text:
GPL or Apache doesn't really matters -- what matters is if you can make money. There essential matter is whether the software in question is a tool you use or the product you sell itself. If it's just a tool, the GPL makes sense, so you get contributions back. If it's your product itself, neither GPL nor Apache makes sense.
[The] essential matter is whether the software in question is a tool you use or the product you sell itself. If it's just a tool, the GPL makes sense, so you get contributions back. If it's your product itself, neither GPL nor Apache makes sense.
And there you hit the nail on the head. If the software is the means to some other end, then yes, the GPL or some derivative would seem to make the most sense, in order to ensure that any improvements someone else might come up with are propagated back into the main branch. I would wager that this holds true for most FOSS projects -- and the SourceForge figures of 70% of projects using the GPL would seem to back this up.
But if, as you note, the software is the end in itself, if it is the product one is trying to sell, then proprietary is really the only way to go, simply from the perspective of locking others out.
And therein lies the crux of the conflict -- those keenest to use any piece of software are also keenest to see it spread and improve as quickly and efficiently as possible, while those trying to sell any piece of software are less interested in improvements than in maintaining exclusive control. These would appear to be orthogonal goals. The alternate model of giving the software away for free and charging for service instead adds an interesting wrinkle to the equation.
If the software is the means to some other end
i.e. you want to have your cake and eat it too. i.e. dual licenses schemes like MySQL's. i.e. you want to sell your GPL code.
then yes, the GPL or some derivative would seem to make the most sense
For you "owner" of the code, yeah--especially if you are extra weasely and require copyright assignment. For contributors, it is a scam. Why the hell should I contribute to your dual licensed garbage so you can turn around and profit from my work? I never understood why such companies aren't hassled more about this. It is really a great scam--you get a bunch of people contributing to your work for free and you get to sell it all. Course, I guess the same holds true for most things on the internet--flickr doesn't take pictures, its users do and flickr profits from that. Slashdot doesn't have a script to write comments, we write them and they profit from that. So I might be wrong on this... but the dual-license guys seem way more blatant, probably because I get a lot of satisfaction posting here, but dont really get much satisfaction contributing to some faceless corporations open source project.
The alternate model of giving the software away for free and charging for service instead adds an interesting wrinkle to the equation
A sucky one though. I doubt many programmers on this board want to be in a position that the work they produce for a company is essentially worthless and the way to move up is through the tech support department. I also doubt customers would benefit either since giving away the software and charging for support creates an incentive to make shoddy software that requires a lot of hand-holding.
I gather Slashdot doesn't make a lot from us writing comments. They make money from the advertisements we see while browsing. Comments are just slashdot's way of fostering a community and increasing page counts.
They dont make much from us clicking on the ads either. People who bother do register accounts become blind to them.
Slashdot doesn't directly make money from us writing comments. The indirectly make money from us because our comments give a reason for people to visit. Without them, the website wouldn't be interesting and nobody would visit... thus making this place unattractive to advertisers.
It's actually pretty difficult to contribute to dual-license GPL projects - they'd rather do the changes themselves and not risk legal hassles. What they want is bug reports.
When I was maintaining the ISC DHCP distribution (BSD license, BTW), I dreaded getting large patches, because I'd have to go through the whole damned patch and figure out what it actually did, and correct it. I much preferred bug reports. The idea that patches are why people open source things is really a red herring - sure, if you get a regular contributor who's really good, you can start to trust their work, but that only works for projects like linux where you have a huge number of interested geeks.
So really, what's going on with a dual-licensed model is that the owner of the copyright is using the FUD of the GPL to get people who don't trust open source or don't want to open source their own code to pay for non-GPL copies. At the same time they are offering the GPL version to the community of people who like the GPL, which spurs adoption. It's a win for everyone.
The problem with the BSD license is that the only way to get money out of it is charity, because there is no license FUD. Nothing wrong with charity, but it can make paying the bills a bit difficult.
Many dual-licensed projects are perfectly happy to accept patches, as long as you sign over the copyright or the right to relicense, and swear that you are the author of work and don't know of any infringements in it.
The problem is motivating people to sign that. I think I know a way, but I'm still working on the product for my new company so don't yet have proof.
There is an easy answer to this. Don't make the software as your business. Most of the successful Open Source applications are made by Open Source projects in which businesses participate, not businesses whose goal is to make the software.
Am I saying that Open Source business doesn't work? Most of the time it does not. It depends on what you are doing.
FWIW, I'm approx. familiar with both licenses, and I expect most FOSS developers are. I prefer GPL
For a business, it seems to me the important consideration would be what you want to do. You need the right code, and it's a lot easier if you can just modify slightly something already done. And in that case you must use whate
That's an odd view... personally, I think what really matters is that you can't make money with the code. Money comes from controlling a resource that is scarce. Money requires poverty as a precursor. Wealth comes from abundance.
The argument in the article misses the point when they keep talking about code quality, efficiency and market forces, because the GPL isn't about creating higher quality code. The GPL is about protecting something that is naturally abundant from the corrupting influences of law
If it's just a tool, the GPL makes sense, so you get contributions back.
The GPL doesn't make sense if your software gives you a competitive advantage, because by releasing your code under the GPL, you relinquish that competitive advantage.
The source availability provisions that come with distributing GPL software are a small pain for companies that want to make use of open source software, but that's about the biggest difference.
Anyway, over time, it will become obvious how big a concern the copyleft is to businesses.
Without people like RMS fighting for the cause, I don't think the center would have moved so far towards FOSS today.
Supporting GPL in business is tougher, but it is also true that the benefits a company derives from open software are those it won't be able to reap in the future if the world turns back towards licenses which are less free.
If you are making money developing the software, the GPL with a dual liscence is a feature, not a bug:
"Hey Mr Customer, you can have it for free under this GPL thingy, or pay us $$$ and do whatever you want with it"
If you want to make money modifying the software, the GPL is a disaster.
You have identified the major points though:
The GPL does not preclude the open source community from forking and out innovating me. But any innovation done has to be done in the clear, assuming those changes are beyond "customizations" for a single customer.
It isn't
"If you want to make money modifying the software, the GPL is a disaster."
It's if you want to make money modifying SOMEONE ELSE'S code, the GPL is a disaster.
If it's your own code, you can add non-GPL bits to your code and still make monopoly rent.
If it contains someone else's code under GPL, you can still make money from the modifications, but you won't make a monopoly rent from it.
It's if you want to make money modifying SOMEONE ELSE'S code, the GPL is a disaster.
As always, it's about what exactly are you doing: If you want to monopolize on someone else's code, then you're right. But imagine, some user (company) has some software and the code is available under GPL. To get improvements they can ask you to do it, instead of the original author, and you can make money by modifying his code.
X% of your customers demand GPL.
Y% of your customers don't care.
Z% of your customers want closed source.
The questions is what is X, Y, Z in your field of dreams (err, Business plan)?
More business and governments are demanding GPL, but is it big enough for you?
If you're trying to get a protocol or "standard" of some kind as widely adopted as possible, then you should use a more permissive license (e.g. BSD, MIT, Apache). If you want people to embrace your product, yet then have to buy a license from you if they want to modify it in any proprietary way, you use the GPL.
It's basically a business question of whether you plan to make money DIRECTLY from the code (i.e. GPL), or whether you have ulterior motives for making money elsewhere (i.e. Apache). For examples of the latter, most of the largest permissive-licensed projects (Apache, Firefox, etc) are bankrolled by Microsoft competitors as a means to block Microsoft from having full monopoly power in a particular niche.
This really is a TIRED and boring flamewar. There simply is no "one license to rule them all". It depends on what you're trying to accomplish.
Say, in theory, that you decide to fund your company by supporting a single Open Source product. Put yourself in the customer's place:
The customer will have to spend a lot of time just figuring out what is breaking, so that he or she knows who to call.
The customer will then have to spend additional time proving to the vendor that something is broken in their product, while the vendor points elsewhere: hardware, OS, someone else's product.
The customer will have to manage integrating all of these piece-mal
This is what happens when people used to getting attention miss the attention when their 15 minutes is up.
No one has payed attention to Eric Raymond in years so now he has to start a flame war.
Amen to that! The editors of
One thing the GPL offers that BSD-type licenses don't: protection from competitors. When a business releases it's code under a BSD-type license, it's competitors are free to take that code and expand upon it to make new products while keeping their code secret. As a business that means that you're always giving to your competitors but they don't have to give anything to you in return. The GPL, by contrast, allows your competitor to use your code as the basis for their enhanced product only if they give you their code in return. That means that whenever your competitor uses your code to gain a competitive advantage, you can grab his code in return and match him. You're never left holding the short end of the code-exchange stick. The only way a competitor can use your code without letting you use any improvements he makes is to not make any changes to your code at all. But if he's not making any changes or enhancements, you always have the first-mover advantage and he'll never be able to offer anything you aren't already offering. From a business standpoint, if you're going to open the source code at all the GPL provides assurance that the only way your competitors can hitch a free ride is if they accept always being in second place behind you when it comes to new features.
That's assuming you can open the code in the first place. For code that's not critical to your business it's an easy answer. If the code is critical to your business, the first question you need to ask is whether or not you can open it to the world in the first place. Opening it means the entire world can see the exact thing that sets your business apart from others in that case, OTOH it also means the entire world can offer improvements and that means you're effectively getting a development department not even giants like IBM and Microsoft can afford for free. Keeping it closed means you can avoid revealing the keys to your success, OTOH it also means there's huge amounts of useful software out there that you can't use and will have to pay to get (either in cash to buy commercial versions or in time to duplicate the functionality). I can't say whether the trade-off's worth it for any particular business or not, but as a businessman you'd better be asking that question and getting a solid, well-grounded answer to it.
The GPL, by contrast, allows your competitor to use your code as the basis for their enhanced product only if they give you their code in return. That means that whenever your competitor uses your code to gain a competitive advantage, you can grab his code in return and match him.
That's actually not true. There's no obligation in the GPL for your competitor to give you any of their source code unless they, or one of their customers, or somebody else downstream, redistributes the code to you. Since they are allowed to charge a fee for the software, you might find yourself having to pay to see their code changes. Or if you can't find anybody prepared to give you or sell you a copy of the software, you may never get the changes.
OTOH it also means the entire world can offer improvements and that means you're effectively getting a development department not even giants like IBM and Microsoft can afford for free.
Not really. That's the theory, but in reality what it means is that nothing prevents such a development department from forming spontaneously. In reality, many open source projects languish because no one is interested in developing for them, and there's no management in place to guide the developers to plan a roadmap for the project. High-profile, successful open source projects like Linux, Mozilla, and Pidgin didn't happen by accident.
You have to have people who understand the project, its purpose and goals, and have technical expertise in coding, and who are interested in contributing to the project and see a need to do it, or who are paid to do so.
If you're a company and you want to foster this sort of environment, one of the best things you can do is set aside some budget to pay coders for contributions that make it into the trunk of the project, or, you know, hire a few full-time developers to work on your project.
Simply putting the code out there and wishing isn't going to get you very far. Although, at least that way, when you go out of business, anyone who used to depend on your company for support can come along and pick up the project code and do something with it. Which is better than nothing, I guess. Far better to fertilize your project by putting incentives out there for programmers and users to take interest, than to simply open the codebase up and wait for magic to happen.
My example is the number of packages in the Debian Free repository. There are, no doubt, quite a few licenses among those packages, but they meet Debian's high standards for Free software.
Businesses will always do their best to capture all of the value of the work of others. There are no end to schemes meant to capture the value of GPL software and prevent others from using them. Tivo's kernel hack come to mind....
How does having the ability to close down the product a better freedom?
Actually with the GPL, you can dual license since it's your own software and thus have a free GPL version and then a privately extended version if that is what you business is looking to do...
With BSD, well, all your concurrent company can do the same and compete in the proprietary version with you, how is that helping you?
Raymond argues that GPL is bad because it's an uncertain license... what?
If Cisco can't read that it has to distribute source code, well, that is a shame with all their lawyers.
Anyone else KNOW what they have to do. So there is no ambiguity there!
Same goes for Google's Android going with the Apache license...
Basically in that super proprietary cell phone world, they are more than happy to have it under a BSD like license.
Now every company can build an OS together and all close them on their side leaving you, the user, with nothing out of that openness except the base system which might well be unusable.
See how MacOS X free part is free/useful compared to the full product? Haha!
So they save on development cost, like they would have with the GPL but remove the idea that they want to guarantee that this investment will be guaranteed in the future.
It's like a trap to win the cellphone OS race and then, when it's too late and they have such an insurmountable market share, they close it and we go back to business as usual...
As a user i can't trust that, I'll go with Maemo, OpenMoko or anything that has as much GPL as possible if i have a choice!
(which right now I don't really have, but this year is going to be interesting! I hope
...it'd be better for business, at least in the sense that more people would find commercial opportunities with it. But would that code be open source in the first place, were it not for the GPL? I doubt it. Most companies don't want to give away source competitors could put directly in their proprietary products. Give away GPL code? To use it means the competitors would have to open source their application, turning them into a service and support company rather than product sales, where you'll beat them on accrued skill and experience. I'd also say that a lot more individual contributors subscribe to "share and share alike" than "share and kthxbye". My point is that it's not like you got two equal options, either you use GPL code or you have to write it yourself because there is no such Apache code. Would be nice if there were, but then I'd like a pony too.
If you look at big companies like IBM who have really embraced OSS, they have done so precisely because of the GPL. The GPL is really the only license that makes a lot of business sense. The GPL has two major advantages over other licenses. First since you own the copyright you can dual license the code as proprietary and GPL if you wish, while making sure that code can continue to be developed by a community and protected from exploitation---the only caveat here being that you have to make sure copyrights are always assigned to you, something that many projects do. The second major advantage is that no company can use your code against you in a competitive manner. The playing field is completely level. If improving your code helps a competitor, it also helps you. Given all this, if I was a commercial company, wanted to have my projects be open source, and I owned all the copyrights, then it's a no brainer. the GPL is the only way to go. It seems like the only time people complain about the GPL is when they don't happen to have a natural copyright to the code and for some reason feel some sense of entitlement to code (if it's open source I should be able to use it how I want, dang it) just because it's OSS. It's very bizarre.
Frankly I'm surprised to hear of such blatant FUD coming from someone like ESR. I think the solution to FUD is to be a bit more vocal about defending what the GPL is actually about and how it protects users, developers, *and* commercial corporations. It's not public domain software. It's source code just like source code from any other source. If it's not yours and you don't want to abide by the license, buy rights to the code or stop complaining.
This is of course a centuries old debate. GPL projects have the patience, confidence, and self-respect to wait for the right business to come along, one that will make a real commitment to a long-term relationship and honour its responsibilities. Only then does it get the source.
On the other hand you've got the projects with the much more liberal BSD or Apache licenses, projects so desperate for attention that they'll jump into bed with any business, and give up their source at the drop of a hat, not cari
Eric is basically right. I've been burned in the past, so I now pay attention to the license an application uses (something you should get into the habit of doing).
Here is my decision tree for deciding to use an application licensed under any FOSS license:
1) If I plan to modify the application in any way, or use it as a library, it has to be under a BSD derived license. This means BSD, MIT, Apache, MSPL, Perl's artistic license, or anything similar. GPL, or any "viral" license is out... I dont touch GPL code anymore (actually, this is a lie, see below).
1.1) There are exceptions to the "used as a library" rule. If everybody else is using said library in their application (eg: libmysql), nobody is gonna try to GPL-ize my whole application. And if they do go after me, it will only be because I'm so successful that I become a target for such nonsense. If your library is nothing more than a CPAN module and it is GPL, I can't use it, sorry.
2) If I don't plan to modify the application for use in my project, the license becomes less important. In these cases, I look at other factors such as how active the project is. I don't like depending on projects that haven't been touched since 2005.
3) If your application or code will become a non-linked dependency of my application (for example, a GPL'd version control system), I don't really care what the license is. Since it isn't linked into my application, I won't get "infected". In fact, I might even contribute to your GPL project provided my contributions are independent works and don't come out of my own "toolkit" so-to-speak.
4) If you require me to assign copyright to you before I can contribute, you are a scam and can piss up a rope. Granted, many of the big-boys require this (most GNU stuff, Firefox(?), MySQL) and so I might be willing to cave in an contribute anyway provide what I'm contributing is an important bugfix and doesn't erode ownership my personal toolkit (i.e. the good stuff). The scam guys are companies who want ownership so they can cook up dual license schemes and profit from your work (MySQL). Scammers can pay for their own bugfixes...
Bottom line, I won't touch GPL for anything that might make my mainline code become a derivative work and force it all to become GPL'd. BSD'sh licenses cannot do this to my mainline code, so I can use their stuff and contribute anything I think they will find useful. GPL doesn't let me cherry pick useful stuff out of my code, so they miss out on some pretty cool things. Since I dont like leeching from GPL stuff (using it, but having no way to give back), I just avoid it instead.
In other words, if you GPL your project, $SUPER_BIG_COMPANY can't lift your code and make $MILLIONS$ but only at a heavy cost--the pool of people who are able to work on your project becomes much, much smaller. BSD-style licenses are attractive to business precisely because business knows they can contribute changes without getting into trouble. If I use a BSD anything, I know that I have the option to deeply embed the code into my application, still be able to contribute back any changes, and retain control over my intellectual property. GPL reduces control over my IP and thus I can only depend on it in the loosest way possible. The second I want to make any contributions, depending on how I used the GPL code, my entire portfolio might be in legal jeopardy. Not cool.
