Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mr. Dell opens up about Desktop Linux
Desktop Linux ^ | Mar. 07, 2006 | Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Posted on 03/08/2006 5:49:56 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing

Michael Dell, chairman of Dell Inc. believes in offering Linux on the desktop, server, and workstation. What he doesn't believe in, for now, is giving Linux full support on the desktop. In an exclusive interview, Dell explained his company's Linux desktop strategy to DesktopLinux.com's Steven J. Vaughan Nichols.

"People are always asking us to support Linux on the desktop, but the question is: 'Which Linux are you talking about?'," Dell asked.

(Excerpt) Read more at desktoplinux.com ...


TOPICS: Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS: capitalism; dell; linux; redhat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 281-300 next last
To: antiRepublicrat

Stallman's latest "news", if you haven't seen it.

http://www.stallman.org/archives/2006-jan-apr.html


221 posted on 03/14/2006 7:00:10 PM PST by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
Stallman's latest "news", if you haven't seen it.

And this has what to do with regular patents?

222 posted on 03/14/2006 7:29:24 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
Look at section 2.1, notice that only 2.1(a) contains the language "with or without Modifications, and/or as part of a Larger Work". 2.1(b), the patent clause, clearly only refers to "original software".

Which can be modified and used in part or whole in the part of a larger work, i.e., A FORK. You just referenced it, yet you fail to comprehend.

Again, show me how the CDDL differs enough from the MPL so that software under the CDDL can't be forked while the MPL software can.

Why do I ask? I know you won't. It will show how you are yet again wrong.

as my link to lwn.net corroborated.

Which doesn't seem to agree with the position of a Sun executive. Hmmm, who to trust?

223 posted on 03/14/2006 7:35:02 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
I remember it well. Quite useful for exposing the Bushitler crowd on Slashdot to reality.

That short memory is quite sad. I was on Slashdot back in '98/99 when Gore was pimping Clipper and key escrow, and people there were pissed. Now most don't even remember.

224 posted on 03/14/2006 7:51:41 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: FLAMING DEATH; Golden Eagle

**chirp** **chirp** **chirp** **chirp**

The silence is very telling.


225 posted on 03/15/2006 1:15:12 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
What silence? You keep claiming I said Solaris couldn't be forked, which is a lie, I simply said you could be sued for patent infringement if you did, which according to the license is correct. None of your links contain a written statement from Sun that they won't sue, either. As a matter of fact, neither has IBM when it comes to that, as Bruce Perens has pointed out.

HA HA I see you pinged the flaming dude from hell too. He so reminds me of a professional wrestler, LMAO.

226 posted on 03/15/2006 4:05:31 PM PST by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
I simply said you could be sued for patent infringement if you did, which according to the license is correct.

The CDDL provides patent protection for all Sun-produced CDDL code. The MPL does the same for MPL code. Show me where that patent protection is revoked for the case of a fork.

If you can show me that revocation in plain language, I'll believe you, you win.

If I take Open Solaris code and republish it under the CDDL, I'm covered. If I make modifications to it while complying with the CDDL, I'm still covered (the whole point of the license). If I keep making modifications without adding any new Sun contributions, I'm still covered (nothing in the license requires you use contributions from anyone else). I can continue this under the license until the two versions ("Open Solaris" and "my new *NIX") are quite different, IOW, a fork.

How about Jim Driscoll at Sun, someone who's been answering a lot of critical questions about the CDDL:

Saying that Sun can take away the CDDL that Sun has given the community is both disengenious and factually incorrect. Sun (like Apache, and FSF) can change future licenses, but the old code remains under the old license. And if you don't like the new license, you can fork under the old one. To repeat, this is not a Sun Evil Plot (tm)
Or you could read Sun's executive summary of their changes from the MPL, showing their goal is to reduce even further the stress of worrying about patents.

Or their FAQ:

What does the CDDL say about patents?

The CDDL provides an explicit patent license for code released under the license. This means that you can use, modify, and redistribute code released under CDDL without worrying about any patents that the contributors of the code (including Sun) might have on the contributed technology. The license also includes a provision to discourage patent litigation against developers, by revoking the rights to the code for anyone initiating a patent claim against a developer regarding code they have contributed.

Pretty clear. Sun doesn't want ANY patent mess going on with CDDL code. You lose.

