ru.linux

 
 - RU.LINUX ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 From : Sergey Lentsov                       2:4615/71.10   19 Jul 2001  16:52:51
 To : All
 Subject : URL: http://www.lwn.net/2001/0719/letters.php3
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 

    [1][LWN Logo] 
    
                                [2]Click Here 
    [LWN.net]
    
    Sections:
     [3]Main page
     [4]Security
     [5]Kernel
     [6]Distributions
     [7]On the Desktop
     [8]Development
     [9]Commerce
     [10]Linux in the news
     [11]Announcements
     [12]Linux History
     Letters
    [13]All in one big page
    
    See also: [14]last week's Letters page.
    
 Letters to the editor
 
    Letters to the editor should be sent to [15]letters@lwn.net.
    Preference will be given to letters which are short, to the point, and
    well written. If you want your email address "anti-spammed" in some
    way please be sure to let us know. We do not have a policy against
    anonymous letters, but we will be reluctant to include them.
    July 19, 2001
    
    
 From:    Gerard Fernandes <gerry@vigorsoft.com>
 To:      "'lwn@lwn.net'" <lwn@lwn.net>
 Subject: Free Software response to .NET
 Date:    Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:12:43 +0530
 
 What is the whole point of talking about innovation when we have come back
 to square one - playing catch up to .NET and providing alternatives to the
 same thing, old wine in a new bottle, per-se?
 
 It would have been much better if the Free Software response took up Java as
 the question to which .NET is an improper answer and continue to put in
 efforts behind Java.
 
 Java has already provided a broad infrastructure for networked,
 cross-platform, and distributed applications. And it has been available (not
 to mention, working) for quite some time. Why not put in the effort that is
 senselessly going into developing an Open Source version of .NET (and in the
 course of this, leaving the Open Source foundation liable to law suits),
 into developing better and more competitive Application Servers (like JBoss)
 and therefore anull the .NET attack in the first place? It (.NET) is a
 half-baked attempt of Microsoft to get back some ground lost to Java. And
 the Open Source community is inadvertently playing into Microsoft's hands by
 packaging Microsoft Wine in the OpenSource bottle. Where is the innovation
 that you were looking for? Is innovation nothing but aping the competition?
 If not, then why is the Open source sommunity so intent on re-implementing
 .NET?
 
 This has been and seems to be continuing to be, the single biggest hurdle
 that Open Source is going to be facing - an internally fragmented developer
 community. This can be the only explanation why Open Source cannot see that
 they already have a winner (albeit, provided by Sun) and is instead trying
 to compete with what can actually give Open Source a huge lead in terms of
 distributed computing development infrastructure.
 
 To put it in a nutshell, the Open Source community is its own biggest enemy.
 
 Until the Open source community grows up and acts more mature, we are going
 to continue to have emotional outbursts of this kind. What else can one make
 of an attempt like this? Do you really need to build a ship with a hole just
 because Microsoft has done it again?
 
 Think about it.
 
 regards,
 Gerard.
 
    
 From:    "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com>
 To:      press@mysql.com
 Subject: Trademark infringement press release
 Date:    Fri, 13 Jul 2001 11:00:09 -0400
 Cc:      letters@lwn.net
 
 <sigh>
 
 I see you folks have drunk the Kool-Aid<tm> as well.
 
 Please understand something: mere existence of a domain name which has
 a trademark in it does *not* in any way violate the Lanham Act, and is
 therefore not a trademark violation, at least in the United States
 (although IANAL).  If the holder of such a domain name engages in
 confusion, dilution, or disparagement, then perhaps you might have a
 case.
 
 But, at least from my point of view, this insecure, ranting reaction is
 just one more reason for *me* to spec PostGreSQL instead of MySQL.
 
 If your users are dumb enough to confuse mysql.org and mysql.com, then
 maybe they, and you, deserve the results.
 
 If that sounds elitist, so be it.  I'm getting tired, after 20 years,
 of listening to whining.
 