I always thought that was the idea -
"If you want to use my stuff in your project, you have to open it. Feel free to write your own if that doesn't fit in with your plans"
Feel free to write your own if that doesn't fit in with your plans
Your assertion that I'd have to suffer the "punishment" of writing my own is a false dichotomy that hinges on me either being able to "write my own" or use GPL code. This isn't the case.
GPL doesn't have a monopoly on open source. GPL has some real competition from alternative open source licenses. Unless your GPL code has a very compelling reason for me to use it, I'll pick the BSD code every time. If enough people do the same thing, the
Good for you.
I, personally, don't see many companies getting behind BSD. Neither would I, personally, want to contribute to a piece of code that could be taken, used, altered and distributed in a closed way with no recourse to having people open it.
The fact that you say I can trust you to contribute back does not help.
There will always be a significant number that think my way, and a significant number that think yours. Just don't pretend like I'm losing out by not doing things your way, it's by design and it's very simple.
See, you are rational. Your "team", like any, has plenty of zealots on it that are more than happy to mod "my team" down, or call me a leech, or whatever. I think part of the reason you guys get more traction is cause you have more lout-mouth activists. BSD folk are pretty chill, so we dont get much visibility.
Of course you have RMS. We've just got that OpenBSD guy Theo. I'll take Theo cause at least nobody outside of a small group has heard of him
Your assertion that I'd have to suffer the "punishment" of writing my own is a false dichotomy that hinges on me either being able to "write my own" or use GPL code. This isn't the case.
It's true there are other open source licenses, but if you're looking a GPL project, there's only one of that project, and it might be the only one (or the best one) that suits you. If you can find an alternative, with a license more suitable for your needs, go ahead.
Don't think of it as "punishment." If I write something and GPL it, and you want to use it, I'm allowing you to use it provided you fulfill the conditions I establish. You do the same thing with your super-duper proprietary source portfolio
Here is political scientist Steven Weber, writing about the tendency toward different governance styles for projects using BSD-like and GPL licenses (when he writes "Linux" he means it as an exemplar, not the only instance):
BSD-style projects typically rest with a small team of developers who together write almost all the code for a project. Outside users may modify the source code for their own purposes. They often report bugs to the core team and sometimes suggest new features or approaches to problems that might be helpful. But the core development team does not generally rely heavily on code that is written by users. There is nothing to stop an outside user from submitting code to the core team; but in most BSD-style projects, there is no regularized process for doing that. The BSD model is open source because the source code is free. But as an ideal type, it is not vitally collaborative on a very large scale, in the sense that Linux is.
Weber, Steven, The Success of Open Source, 2004, pp. 62-63.
Assuming his claim is true, this may be because developers see the two licenses differently (e.g. contributors may feel greater incentives to contribute to GPL projects, or they may have principled reasons, or it may have to do with their identity and membership in a community). Or it may be because of the kinds of projects that pick the licenses: the typical BSD structure he describes mirrors that of big companies, perhaps because they tend to choose such licenses. Personally, I suspect all of these factors contribute. But then I find them to be compelling reasons to pick the GPL.
The second I want to make any contributions, depending on how I used the GPL code, my entire portfolio might be in legal jeopardy.
Firstly, "making contributions" does not normally trigger the GPL.
Secondly, the GPL does not put your portfolio "in legal jeopardy". The worst case scenario is that you have to remove (somebody else's) GPL'ed code from your portfolio.
Finally, it is copyright law which makes this a requirement, not GPL.
In other words, if you GPL your project, $SUPER_BIG_COMPANY can't lift your code and make $MILLIONS$
They can't "lift" it as in deprive you of it, but they couldn't do that with BSD or for that matter the good old public domain, either. But they very much CAN produce a competing product based on it, then make millions supporting it while your product fails because it's not as good. You don't understand the GPL or copyright at all for that matter if you don't understand the distinction between theft and copyright infringement.
GPL reduces control over my IP and thus I can only depend on it in the loosest way possible. The second I want to make any contributions, depending on how I used the GPL code, my entire portfolio might be in legal jeopardy. Not cool.
I'm not sure why you think you should be able to use GPL code without respecting the wishes of the rights holders, but "in legal jeopardy" is a bit of an overstatement. Only the pieces in which you used GPL code will be up for debate. Even then you need only remove the GPL code and replace it with something else; it's not like you need to start over.
You may or may not have points in the rest of your comment, but this part is pure FUD. You never have to do anything to comply with the GPL until you distribute something that contains GPL code. This is considerably more free than the default situation in which you are not permitted to use someone else's code at all. Complaining that you have less rights over someone else's code than when they license under BSD/MIT/Artistic/whatever is true but obvious and thus uninteresting.
As always with these sorts of rants:
Please name exactly the GPL project that you would use if it was BSD licensed. You may need a pretty elaborate and bullet-proof explanation as to how it is impossible for you to use this project without releasing your source code as well.
In reality all reusable code is LGPL or linking-exceptions or BSD or whatever. You list the reasons developers do this, but you seem to like turning it into an anti-GPL rant, rather than realizing that your own arguments are exactly what
So in the end, the choice is whether forking or merging is more important to you. Forking may mean more people can use your code. However others would argue the
I think we have to ask: What has the GPL done for us, or at least probably done for us?
Starting a decade ago several very large corporations poured significant resources into Linux development, and were compelled to keep their contributions open-licensed and essentially free (as in beer).
Do we think that would have been the case if Linux had been Apache or BSD-licensed, or would we instead see a division into deluxe IBMLinux (that works on multi-processors and new chips and 64-bit) and open Linux that scrapes along on simple 486 hardware.
As much as I appreciate Eric's contributions to open source (his early writings helped get me interested in writing open source), and our shared interest in shooting guns -grin-, I prefer Bruce Peren's approach (as I wrote about recently http://markwatson.com/blog/2009/02/bruce-pernes-on-gnu-affero-general.html [markwatson.com]).
I think that a combination of AGPL, a less restrictive license like MIT or Apache 2, and perhaps something like the LGPL cover most needs, and the fewer licenses the better. The point of the article
The only reason people ask this question is because they take a simplistic "one fits all" view of Open Source.
A great many ways have been tried to make money from Open Source. Dual-licensing is one of the best. It requires a strong copyleft license.
On the other side, if you are investing your own time, without pay, in an Open Source project, having folks run away with it in their commercial product makes you feel like an unpaid employee with no rights. So, a lot of people use the GPL because of that.
Apache or BSD licensing is really good if you want everyone to use your stuff regardless of what they do with it. There are many strategic reasons to do that, for example if you are trying to evangelize a standard way of doing things (that, perhaps, ties into some other aspect of your business and will eventually make you money).
Companies that apply BSD or Apache licensing to their products are really severely limiting how they can possibly make money from that product. Having seen some of these companies fail (I've not been directly involved in one, yet) it sounds like a bad idea.
The company I'm working on now does use dual licensing.
Apache Harmony is just a cheap IBM trick to attempt to wrest control of Java from Sun. It failed miserably when Sun GPL'd Java so that the source could not be integrated into Harmony. Apache is not an altruistic organization formed of developers donating code off hours. It's financed and draws developers from large companies such as IBM that have their own agendas, good and bad.
So in this case, the Apache license benefits faceless corporations. I believe GPL is a good license for Sun's Java, as it prevents closed forks. Apache are arguing it's good to have a JVM distinct from the reference implementation. Again, good for whom? IBM, so they can release a proprietary JVM for Websphere? Google, so they can plunder bits of it for Harmony?
In response to the above quote, Oracle may also have their own agendas for Java but at least now the code is GPL'd. Red Hat, the main contributor to IcedTea, could fork it at their leisure for the goodwill of the people - any changes they make would be subject to the GPL. Forks of Harmony don't have the same protections. And yeah, I trust Oracle more than I would IBM!
While I appreciate all Stallman and FSF has done, I still prefer the BSD-style license (you're free to do what you want with this code, including not being free with your changes
In more practical terms, businesses operate with restrictions. They have fears of licensing problems, code contamination, and lawsuits and such. A less restrictive license such as BSD/Apache/X Windows (which, if I understand correctly, merely require attribution, not giving away your business code if it interfaces too tightly with open source content).
Honestly, what's the problem with BSD over GPL? So I take a BSD kernel (for example), hack it up with my fancy mods, resell it as a proprietary product. I am required to note, hey, this product uses BSD software under the hood. Any competitor is free to grab the same base software, and apply his own talents to competing with me.
I take a a GNU product, apply some of my special magic to it, and I'm screwed (businesswise, at least). I have to give away any enhancements I make. Blah. LGPL at least lets me use compilers, interpreted languages, libraries, and so on, as a bit of dodge. (I feel LGPL only exists because if it didn't, everybody would run screaming from GPL, and it would have died long ago. I can't link to a freakin' library without releasing my code? No thanks.)
I think that bears repeating: LGPL has helped keep GPL'd software in use. That a sign there's a problem there, IMO. With the lines between libraries, compilation, interpreters, interfacing, web access, becoming blurred (and Stallman wanting web services to have to release code), I think it's becoming more and more of a problem.
In a perfect happy world where all our needs and wants and income is taken care of, GPL all the way, man... But in world where one has to express one's talents to make a living, the socialistic ideal of GPL just doesn't jive with business.
In practice, I use GPL'd software a lot, and I am appreciative. But other than for the odd bug fix, I shy away from *ever* touching the source code, period; from a business standpoint, it'd be death.
On BSD style code I've used, I've gone in, made enhancements, and redistributed things; and when I found bugs in the core of the stuff I've worked with, I've contributed back. (But not my new, proprietary enhancements.) So I've been motivated to contribute more to the BSD-style-license world, than the GPL one.
If I'm rich some day, and can afford to work on some projects for free, I will likely contribute to GPL projects as much (although I still have the restricted-freedom philosophical problem). But while I'm in business, I won't spend any significant amount of time enhancing GPL code. It's sad, but it's a harsh reality of our world.
Honestly, what's the problem with BSD over GPL? So I take a BSD kernel (for example), hack it up with my fancy mods, resell it as a proprietary product. I am required to note, hey, this product uses BSD software under the hood. Any competitor is free to grab the same base software, and apply his own talents to competing with me.
The problem is that there's no incentive to contribute. You can take, but nothing makes you give back. Especially because if you give back, you're effectively working for your competitors.
So yeah, BSD is excellent from a "leech" point of view. It's not that good from the "project" point of view. It's not that good from the contributor point of view either. Why should I bother contributing when that in effect makes me an unpaid employee of every company using that source?
I take a a GNU product, apply some of my special magic to it, and I'm screwed (businesswise, at least). I have to give away any enhancements I make. Blah. LGPL at least lets me use compilers, interpreted languages, libraries, and so on, as a bit of dodge. (I feel LGPL only exists because if it didn't, everybody would run screaming from GPL, and it would have died long ago. I can't link to a freakin' library without releasing my code? No thanks.)
The LGPL exists for a strategic reason.
For some things, such as the C library, there exist many reimplementations. Making that GPLd drives people to alternatives, and loses on any potential contributions. So the LGPL is a compromise to still get contributions to that code.
Stallman considers that a library should be GPLd when it provides a competitive advantage. If it's GPL or "code your own", he hopes you'll go with the GPL one.
In a perfect happy world where all our needs and wants and income is taken care of, GPL all the way, man... But in world where one has to express one's talents to make a living, the socialistic ideal of GPL just doesn't jive with business.
On the contrary, it jives perfectly fine with business.
Take Red Hat for instance, and other companies that pay for GPL development. Why do they do that? Because they know that even if IBM takes advantage of their improvements, the moment they fix something in Red Hat's code, they have to give back as well. So not only does Red Hat get better drivers or SMP support, they also get free fixes from IBM for it!
The BSD on the other hand doesn't have such things. Red Hat would write their driver, release as closed source, not contribute it back obviously, and every other company would do the same. The end result is that BSD won't get the driver until some volunteer happens to contribute it.
There's also lots of GPLd code in various devices you rarely look at very closely, such as cash registers. The companies that work for those don't sell code. They sell hardware + software + support, and have no problem with contributing bugfixes for whatever GPLd code they used, because their business loses nothing by doing so. And without the GPL they wouldn't bother to contribute, because that takes programmer time, and as such won't be done if optional.
In practice, I use GPL'd software a lot, and I am appreciative. But other than for the odd bug fix, I shy away from *ever* touching the source code, period; from a business standpoint, it'd be death.
It's only death if your business is selling software on the shelf. There are many companies with different business models, which sell routers, or cash registers, or support, and for which the GPL isn't a hindrance in the slightest.
On BSD style code I've used, I've gone in, made enhancements, and redistributed things; and when I found bugs in the core of the stuff I've worked with, I've contributed back. (But not my new, proprietary enhancements.) So I've been motivated to contribute more to the BSD-style-license world, than the GPL one.
I take a a GNU product, apply some of my special magic to it, and I'm screwed (businesswise, at least). I have to give away any enhancements I make.
That's the whole point. The guys that put in work for free don't want you taking their base and making alterations and then selling it with no obligations to give away your enhancements. The companies that put time and money into GPL software don't want that either, they contributed to the community and the condition for you getting the source and using the software is that you open up too.
That's the condition for using their work. Don't like it? Find or write another solution.
So many posts here seem to think that GPL code ought to be able to be used as if it was public domain. That's not the idea at all.
Things like the linksys hacking communities would not exist without the GPL.
Everybody loves him. [geekz.co.uk]
(Except me.)
There were good posts above but this has devolved into a typical flameware between people who see the GPL and the BSD as the only two possibilities.
What I would very much like to see is something that is "what people think the LGPL probably means before they read the fine print":
You can use the source code unchanged in any way you want in your software and distribute the result. However if you modify the source code to use it in your result, you must release your modifications (but not the rest of your program) under the same license.
In my opinion additions that don't require modification of your code are going to be creative work and thus should belong to you. But you should not be able to "steal" my code by making tiny changes to it and closing the result. I think a lot of people feel the same way.
Now this sort of license has been made dozens of times, and is often called "GPL plus a linking exception". The problem is that there is no common three-letter name so nobody can easily refer to this license, so there is license proliferation.
I think the FSF is to blame for forcing thier philosophy by activiely avoiding creation of the license described above and giving it a nice short name with a 'G' in it. No other organization seems to have the clout of the FSF to get a name standardized.
There are also commercial intereste to blame, they know this sort of license would address all the arguments against the GPL without removing the ability to compete that the BSD does. Their tactic seems to be to argue that there is no middle ground, and also to pollute the license namespace with hundereds of BSD licenses so that any such license that gets any popularity is buried.
If you want to make your software free of restrictions, then place it under a BSD, MIT, Apache or other unencumbered license. But if you desire to control, regulate and manage what other people can do with your software, then use a restrictive license like the GPL. Many businesses like the GPL because they can be "community based" while still restricting their competitor's ability to leverage the software.
What I have never understood, though, was the use of the GPL for non-commercial community software. The usual excuse is that "Microsoft can't steal my code". That displays a shocking ignorance of the nature of information. No one can take your software away from you, or away from your users. They might be able to fork it, but your original software is still there untouched. The reciprocity of the GPL can be very useful, as with commercial open source, but it has nothing to do with protecting the software. Instead it protects the fragile sensibilities of the author.
ESR is one who gets it, who understands that free software does not need to be protected and coddled beneathed layers of licensing restrictions. Anything beyond attribution and warranty disclaimers is too much.
Seriously, troll much?
It's not so people can't take the code away, it's so they can't even use it without giving changes and enhancements back.
What's shocking is your ignorance of the reasons behind people using the GPL.
Even after years of conversations with us in the FLOSS community, Matt still doesn't get it. He's completely focused on "businesses with a codebase that release it under some license". He doesn't understand community-driven software that isn't tied to on specific corporate entity.
The GPL is specifically designed for community-driven software that is not tied to one company. Matt could very well be right about the limited, pro-corporate world he occupies; it could very well be better for them to use the Apache license.
However, individuals and very small contracting agencies benefit best when they can be put on equal footing with the big guys. The only types of licenses that do this are copyleft licenses.
Finally, declaring that people's life's work trying to make the world a better place — even if you disagree with their politics — is disingenuous at best. I've spent most of my adult life working to make the GPL and the codebases around it better. I'm sorry to hear that Matt thinks I've been busy dumping radioactive waste on his world.
If your goal is wide acceptance in the business world, then yes, the Apache license or BSD or, for that matter, public domain is far better than the GPL in most cases -- other posters have noted the glaring exceptions.
If your goal is maximum utility for individual users, then the GPL or a close relative is the way to go.
The thing about ESR and RMS is that they approach the issue from diametrically opposed positions and assume that everyone must follow their lead, when the fact is that motivations vary. I was interested in Free Software from the beginning for reasons that were (and remain) essentially altruistic: I wanted to help develop software that would be useful to individual users and accessible to individual developers of like mind. I don't care one way or the other if anything I've done becomes especially popular or widely adopted in the business world, though I have contributed to projects that were.
ESR and many of his supporters, on the other hand, do care very much whether their work is adopted by the corporate world, and many of them are hoping to profit from it. While that's not to my personal taste, it's all fine and well, and I support their freedom to take that approach.
That said, it has often seemed to me that if you want to write software for the corporate world and to make decent sums of money at it, it makes a lot more sense to just get a programming job at a corporation or start a closed-source software company. I know there are a lot of folks out for world domination with varying amounts of tongue-in-cheek, but I've never been convinced that there is any tangible benefit for individual users (including myself, when I'm using rather than coding software) to be derived from massive corporate adoption of most FOSS software. Conversely, there is a great deal of risk, not to corporations playing with "viral" licenses, but to the freedom of free software itself, when you play games with large corporations with lots of money and attorneys. In such a contest, the small FOSS project is always overmatched unless it aligns itself with another large corporation, which entails even more risk.
Anyway, the long and the short of it is that we have many different kinds of free/open licenses for the simple reason that developers have many different goals for their projects. One size does not fit all, ESR and RMS to the contrary.
The intelligence of any discussion diminishes with the square of the number of participants. -- Adam Walinsky