None of your links contain a written statement from Sun that they won't sue, either.

You've linked to it several times. It's called the CDDL. Sun won't say "you're covered for patents if you fork" directly because the ability is so damn obvious in the license.

As a matter of fact, neither has IBM when it comes to that, as Bruce Perens has pointed out.

Completely different matter. IBM is promising not to enforce its patents that may cover code written by others, and it's a different license. Sun is promising not to enforce its patents on its code when it's used IAW the CDDL.

227 posted on 03/15/2006 7:21:20 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
The CDDL provides patent protection for all Sun-produced CDDL code.

So what, modifications aren't "Sun-produced" code.

Sun is promising not to enforce its patents on its code when it's used IAW the CDDL.

No they're not, nowhere in your post did we find one person from Sun "promising" anything in that regard.

If you fork Open Solaris you very well could be sued for patent infringement. Section 2.1(d) also covers this:

no patent license is granted: (1) for code that You delete from the Original Software, or (2) for infringements caused by: (i) the modification of the Original Software, or (ii) the combination of the Original Software with other software or devices.

Argue more if you want, but you just keep losing by more and more.

228 posted on 03/15/2006 8:00:31 PM PST by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
So what, modifications aren't "Sun-produced" code.

Correct. Sun can't exactly protect you from modifications that infringe on the patents of others. But remember, the CDDL is designed to keep developers (including Sun) from suing each other over patents. It's in the link I posted.

No they're not, nowhere in your post did we find one person from Sun "promising" anything in that regard.

The promise is in the CDDL, plain language, further intent to stop patent wars shown in the links.

(1) for code that You delete from the Original Software

You don't get covered for code that you don't use. Sounds kind of redundant to me, but I'm sure there's a legal reason behind it.

(2) for infringements caused by: (i) the modification of the Original Software

As I said above, they can't cover you if you introduce infringements to the code.

(ii) the combination of the Original Software with other software or devices

They can't cover you if you combine CDDL code with other code that infringes on a patent.

All of those bits are designed to remove the possibility of patent wars with CDDL code, even patent wars started by Sun. Basically, if you introduce a patented concept into the CDDL (applies to Sun too), you either grant license to the patent or you lose your ability to work with the CDDL.

Once code goes CDDL, you permanently and irrevocably grant patent licenses to that code as long as the developer complies with the CDDL. Should Sun later restrict that to prevent forks, as that Sun exec said, you could simply fork at the earlier, more permissive license.

Face it, you lose. The plain language of the CDDL and loads of documented intent from Sun executives shows that forking while remaining free from patent threats over CDDL software is possible. All you have is a comment from one Linux guy soon after the license was released saying he doesn't think you could safely fork.

About the only other person you'll find to agree with you may be Pamela Jones of Groklaw, who is absolutely paranoid about non-GPL open source licenses (she is a Stallman ass-kisser).

229 posted on 03/15/2006 8:34:45 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
they can't cover you if you introduce infringements to the code...can't cover you if you combine CDDL code with other code that infringes on a patent.

FINALLY you admit forks can be sued for patent infringement, which is all I ever claimed. To provide patent protection for forks would be insane, obviously (to most).

230 posted on 03/15/2006 9:27:54 PM PST by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
FINALLY you admit forks can be sued for patent infringement,

ANY changes, forking and non-forking, can get you sued for patent infringement, but not by Sun, because they've licensed their applicable patents through the CDDL. The license doesn't distinguish between forking and non-forking changes. All it tries to do is keep anyone developing CDDL software from getting sued for patent infringement, because if you introduce code subject to patent litigation to CDDL software you lose the right to do anything with it.

The CDDL purposely (in text and in intent as stated by Sun) keeps patent threats away from CDDL software and developers, yet you keep harping about Sun suing over patents in a fork.

You lose again.

231 posted on 03/15/2006 9:59:14 PM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

They can sue though, else they would say, in writing, "we will never sue anyone, ever" while in fact they reserve that right. If Microsoft took Open Solaris and released it with a few changes and stole a lot of their business you boys would have a caniption, and be ready to sue. But let the Chinese, and you have no problem.


232 posted on 03/15/2006 10:11:21 PM PST by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle

"He so reminds me of a professional wrestler, LMAO."

Hmmm...so, you watch professional wrestling? That makes sense. That's all based on deception and fakery, so it's right up your alley.