 Cheers,
 -- jra
 --
 Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra@baylink.com
 Member of the Technical Staff     Baylink                             RFC 2100
 The Suncoast Freenet         The Things I Think
 Tampa Bay, Florida        [16]http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 804 5
 015
 
    OS X: Because making Unix user-friendly was easier than debugging Windows
      -- Simon Slavin in a.f.c
 
    
 From:    Nathan Myers <ncm@nospam.cantrip.org>
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: MySQL and the GPL
 Date:    Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:20:07 -0700
 
 The MySQL AB vs. NuSphere dispute is turning out to be really
 interesting, and not because of anything about their products.
 (PostgreSQL is a lot more interesting, as a database.)  What's
 interesting is how it points up fun features of the GPL.
 
 Apparently NuSphere has been violating the GPL by shipping their
 proprietary Gemini library linked with MySQL, and keeping the
 source code secret.  They have also been giving binaries out via
 the web, protected by a sign-up sheet.
 
 One feature this highlights is that if they had offered their
 sources (under the GPL) only to people they had given binaries
 to, they wouldn't have had to offer them to anybody else.  Hence,
 it wasn't clear whether they actually had violated the GPL, until
 I verified that even their customers don't get the source code.
 (Of course they would not be able to keep their customers from
 mirroring it.)
 
 Even the sign-up web page is OK under the GPL; if you haven't
 given somebody the code, you have no obligations to them.  Again,
 though, once you give them the code, you can't keep them from
 mirroring the source code once they get it, so a sign-up page
 for GPL'd code tends to become voluntary.
 
 More interesting is what happens next.  You see, even if NuSphere
 goes ahead and GPLs their library and puts sources up for FTP, they
 are _still_ in violation of the GPL.  Once you've violated the GPL,
 you have lost _all_ your rights under it.  NuSphere can still post
 their own code, but they can't legally distribute binaries linked
 with it any more, or even use it in-house.  Before they will have
 any rights under the GPL again, they will need forgiveness from
 the copyright holders.  Yes, from MySQL AB -- the company they are
 engaged in lawsuits and public spats with.
 
 Amusingly, if NuSphere does put Gemini under the GPL, users will be
 able to distribute MySQL+Gemini while NuSphere still can't, until
 they get forgiveness.
 
 The longer they continue violating the license, the worse trouble
 they're in, and the more forgiveness they'll need from MySQL AB.
 
 This isn't one of those corner cases where the GPL is considered a
 bit iffy.  This is square in the middle, where it's firmly backed by
 copyright law.  If NuSphere angers MySQL AB enough, and the lawyers
 don't back down, we may see a nice, clear court test of the GPL under
 near-ideal circumstances.  That the MySQL database is involved is
 unfortunate, but since it doesn't really affect users much, that's
 not so bad.
 
 The GPL is a lot like an alligator snout.  You can hold it shut with
 one hand, but if you stick your head in it bites like hell.
 
 --
 Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and the above should not be taken as
 legal advice.  Some dogs know more than I do.
 
 "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra.  Suddenly it flips
 over, pinning you underneath.  At night, the ice weasels come."
                                         -- Matt Groening
 
    
    
                                                                          
    
    [17]Eklektix, Inc. Linux powered! Copyright Л 2001 [18]Eklektix, Inc.,
    all rights reserved
    Linux (R) is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
 
 References
 
    1. http://lwn.net/
    2. http://ads.tucows.com/click.ng/pageid=pageid=132-000-001-001
    3. http://lwn.net/2001/0719/
    4. http://lwn.net/2001/0719/security.php3
    5. http://lwn.net/2001/0719/kernel.php3
    6. http://lwn.net/2001/0719/dists.php3
    7. http://lwn.net/2001/0719/desktop.php3
    8. http://lwn.net/2001/0719/devel.php3
    9. http://lwn.net/2001/0719/commerce.php3
   10. http://lwn.net/2001/0719/press.php3
   11. http://lwn.net/2001/0719/announce.php3
   12. http://lwn.net/2001/0719/history.php3
   13. http://lwn.net/2001/0719/bigpage.php3
   14. http://lwn.net/2001/0712/letters.php3
   15. mailto:letters@lwn.net
   16. http://baylink.pitas.com/
   17. http://www.eklektix.com/
   18. http://www.eklektix.com/
 
 --- ifmail v.2.14.os7-aks1
  * Origin: Unknown (2:4615/71.10@fidonet)
 
 

Вернуться к списку тем, сортированных по: возрастание даты  уменьшение даты  тема  автор