text:
The Pfister 910-2300 is a verve handle kit designed for Pfister compression-styled valves. Pfister has been a leader in the plumbing industry for over 100 years. Offering a wide variety of innovative plumbing fixtures, Pfister is ready to send off another centennial providing high-quality plumbing devices, exceptional designs, and amazing breakthroughs. Pfister believes that innovation is not just about technology. It is about bringing more convenience, satisfaction, solution, and improvement of life's daily experiences. At PlumbersStock, you'll find the home fixtures you need at the prices you deserve.
|Parts and Accessories
|Faucet Part Feature:
|Handles And Nuts
|Repair and Maintenance
|Mpn #
|1.50 lbs.
4.5 out of 5 rating is our rating for PlumbersStock, we got that rating because we have lots of experience and great people with expertise in plumbing. BUT WE WANT YOUR HELP. This product doesn't have any reviews yet, and we don't want to write our own reviews. It is more valuable to us that the customers get to share their experience with our products. Please, if you have any experience with this product, take a moment to share and help someone else who is trying to make a decision. Thank you!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Man arrested after mentally disabled woman raped on Los Angeles city bus
LOS ANGELES, Calif. – Los Angeles County sheriff's officials say they have arrested a man suspected of raping a mentally disabled woman aboard a Los Angeles transit bus.
Sgt. Dan Scott says a man has been booked for investigation of rape but didn't immediately release the suspect's name or age.
Authorities say the suspect boarded the bus with the woman in suburban Culver City, followed her to the back of the bus and forced himself on her late Wednesday afternoon.
A lone witness tried to alert the bus driver that the rape was happening, but it continued for about 10 minutes until the suspect stopped and exited the bus.
Scott says the 18-year-old woman has the mental capacity of a 10-year-old. He says that after the attack, she reported it to the driver.


text:
SYS-CON.TV Webcasts
Did you read today's front page stories & breaking news?
Today's Top SOA Links
From the Wires
Spaghetti Warehouse Restaurants 40th Anniversary Website Using Interactive Technology to Engage, Entertain Guests
By: Business Wire
Nov. 15, 2012 07:15 AM
In the wake of its most ambitious promotional campaign in its 40-year history, Spaghetti Warehouse Restaurants Inc. is going "all in" – engaging and entertaining its guests with a anniversary-themed website featuring as much innovation, as it does excitement – as part of a high-energy brand revival aimed at inviting people to experience its freshly-prepared American Italian food.
Located at 40years.meatballs.com, the website is the centerpiece of a six-month promotional campaign that employs a fully integrated communications strategy to celebrate Spaghetti Warehouse's 40th anniversary. The Dallas-based restaurant chain – known as a unique gathering place where every meal is a celebration – operates 16 locations in Texas, Florida, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
Seeking an opportunity to use technology as a solution for connecting with its guests in a memorable way, the restaurant chain teamed with two Indiana-based companies – Z Marketing Partners (ZMP), a marketing communications agency headquartered in Indianapolis and Anedix Technologies Inc. of Terre Haute, Ind. Together, they partnered to create a new microsite using a mix of proprietary software applications and technology/social media platforms such as WordPress™, Flickr™, and Facebook™.
The site is a hit, generating an increase in visitor traffic online while, at the same time, attracting guests to its restaurants to sample items from its new 40th anniversary menu and connect with the brand through a host of activities, including a recently-completed online photo album contest and nationwide Trolley Tour. At the same time, the Spaghetti Warehouse social media presence is increasing dramatically, with a 250 percent increase in Facebook fans in little more than a year.
"When our guests visit us, we want their experience to go far beyond just enjoying a meal together," said Azam Malik, president and chief operating officer, Spaghetti Warehouse Restaurants Inc. "We want it to be memorable in a way they will follow us online, participate in promotions and share with their family and friends the good times they've enjoyed with us."
Upon opening the site, visitors are treated to an arcade-like mix of illuminating graphics, splashed in the restaurant chain's trademark red-and-white colors while a song – created specifically for the anniversary – automatically begins to play, thanks to a uniquely-prepared Java script using any device, including desktops and laptops, as well as on an iPhone or Android smart phone.
In a clever use of technology, the two companies – ZMP and Anedix – promoted activities, such as the online photo album. They were able to integrate Facebook and Flickr through the use of an automated system capable of processing photos while avoiding duplicate images. As a result, each photo upload was identified with a one-of-a-kind 'signature' similar to the license key often used to authenticate a software program.
A mobile platform for the website was also created, encouraging the participation of guests while dining at the restaurant and allowing for the upload of celebration photos to the online photo album and featuring key events from the event calendar.
For all of its innovation, the campaign also has enabled Spaghetti Warehouse to strengthen its brand presence using social media channels, including Facebook and Twitter. In response, its growing legion of nearly 70,000 Facebook fans and 110,000 e-Club members are actively downloading coupons, visiting the restaurant and enjoying the fun inside its downtown, historic brick structures while taking advantage of a great value.
"Our website…with all of its innovation illustrates in a remarkable way how a smaller restaurant group, like Spaghetti Warehouse, can use advanced technology to strengthen our brand and enable our guests to enjoy our food while enjoying each other's company just as you would over the dinner table," added Malik.
Web 2.0 Latest News
Subscribe to the World's Most Powerful Newsletters
Subscribe to Our Rss Feeds & Get Your SYS-CON News Live!
SYS-CON Featured Whitepapers
Most Read This Week


text:
Stoke midfielder Steven Nzonzi has successfully appealed against a red card issued to him in Saturday's Barclays Premier League clash with Southampton.
Nzonzi was dismissed by referee Mark Clattenburg in the 3-3 draw at the Britannia Stadium for what appeared to be a stamp on Jack Cork.
At the time the decision angered Stoke manager Tony Pulis who felt Cork had over-reacted. Pulis said: "Whether the reaction of Cork, who is a good player and a good lad, has influenced Mark, I'm not sure, but Steven certainly doesn't stamp on the player."
Copyright (c) PA Sport 2013, All Rights Reserved.
Do YOU want to write for GiveMeSport? Get started today by signing-up and submitting an article HERE: https://www.givemesport.com/writeforgms


text:
With the annual Relay for Life of Cape Coral only one month away, event organizers are hoping to attract several more teams to sign up.
The local fund-raiser to benefit the American Cancer Society will be held April 27-28 at Mariner High School. The opening ceremony will kick off at 3 p.m. As of Friday, 35 teams had signed up and committed to participate.
"We're looking for about 10 more," event chair Crystal Kaczynski said.
Approximately 38 teams raised $118,000 at last year's event.
"We're trying to shoot for $135,000 this year," she said.
Kaczynski estimated that about $74,000 has been raised as of Friday.
"That's what's projected to be turned in at this point, so we've got a little ways to go, but we've still got time," she said.
There is no deadline to sign up a team, but sooner is better.
"The sooner they sign up, the soon they can get the information and start fund raising," Kaczynski said.
Organizers recommend at least eight to 10 per team.
"It is an 18-hour event," she said. "It's a long time so you want to have blocks of time when people can rest or fund raise."
There is a $100 commitment fee per team.
"They can actually fund raise that $100," Kaczynski said.
While each team sets its own fund-raising goal, organizers ask that each participate try to shoot for raising at least $100 toward the effort.
Fund raising can be done online through social networking sites, using more traditional hands-on efforts, like garage or bake sales, or a combination.
As far as building a team, anyone and everyone can participate.
"You get a wide array of everything," she said, adding that companies, schools, churches, civic organizations and more put together teams.
For example, Kaczynski first got involved in Relay for Life by joining a company team. When her mother was diagnosed with lung cancer in July 2011, family and friends decided to rally together to make their own.
"If you can't walk, you can still come. We will get you a chair, and you can sell raffle tickets for gift baskets," she said. "We can definitely utilize anyone."
Each year, there is a theme. This year it is Relay Around the World.
"You pick a country or a state, and that's what your theme is going to be for your campsite," Kaczynski said.
During Relay for Life, teams sell food and desserts for donations. Some make gift baskets to raffle off, while companies may offer services.
She called Relay for Life a community event and a chance to give back.
"Everyone has a reason to Relay," Kaczynski said. "Everyone is impacted by cancer in some form. I think that's the reason to Relay."
"Maybe the money we raise now will find a cure, so we won't have to Relay in the future," she said. "We just want you to come out and support us."
To sign up a team, visit online: www.relayforlife.org/capecoralfl.
People who simply want to donate to the cause can also do so at the site.
The next and final team meeting for the Cape event will take place April 17 at 6 p.m. at the Cape Coral Realtors Association, located in Club Square.
For more information about Relay for Life of Cape Coral, contact the local office of the American Cancer Society at (239) 936-1113, ext. 3904.