233 posted on 03/16/2006 5:30:06 AM PST by FLAMING DEATH (And now, for something completely different: www.donaldlancow.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle

"caniption"

er...that's conniption.

I guess we must be transferring dictionary technology to China, too.


234 posted on 03/16/2006 5:33:45 AM PST by FLAMING DEATH (And now, for something completely different: www.donaldlancow.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: FLAMING DEATH
I guess we must be transferring dictionary technology to China, too

Of course you are, it's included in the "open office" you support giving to them every single day. At least you're not denying it, although you obviously remaun rather ignorant about it.

235 posted on 03/16/2006 6:09:53 AM PST by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
They can sue though, else they would say, in writing, "we will never sue anyone, ever"

Anyone can sue for anything, no matter how baseless. But the easy defense is the CDDL said, in writing, that the developer had a license against patent infringement from Sun. It's really that simple, there's no conspiracy from Sun to trap developers.

And what's with all this garbage about a fork anyway? It's meaningless to the discussion. Red Flag Linux is not a fork, it is merely a distribution. Even if in some bizarro world you were right about the patent risks of forking, the Chicoms don't need to fork in order to release their own branded version of Open Solaris just like Red Flag.

As I told you, Sun is actively promoting this in China, trying to overturn Linux in that market. You like Open Solaris, but think Linux is communist. Hypocrite.

If Microsoft took Open Solaris and released it with a few changes and stole a lot of their business you boys would have a caniption

No problem at all as long as they follow the license. Free is free for anyone that agrees to abide by the license, including Microsoft, including China, including Free Republic and DU (both of which run on free software under at least two different open source licenses).

An OSI-accepted license (thus can be called "open source") cannot discriminate against specific people or groups of people, nor can it discriminate against specific uses of the software.

236 posted on 03/16/2006 6:26:01 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
Of course you are, it's included in the "open office"

You mean Sun's Open Office? Yes, they own most of the code and released it open source.

Wait, I thought Sun wasn't part of your evil communist conspiracy because they can supposedly sue for Open Solaris forks. But now Sun is because of Open Office?

Your position is about as consistent as warm jello.

237 posted on 03/16/2006 6:29:46 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
the Chicoms don't need to fork in order to release their own branded version of Open Solaris just like Red Flag.

We've already been over this, the Chinese aren't interested in Open Solaris since it's beta code and not all of it is open.

You like Open Solaris

Not really, it's only beta code, which I don't care much for. Unstable, constant upgrades, etc.

An OSI-accepted license (thus can be called "open source") cannot discriminate against specific people or groups of people

Baloney. Stallman's new GPL license is being specifically crafted to prevent Tivo from using GPL code in their systems, in the manner they are currently doing so. And as you've already admitted ~75% of all open source uses GPL.

238 posted on 03/16/2006 7:10:26 AM PST by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat

It's not my position that's constantly changing, it's Sun's. And exactly why they may decide to sue someone who forks Solaris, you just never know with those guys.


239 posted on 03/16/2006 7:31:31 AM PST by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
We've already been over this, the Chinese aren't interested in Open Solaris

I guess you haven't seen the packed seminars that Sun has been giving in China. Sun has a big presence there, and they're using it to push Open Solaris. Linux is more popular of course, but Open Solaris is growing.

Not really, it's only beta code

Not anymore. What is available right now as Open Solaris is a fully functional kernel, some libraries, drivers and tools. It is bootable and functional as-is. But as I said, there is already a fully-functional, installable distribution available that uses some of the same tools and programs that surround the Linux kernel to fill in any gaps.

IOW, if you prefer Open Solaris, you can essentially swap its kernel for the Linux kernel in a Linux distro.

Face it, China can run critical stuff on Open Solaris right now. You are a hypocrite for not deriding it for being free.

Stallman's new GPL license is being specifically crafted to prevent Tivo from using GPL code in their systems

... in the manner that they are currently doing it. This is one of the major problems Torvalds and others (including me) have with the GPL3 draft.

And as you've already admitted ~75% of all open source uses GPL.

Has nothing to do with the subject, but remember that the vast majority of those aren't even out of beta yet. I don't know how many times I've gone to SourceForge looking for software, seen a GPL entry I thought looked cool, only to find it was in planning or alpha.

240 posted on 03/16/2006 7:47:37 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 281-300 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson