How Microsoft Missed The Next Big Thing
Linked by Howard Fosdick on Mon 13th Dec 2010 23:11 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless It's hard to predict the future because we humans prefer to think in terms of familiar paradigms. Even the most brilliant of our species are subject to this flaw. Now, Microsoft faces its turn. The owner of the operating system that likely runs your personal computer, the company that achieved monopoly with Windows and ducked the Department of Justice's scythe to keep it, faces a midlife crisis as the world goes gaga over portable consumer devices. This is the story of what's happening to Microsoft in the handheld operating system markets -- and how it parallels the earlier, similar journeys of IBM Corporation and Digital Equipment Corporation. Can Microsoft achieve dominance on mobile devices?
E-mail Print r 18   · Read More · 130 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/imb
Thread beginning with comment 453487
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

Because it does not require anything like it. GPL does require you provide the source code with the compiled code to the person/company you distribute it to under GPL.


How is that massively different? GPL code effectively owns itself so what is stopping them from releasing it once they have it. The code can end up legally in the public domain.

Edited 2010-12-14 14:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

How is that massively different? GPL code effectively owns itself so what is stopping them from releasing it once they have it. The code can end up legally in the public domain.

Because you are not "required to give it back"(quoting you). And the people that have your code are also not required to give it back. You however can't force them to keep it to themselves...
Technically all and any code will become part of public domain after a certain amount of time.
GPLed code is still copyrighted and is not in public domain.

You should make it clear that you represent a COTS ISV, so there is a clear bias against GPL in your sector. It's not baseless and something I can agree with. But it's not a reason to spread FUD about GPL (like Sleepycat did)

IP law education - it's very beneficial in our world.

Reply Parent Score: 4

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Because you are not "required to give it back"(quoting you). And the people that have your code are also not required to give it back. You however can't force them to keep it to themselves...


Fair enough, maybe "giving it away" is more accurate, I am giving my rights to keep the code mine away. This statement is accurate enough for my purposes, or am I missing something.

Technically all and any code will become part of public domain after a certain amount of time.
GPLed code is still copyrighted and is not in public domain.

You should make it clear that you represent a COTS ISV, so there is a clear bias against GPL in your sector. It's not baseless and something I can agree with. But it's not a reason to spread FUD about GPL (like Sleepycat did)

IP law education - it's very beneficial in our world.


I don't have a bias against the GPL, I think it works well for some projects, but for others it suitable.

What I am biased against is it being touted as the be all and the end all of Licenses and Closed Source stuff as being "Evil". Like certain members say that Linux will magically solve people's problems.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Read more of this thread... >