text:
It's roughly: In only a few months or years...
Student or Learner
I'm reading an NYTimes's article and I don't understand this expression :
In a matter of months or years, the entire effort has come undone [...]
Could somebody help me ?
It's roughly: In only a few months or years...
Ok, Thanks you
(Not a teacher, just curious)
After thinking about this, using matter in this way is very abstract and contextual.
The best definition I can think of is "The substance of a situation", but this does not imply how important the situation is. It can be important or trivial.
Small matters
Big matters
Political matters
"What's the matter?" (What is the problem?)
Matters of the heart
The difficulty of overcoming a situation or the challenge (or a lack of challenge) "It is simply a matter of doing these things."
In this example, "In a matter of months", it implies that passage or time was insignificant or unimportant, no challenge. Without context, to an outsider, how does one know the significance of the situation? Maybe it was a big matter.
The worst is "Matter of fact". This phrase makes little sense to me when I try to analyze it. I typically translate it to mean "serious", but now I'm not so sure.


text:
Offenders offered more opportunities to learn
Press Release – Joint Press Release
News Release For Immediate Release 21 February 2013 Offenders offered more opportunities to learn Corrections and the Open Polytechnic have today launched a partnership which will contribute to reducing re-offending by providing more support for prisoners …
News Release
For Immediate Release 21 February 2013
Offenders offered more opportunities to learn
Corrections and the Open Polytechnic have today launched a partnership which will contribute to reducing re-offending by providing more support for prisoners undertaking learning, and by expanding education services for community-based offenders.
The two parties have agreed to work together to enrol up to 1000 eligible prisoners and community-based offenders per year in a learning programme called 'Get Ahead', which will teach them important life skills.
Corrections' General Manager Service Development, Jo Field says that research shows education and employment can reduce the likelihood of re-offending.
"Successful completion of rehabilitation programmes and gaining employment are linked with lower recidivism. We are committed to reducing re-offending by 25% by 2017 and in order to do this we need to increase the level of literacy, education and employment training available to offenders.
"This programme will contribute to the goal of having 2,000 prisoners per year complete self-directed study and 6,000 community-based offenders receive education and training support leading to stable employment."
The Get Ahead programme is made up of nine courses split into three steps which will take 24, 16 and 4 weeks to complete respectively. Through 6-8 hours of self-directed study and a two hour coaching session weekly, enrolled offenders will work towards five qualifications.
Open Polytechnic Chief Executive, Dr Caroline Seelig, says the flexibility of being able to use Open Polytechnic distance learning resources, in a mixed mode setting that suits Corrections' varied environments, provides an innovative solution to upskilling offenders.
"Our programme blends life, work, literacy and numeracy skills and we believe it is very well suited to helping offenders achieve better outcomes when they are ready to re-enter the workforce," says Dr Seelig.
To be eligible to enrol, offenders must: be 18 years or older and a NZ citizen or permanent resident, have at least 26 weeks left on their sentence, and not have obtained NCEA level 2 or higher or be in school. They must also be motivated to complete the programme and have the ability to progress towards a level 3 qualification.
The country-wide programme implementation will be rolled out in three stages, with the first cohort beginning this month. The second and third cohorts will start in April and June 2013 respectively.
Notes to reporters:
Get Ahead is fee-free. The Open Polytechnic will supply the programmes and trained coaches. Corrections is responsible for recruiting students and providing appropriate facilities. The Open Polytechnic is using its existing Student Achievement Component funding to meet the costs of the Get Ahead programmes to the Department of Corrections. Additionally, as part of a wider programme to support all self-directed learning programmes within prisons, Corrections has agreed to strengthen their peer and voluntary support systems to act as coaches outside of the classroom, which will incur a cost of around $300,000 per annum.
'Get Ahead' has been offered to a variety of community groups, fee-free for the past three years. Over 83% of the 2,500 community-based learners who have undertaken the course have completed it.
The Get Ahead to NCEA Programme consists of three parts:
• Step One is called 'Get Ahead Skills' and is made up of four courses; it results in the obtainment of the Open Polytechnic Certificate in Career and Self Development and the National Certificate in Employment Skills.
• Step Two is 'Get Ahead Choices and is made up of four courses, including a vocational option; it results in the obtainment of the Open Polytechnic Certificate in Work and Life Skills and NCEA Level 1.
• Step Three is 'Get Ahead – NCEA Level 2', and it is an extra 'Get Ahead Choices' vocational option, which results in the obtainment of NCEA Level 2.
Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url


text:
They Are Book Smart
The most recent recession has posed a challenge but not necessarily inspired fear in the millennial generation. In fact it has driven a large portion, nearly 40 percent in 2008, into higher education, according to census data reported by the Pew Research Center. People are attending school, finishing school and seeking graduate degrees in larger quantities than ever before. Partly in hopes they will wait out the bad economy and partly because the generation naturally values knowledge, Generation Y is the highest educated generation to date. Gerard Gibert, owner of Venture Technologies, a Jackson, Miss.-based solution provider, said technology is one field in which new hires out of school often have an edge over experienced hires in the workforce.


