking it now (for pain).  And every study that has been done shows that 
thalidomide will significantly reduce the death rate from some forms of 
cancer.  (The pain gets so bad the patient basically stops eating.)  For 
the patients that can be helped by thalidomide, the probability or even 
possibility of pregancy is very small--or zero.

Now I am not one to say that huge advances in medical treatment can't be 
ruled out.  But I doubt I will ever carry a child to term.  If I do, and 
if I am taking thalidomide at the time, I'll be sure to monitor my 
vitamin A levels. ;-)  But until that happens, I would rather be taking 
thalidomide than inferior substitutes.

-- 
                                                 Robert I. Eachus

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." -- Jacques Chirac, 
President of France
"As far as France is concerned, you're right." -- Rush Limbaugh

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Hyman Rosen]

Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> The thalidomide argument for drug patents is strong, but make sure you 
> understand it.

I wasn't making an argument for patents, just for strong testing of drugs
before they are granted the imprimatur of the FDA. (As an advocate of drug
legalization, I would permit them to be sold even before approval, but that
should have no impact on the FDA.)

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Wojtek Narczynski]

Dmytry Lavrov <m31415@mail.ru> wrote in message news:<3F43C8F2.E5A@mail.ru>...

> haha, USSR position on patenting ;-)

Interesting note, have I been so indoctrinated before reaching the age
of 14 :-)

> Patents are good for me,say,if i will research new engine that have good
> efficiency,i will spend a LOT of my time and money! Where i can get this
> money back if here is no patenting?
> I have some good ideas i will patent.It's not a patenting  wheel.

This is very idealistic, but this will not happen. It works like that:
Let's grant that you already have your one cool patent. It is a good
one, and ACME Inc. wants it. They will come to you and say: "Hey your
engine infringed 14 patents of our patent portfolio. Let's cross
license." You either say "Yes" and don't have your patent anymore, or
say "No" and go into a legal battle. Their lawyers will not go after
your company, they will go after you in person. After five years of
harrasement, down and out, you will regret your patent. They will say
"See, and we generously offered you cross-licensing..." (This story is
NOT fictuous, names have been changed/wiped) And, oh, you really
infringed only 2 not 7 from their 4000 portfolio. But who cares. Now
quiz question: who will own your cool patent in the end? Answer at the
bottom.

It would be a great thing to reward the (wise) inventor, but it just
doesn't work. And in software it (doesn't work)! - factorial.

Now go research the engine, or better write some software, as long as
you can without "infringing" someones "intelectual property". In
Poland for at least five years, because our patent office is now
processing applications five years old. Unfortunately if you develop
in Poland, and sell in US, you still "infringe".

You may have read, MS is to be severely bitten ($500M) by a troll,
there is  hope for much stronger patent opposition :-)

Last but not least, software patent opposition - Brussels Next
Wednesday August 27th.

Regards,
Wojtek


Quiz answer: Your defendant lawyer. If you don't have money they often
graciously agree to accept some % of your patent as the reward for
their defense.

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Dmytry Lavrov]

Wojtek Narczynski wrote:
> 
> Dmytry Lavrov <m31415@mail.ru> wrote in message news:<3F43C8F2.E5A@mail.ru>...
> 
> > haha, USSR position on patenting ;-)
> 
> Interesting note, have I been so indoctrinated before reaching the age
> of 14 :-)

Ohh , what's i said?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!
by dr. Freid :-)
hhahaha.....

> 
> > Patents are good for me,say,if i will research new engine that have good
> > efficiency,i will spend a LOT of my time and money! Where i can get this
> > money back if here is no patenting?
> > I have some good ideas i will patent.It's not a patenting  wheel.
> 
> This is very idealistic, but this will not happen. It works like that:
> Let's grant that you already have your one cool patent. It is a good
> one, and ACME Inc. wants it. They will come to you and say: "Hey your
> engine infringed 14 patents of our patent portfolio. Let's cross
> license." You either say "Yes" and don't have your patent anymore, or
> say "No" and go into a legal battle. Their lawyers will not go after
> your company, they will go after you in person. After five years of
> harrasement, down and out, you will regret your patent. They will say
> "See, and we generously offered you cross-licensing..." (This story is
> NOT fictuous, names have been changed/wiped) And, oh, you really
> infringed only 2 not 7 from their 4000 portfolio. But who cares. Now
> quiz question: who will own your cool patent in the end? Answer at the
> bottom.
> 
> It would be a great thing to reward the (wise) inventor, but it just
> doesn't work. And in software it (doesn't work)! - factorial.
> 
> Now go research the engine, or better write some software, as long as
> you can without "infringing" someones "intelectual property". In
> Poland for at least five years, because our patent office is now
> processing applications five years old. Unfortunately if you develop
> in Poland, and sell in US, you still "infringe".
> 
> You may have read, MS is to be severely bitten ($500M) by a troll,
> there is  hope for much stronger patent opposition :-)
> 
> Last but not least, software patent opposition - Brussels Next
> Wednesday August 27th.
> 
> Regards,
> Wojtek
> 
> Quiz answer: Your defendant lawyer. If you don't have money they often
> graciously agree to accept some % of your patent as the reward for
> their defense.
About software:
because copyright is generally all what's we need,  I AGREE YOUR
POSITION , software patents will be used only for speculations.(like
patenting a realtime system in general)