text:
Back In Action // Bear In Heaven Share Fader Mixtape, Kick Off Tour Wednesday at Johnny Brenda'sPosted by katie on October 23rd, 2012
Bear In Heaven are back in action. They head out on tour tomorrow night, playing Philadelphia's Johnny Brenda's. To celebrate, Adam and Jon have put together a Fader mixtape complete with the unreleased Bear In Heaven track, "Greece Sun." Stream and download the mixtape below and tracklist HERE.
The forthcoming tour includes a stop at Asheville's Moogfest and The National's All Tomorrow's Parties. ERAAS joins for support. See all the tour dates at the end of the post.
"This mixtape is the sound of us deciding whether we should start filling the hole or just dive in. It might be fun, we might not hit bottom. We might fly to the other side of this strange dimension. Will you let us do it? Will you join us?" – Jon Philpot
Tour Dates:
10.24 – Johnny Brenda's – Philadelphia, PA * !
10.25 – College of William And Mary – Williamsburg, VA *
10.26 – Moogfest – Asheville, NC #
10.27 – MOTR Pub – Cincinnati, OH *
10.28 – Brillobox – Pittsburgh, PA *
10.29 – Black Cat Backstage – Washington, DC *
12.05 – Music Hall of Williamsburg – New York, NY * $
12.07-12.09 – All Tomorrow's Parties – Camber Sands Holiday Camp, UK
* with ERAAS
! with Pink Skull
# with Miike Snow, Squarepusher, Explosions In The Sky
$ with Small Black


text:
After round two of the Women's National Basketball League season Bendigo Bank Spirit coach Bernie Harrower declared his team could win the title.
The Spirit had just defeated last year's grand finalists – Dandenong and Bulleen – on the road following away wins over Adelaide and West Coast in the opening round.
Now, after 12 rounds and with the league taking a break over Christmas, Bendigo is on top of the table with a 13-2 record.
The Spirit is no longer just a contender – they're championship favourites in many people's eyes.
But can the Spirit win it?
Harrower reckons they can, and so does Mark Wright – the coach of arguably the Spirit's biggest title rival, reigning premiers Dandenong.
"They're definitely the favourites, I think if anyone says they're not then they're not telling the truth," Wright told the Bendigo Advertiser.
"I think Bendigo are beautifully primed this year, with Kristi (Harrower) coming towards the end of her career, to snatch a memorable and tremendous championship – over our dead body of course."
Bendigo's roster has the makings of something special, according to Wright.
Seasoned Spirit campaigners Harrower, Gabe Richards, Chelsea Aubry and Kelly Wilson have received excellent support from a host of new faces this season.
"Sometimes the stars have to align and when I say that I probably mean the Bendigo stars – they've aligned beautifully," Wright said.
"Clearly, Gabe's at the peak of her powers and Kristi's defying the odds and turning the clock back.
"They've got a veteran team with Kelly there, who's always been a very, very good player, so that core group of Aubry, Kelly, Gabe and Kristi have been together a long time.
"That sort of bond and communication between those types of players is impossible to get unless you have a veteran team and that's what's happened.
"They've got great role players – the addition of (Renae) Camino and (US import Kelsey) Griffin (bottom right) has given them the added scoring punch and the flair that they need.
"Having Kristi control that sort of talent and that sort of stability is pretty important – it's not just important, it's probably the right recipe for winning a championship."
Wright is quick not to discount Adelaide, Townsville, Bulleen and even Canberra – with Lauren Jackson yet to play this season – from title talk.
He should know it's never over until it's actually over.
Last season, Dandenong was battling to make finals before it won nine consecutive games to claim its first championship since 2004-05.
It's that combination of timing and luck that Bendigo coach Harrower hopes is on the Spirit's side.
"I made the statement back then after round two that you need a lot of luck to win the championship, you need luck with injuries, you need luck with the draw, you need luck with getting home court advantage – you've got to give yourself every opportunity to win home court advantage through finals," Harrower said.
"Up until now we've done a very good job of that, but into the Christmas break what's gone before won't mean anything, it's how you come out of that Christmas break that will determine what your destiny is.
"If we don't come out of the Christmas break and step it up another 10 or 15 per cent we will actually get left behind."
Barring a major disaster, the Spirit will play its first post-season since 2010-11 when it came within five points of a maiden grand final appearance in a preliminary final loss to Canberra.
It was only the Spirit's fourth final, but WNBL finals experience, or a lack thereof, isn't a concern for Harrower, with many of his roster playing at some of the highest levels of the game.
Aubry was a London Olympian, Griffin has played 99 games in the WNBA and Camino has played for the Australian Opals.
Richards, Wilson, Chantella Perera, Rachel Herrick and Madeleine Garrick have all played in Australian youth teams and then there's Kristi Harrower – with more than 200 international games and four Olympic medals – running the show.
"I think as much as we mightn't have a lot of finals experience in the team we've got a lot of experience in the team. I think that counts for everything when you get to finals," Bernie Harrower said.
"Sometimes you'll see experienced teams struggle throughout the year, but when they get into finals and the game's there to be won they really step it up.
"We feel if we can finish in that top-two we really believe we can give ourselves a good chance at giving it a shake, but you certainly need a lot of luck.
"When you look at the teams we're playing against and the talent on some of those rosters, it's certainly something to be proud of where our team's at.
"I really think that because we're a great team that's our strength. Sometimes great teams win championships, not great individuals."
Wright can attest to the Spirit being a great team after it collectively shut the Rangers down to claim the 'W' in all three games against Dandenong this season.
Bendigo's grinding, defensive style couldn't contrast more with the Rangers' all-out attack, but it works – the Spirit has an incredible record of 14 wins and four losses over Dandenong since its inception.
Despite that, Wright says his team of big guns doesn't fear another meeting with Bendigo.
"There's no fear there, that would be wrong to say that. We absolutely respect what they do, they do it so well," he said.
"I'd be being stupid if I said we don't feel we've got the team to win this thing, we do. We feel that, if we play our best basketball, we can beat Bendigo.
"The honest truth is they've been able to control the tempo more or less in those games and taken advantage away from us.
"We're certainly not going to change, we've developed a style of game that suits our players and Bernie's developed a style of game that suits his players and may the best team win.
"Bernie has stuck to his formula over the years and as much as it hasn't reaped the rewards that they'd hoped, it's certainly showing that this is their year. It certainly looks ominous at the moment."


text:
Original URL: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/30/hitachi_ucp/
Hitachi details unified management
Running the stack from one screen
Posted in The Channel, 30th July 2010 08:03 GMT
Hitachi's Unified Compute Platform (UCP) integrated IT stack idea is gathering momentum.
An integrated stack consists of virtualised servers, storage and networking bought as an entity by enterprise and cloud-style data centres facing a need to scale up performance quickly and easily while reducing management and IT provisioning complexity. The concept is being driven by the VCE coalition of VMware, Cisco and EMC, and also by HP with its Matrix set of Proliant and blade severs, StorageWorks and ProCurve products plus a Hyper-V alliance with Microsoft, as well as Oracle.
Other players include NetApp, which has its own alliance with VMware and Cisco, and Dell and IBM. There are two general approaches. The first is to have all the stack elements or as much as possible in-house, and that is the HP and Oracle way. The other is to have alliances with the partners producing product bundle templates, such as the VCE coalition's V-blocks.
Hitachi has been publicising its UCP concept and already has its BladeSymphony servers and USP/AMS storage products involved. A networking element, possibly using Alaxala products from that joint Hitachi-NEC company, are coming.
More light has been cast on UCP deliverables by Hitachi Data Systems Asia-Pacific. Sunil Chavan, director of the software group and cloud at the company, has said an orchestration management portal is coming that will provide management of many virtualised data centres through a single pane of glass. This will cater for different compliance requirements.
Hitachi has an agreement with Microsoft to include Hyper-V, Windows Server 2008 R2, System Center, and SQL Server 2008 in its UCP offering. The first UCP delivery, in January 2011, will be Hyper-V-based. A subsequent version will use VMware and Citrix virtualisation. The components of the UCP are not fixed. Customers with their own essential components could have them integrated instead.
Depending upon the networking and management software components that are going to be announced it could be that Hitachi ends up with its UCP as integrated with in-house components as HP's offering. Existing enterprise and cloud-based customers of the USP and AMS storage products may well be interested in hearing how those arrays, and others managed by the USP-V controllers, could be made to work more effectively in a Hitachi-style virtualised data centre rather than an HP or VCE one. ®


text:
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Mar 2013 11:47 UTC
"Still, Firefox OS could have a big impact on the Web even if it never gains significant market share. By pushing the Web forward, Mozilla is helping to ensure that mobile websites will continue to be relevant even as developers create hundreds of thousands of proprietary apps. Firefox could lose the battle for the smartphone OS market but still win the war for open standards."
Thread beginning with comment 556995
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: still think it's doomed
by Lennie on Fri 29th Mar 2013 00:16 UTC in reply to "RE: still think it's doomed"
I personally think this is an important part of FirefoxOS, a quote from the article:
"In this sense, Firefox OS is as much a project to improve the Web as it is a project to build a new mobile operating system. Every Firefox OS API Mozilla can get adopted by other major browsers makes it easier for developers to convert vanilla Web apps into "native" Firefox OS apps, and vice versa. Even if Mozilla's OS never gains significant market share, the effort to flesh out a complete set of Web standards for mobile computing will help to push the Web forward."
And it helps webapps on the desktop as much as on mobile.