But what's hardware developers should do?Where 'em could get a money?
(of course,what is hardware and what is software are a big question)

It's really hard to make a law that
1:will be good for developers.
2:will not allow speculations.
3:(again)will be good for developers.

Problems in soft and hard are nothing in comparation with same problems
in music!
Say,someone wrote a good big melody.And some (.bad qword.) got 6 notes
from this melody,transponed it(or reversed in time),and make populat
music,and got a money.

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Dmytry Lavrov]

news:<3F43C8F2.E5A@mail.ru>...
> >
> > > haha, USSR position on patenting ;-)
> >
> > Interesting note, have I been so indoctrinated before reaching the age
> > of 14 :-)
(after 10 minutes thinking what you mean)
> 
> Ohh , what's i said?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!
> by dr. Freid :-)
> hhahaha.....

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Warren W. Gay VE3WWG]

Thanks Robert, for sharing that with us. I generally find
pioneering work such as this, fascinating.

Warren.

Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
> 
>> "They decreed that the stored-program idea rightfully
>> belonged in the public domain."
>>
>> And that is how it was decided, and we enjoy its  benefits today.
> 
> I knew many of the people involved in this.  (Pres Eckart was best man 
> at my parent's wedding, and my father at Pres's first wedding.)  But 
> more than that I knew a number of people who actually worked on Eniac in 
> addition to the principle players.
...
> Johnny von then wrote his infamous paper, recently declassified.  The 
> reason for the omitted references became obvious when that happened. The 
> Johnny von paper was prepared with an annex that described some of the 
> details of the implementation and credited Pres and John Mauchley. But 
> the paper was distributed at a time when it was felt that the fact the 
> machine actually existed at present should be very closely held. But 
> still most people who saw the (classified) paper never saw the annex.  
> Why? Because the annex discussed how to use ENIAC to replace the bombes 
> used to decrypt Enigma messages.  The Johnny Von paper was only Top 
> Secret.  That annex was literally classified as Ultra Secret, and only 
> available to those in the know on Ultra.  (And again, AFAIK, my father 
> did get to see the full paper, but Pres Eckert never did. However, I was 
> not able to discuss that with my father until much, much later when I 
> could show him an unclassified copy of the annex, so we are talking 
> memories thirty years later.)
> -- 
>                                            Robert I. Eachus
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Alexander Kopilovitch]

Robert I. Eachus wrote:

> I have now come to
> the conclusion that the problem with software patents is the 20 year
> lifetime.  In every case where I have seen software patents used to do
> active harm, if the life of a software patent had been 10 years, the
> damage would have been minimal, and at five years non-existant.

I'd like to propose a candidate for popular statement supporting this
observation about proper lifetime for software patents:

For hardware (that is, material things) we coordinate patent's lifetime with
the interval between two consequtive human generations; similarly, software
patent's lifetime should be coordinated with the interval between consequtive
(different) governments.



Alexander Kopilovitch                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Georg Bauhaus]

Warren W. Gay VE3WWG <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote:
: Thanks Robert, for sharing that with us. I generally find
: pioneering work such as this, fascinating.

Yes, thank You very much, this is highly interesting. Wouldn't
it be a good idea to forward this information to
Patterson and Hennessy, who address the v Neumann vs
Mauchley and Eckert debate in their popular introductory computer
architecture book, but without this particular bit? 

Also, there is a lot to learn from these incidents about
the consequences of not talking to each other :_)


Georg

: Warren.
: 
: Robert I. Eachus wrote:
:> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
:> 
:>> "They decreed that the stored-program idea rightfully
:>> belonged in the public domain."
:>>
:>> And that is how it was decided, and we enjoy its  benefits today.
:> 
:> I knew many of the people involved in this.  (Pres Eckart was best man 
:> at my parent's wedding, and my father at Pres's first wedding.)  But 
:> more than that I knew a number of people who actually worked on Eniac in 
:> addition to the principle players.
: ...
:> Johnny von then wrote his infamous paper, recently declassified.  The 
:> reason for the omitted references became obvious when that happened. The 
:> Johnny von paper was prepared with an annex that described some of the 
:> details of the implementation and credited Pres and John Mauchley. But 

Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets?

[Robert I. Eachus]

Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> Also, there is a lot to learn from these incidents about
> the consequences of not talking to each other :_)

As I said, the reasons that the original disconnect occurred were for 
good and sufficient reasons involving security.  As late as the mid-60s, 
many Eastern-bloc countries were using "war-surplus" Enigma machines for 
both diplomatic and military encryption, so the British were very 
unwilling to declassify the information then.  And due to an agreement 
between the US and the UK, the UK had the final say on everything to do 
with the security of Enigma decryption (Ultra) while the US had similar 
authority for the Japanese intercepts (PURPLE, RED and others).  In the 
case of the analysis of using electronic digital computers to replace 
the bombes, the British kept that knowledge extremely closely held, both 
during WWII and afterwords.
--
                                            Robert I. Eachus

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." -- Jacques Chirac, 
President of France
"As far as France is concerned, you're right." -- Rush Limbaugh

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Luke A. Guest]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:25:02 +0000, Colin Paul Gloster wrote:

> "> If you are interested in European jobs then the chances get much better.
>> The European Space Agency is a big Ada user, as are railway
>> manufacturing companies.
> 
> Pity their website has NO jobs on it, I looked previously."
> 
> What does a website have to do with anything? ESA uses Ada and ESA hires
> people to work for it.
> 
> You have to understand that people have better things to be doing than

Yes, but if you want to actively let people know what kind of jobs are
*going* then you'd better say what these are on the website. I don't want
to waste my time bothering a company when the job is not for me! This is a
tool to let people on both sides know exactly what is available. If they
cannot do this, then what is the point? Going for an interview for a job
that you do not want. It's a waste of time for both parties.

Luke.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Luke A. Guest]

On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 07:51:30 -0400, Marin David Condic wrote:

> An OS is a pretty serious project - even if you're looking at an 
> embedded OS of some sort. If you start with too big an objective, you'll 
> likely not achieve it. You might try taking some existing OS and porting 
> it. That would be a good start and might be achievable in a reasonable 
> time span. There was an RTOS out there written in Ada - RTEMS if I 
> recall the name correctly. One called MaRTE also springs to mind. Try:
> 
> http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/457082.html

I am aware of this (and this site). I have no exact idea when it will be
complete. I only have a (kind of) design document at the moment, but I do
know what I want to achieve. It isn't something that will happen overnight
and yes, I have been researching - with citeseer being a main point of
interest for the papers I have been reading.

I am not an idiot yet I have no intentions of creating an OS in Ada, what
I want is a *project* to help me get back into Ada and possibly give an
idea as to whether I really want to do this.

Luke.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Luke A. Guest]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 08:12:00 -0400, Marin David Condic wrote:

> There is a law of the universe that is just as reliable as any of the 
> gas laws. Its called "Supply and Demand". Although many have tried, 
> nobody successfully violates it for very long. The "Correct" rate to pay 
> someone is equal to the "Going" rate. A thing is only worth what you can 
> get someone to pay for it - including one's labor. My advice would be to 
> get comfortable with that law, study it thoroughly and learn to use it 
> to your best advantage, because otherwise you will go through life 
> flogging a dead horse and being frustrated over the fact that it won't run.

Yeah, and there's that defeatist attitude that actually hinders this
industry rather than help...oh well, you can't have everything can you?

Luke.

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Alexander Kopilovitch]

Luke A. Guest wrote:

> > There is a law of the universe that is just as reliable as any of the 
> > gas laws. Its called "Supply and Demand". Although many have tried, 
> > nobody successfully violates it for very long. The "Correct" rate to pay 
> > someone is equal to the "Going" rate. A thing is only worth what you can 
> > get someone to pay for it - including one's labor. My advice would be to 
> > get comfortable with that law, study it thoroughly and learn to use it 
> > to your best advantage, because otherwise you will go through life 
> > flogging a dead horse and being frustrated over the fact that it won't run.
> 
> Yeah, and there's that defeatist attitude

Well, this is not necessarily defeatist attitude, this may be another quite
natural behaviour: sitting on a comfortable place and preaching eternal laws
of universe. You asked for a project, but you are offered much better thing --
a law of universe, you should enjoy and be thankful.



Alexander Kopilovitch                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia

Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment.

[Marin David Condic]

"Defeatist"? Not even *remotely*! If more people learned to work with 
Supply and Demand, "The Industry" (whichever one you're talking about) 
would be even *more* prosperous and everyone would likewise benefit.

MDC

Luke A. Guest wrote:
> 
> Yeah, and there's that defeatist attitude that actually hinders this
> industry rather than help...oh well, you can't have everything can you?
> 
> Luke.
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "In general the art of government consists in taking as
     much money as possible from one class of citizens to give
     to the other."

         --  Voltaire
======================================================================