text:
The Lakers announced Monday they signed radio play-by-play announcer John Ireland and color analyst Mychal Thompson to multi-year contract extensions. Ireland just completed his first season at the mic after serving as a TV sideline reporter for many seasons. Thompson, who played on the Lakers' NBA championship teams in 1987 and '88, will begin his 10th season as a radio analyst in 2012-13.
Monthly Archives: June 2012
Lakers final grades: small forward Metta World Peace
Today's report card …
Ron Artest changed his name to Metta World Peace, but didn't start playing like his former self until shedding weight and solving a back ailment late in the season. He became a useful player again. However, he didn't do himself any favors by getting suspended for seven games for crashing an elbow into James Harden's head. He averaged a career-low 7.7 points overall, but increased it to 14.1 in 13 games in April, the season's final month.
Grade: C
Lakers final grades: point guard Ramon Sessions
Today's report card …
Ramon Sessions gave the Lakers the speed and athleticism they lacked before acquiring him March 15 from Cleveland. It'll be interesting to see how much more he can give them after participating in a training camp and learning more about his teammates. His first playoff experience wasn't what the Lakers hoped for when they acquired him. He seemed tentative until the fourth and fifth games of their second-round loss to the Oklahoma City Thunder, and wasn't finishing games. Backup Steve Blake was the finisher.
Grade: Incomplete
Lakers final grades: power forward Pau Gasol
Today's report card …
Pau Gasol shifted from the Lakers' second offensive option to their third as center Andrew Bynum's role grew and his diminished noticeably under new coach Mike Brown. Gasol's average dipped to 17.4 points from 18.8 in 2010-11. He became more of a passer than a shooter. It was a difficult transition, one made all the tougher by near-constant rumors he would be traded after the Lakers tried and failed to deal him in December. Conventional wisdom suggests he will be traded this summer as the Lakers try to overhaul their roster.
Grade: B
Lakers final grades: center Andrew Bynum
Today's report card …
Andrew Bynum made the All-Star team for the first time and set career bests by averaging 18.7 points and 11.8 rebounds. Best of all for the Lakers, he avoided any significant knee injuries. However, he also acted out at times, getting benched for taking an ill-advised 3-point shot and fined for blowing off a meeting with GM Mitch Kupchak. The Lakers have backed Bynum, 24, despite his many head-scratching moments. Maybe it's because they believe anybody who can grab 30 rebounds in a single game, as he did during a victory over the San Antonio Spurs, is worth keeping around for the long haul.
Grade: A


text:
CARACAS, Venezuela – Government intelligence agents have raided a business printing opposition political pamphlets ahead of next month's state elections in Venezuela.
Zulia state Gov. Pablo Perez says the raid by the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service in the western city of Maracaibo is an attempt to intimidate opponents of President Hugo Chavez's government. He told reporters on Saturday that such actions are "abuses of power."
The intelligence agency's regional chief Carlos Calderon tells the Panorama newspaper that agents on Friday found pamphlets that aimed to "sabotage the candidacy" of Francisco Arias Cardenas, a Chavez ally running against Perez in the Dec. 16 elections.
Calderon didn't give details but said officials reported the propaganda to electoral authorities.


text: The Knoxville Senior Nutrition Program is looking for volunteers to help out in its kitchen assistant position. Senior Services Program Manager Dawn Allspach says that the duties of the position include assisting the cooks in preparing and serving the Meals on Wheels clients. She says hours are flexible, and those who volunteer would be able to work out what works for them. For more information on the position, you can contact Allspach at 641-828-2238.


text:
For the Record - Hampton Roads
- January 27, 2010
- |
BCF, a Virginia Beach brand communications firm, was named agency of record for Kingsmill Resort in Williamsburg. The agency will handle traditional and social media strategy, Web site design and public relations. The company also recently won a contract for a series of creative ads for the British Virgin Islands. (News release)
Chesapeake City Council voted to explore the possibility for a federally funded study for extending light-rail service to the city. A similar study five years ago found issues with population density and cost. Council wants to see how conditions may have changed. Norfolk will open a light-rail service in the fall. (Virginian-Pilot)
Monarch Financial Holdings Inc., a Chesapeake holding company for Monarch Bank, raised $20 million by selling 800,000 shares of preferred stock. The proceeds will be used to support loan demand and possibly to redeem stock and warrants issued under the Treasury's TARP program. (PRNewswire)
S.L. Nusbaum Realty Co., a Norfolk commercial real estate firm, entered into a partnership with X Team International for retail real estate brokerage services. X Team has offices in 45 major markets in the U.S., Canada and Europe, giving Nusbaum's retail and shopping center division greater exposure and reach. (Daily Press)
Sprint Nextel Corp., an Overland, Kan., communications company, will hire about 100 workers for its Hampton call center. The center, focusing on customer-care issues, employs about 750 already and has been in operation for 10 years. (Daily Press)
Old Dominion University engineering students under professor Sacharia Albin developed a portable, solar- and battery-powered lamp to provide reading light for people in developing countries. The lamp, which has a unit cost of $20, will be tested as part of a relief mission to Haiti. If results are positive, it may be refined for wider distribution. (News release)


text:
'92 Subaru Legacy L AWD wagon non-turbo
I think it's a 2.2L engine
I had this info a few years ago but those brain cells have died since then. Which type of engine do I have? And for when I forget again, is there someplace for lookup online where I can check again? I can add it to my Favorites so it won't matter if I forget where is the site. Is it true the interference engines for Subaru starting showing up in '95 or '97 models (so mine would be exempt and be non-interference)?
Welcome to Ultimate Subaru Message Board, my lurker friend!
|Welcome to Ultimate Subaru Message Board, an unparalleled Subaru community full of the greatest Subaru gurus and modders on the planet! We offer technical information and discussion about all things Subaru, the best and most popular all wheel drive vehicles ever created.
We offer all this information for free to everyone, even lurkers like you! All we ask in return is that you sign up and give back some of what you get out - without our awesome registered users none of this would be possible! Plus, you get way more great stuff as a member! Lurk to lose, participate to WIN*!
* The joy of participation and being generally awesome constitutes winning
** Not an actual guarantee, but seriously, you probably won't regret it!
Serving the Subaru Community since May 18th, 1998!
Guest Message by DevFuse
Interference or non-interference: How do I know which engine type that I have?
Started by Vanguard , Nov 16 2005 04:01 PM
5 replies to this topic
Posted 16 November 2005 - 04:01 PM
Posted 16 November 2005 - 04:02 PM
You have a 2.2 liter engine. It is non-interference.
Posted 16 November 2005 - 04:07 PM
interference 2.2 liter motors started in 97. anything prior is non-interference, including all 1.8 and 2.7 liter motors as well. there are on-line resources but dont' know that i'd trust them, sometimes they are convoluted. dealer or here is your best bet to find out.
Posted 16 November 2005 - 05:32 PM
Austin told me a simple method for determining this: If the spark plugs are oriented at an angle to the heads, it is non-interference. If the plugs come straight out from the top of the head, it is interference.
Posted 16 November 2005 - 06:52 PM
Thanks for the info, especially about the spark plugs which I'll be replacing next weekend so I'll see if they are angled or not.
Posted 16 November 2005 - 07:04 PM
Unfortunately, the sparkplug trick does not work for determining which engine you have. Your '92 2.2L is definitely a non-interference and the interference engine did not start until the '97 model year. I have a '97 Impreza with the 2.2L engine and it is most likely interference even though it has a manufacture date of Oct. '96. Do a search on non-interference; this was discussed ad nauseum about 3 months ago here. Here's one link; there are others.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


text:
By Brendan Conway
It looks like hedge-fund manager Bill Ackman's activism is ending when it comes to General Growth Properties (GGP).
A filing this morning discloses that Ackman's Pershing Square Capital Management "no longer believe[s] that the Company should consider a sale" — and that Pershing and affiliates "intend to return to their status as passive shareholders of the company." The filing indicates that Pershing is "satisfied" with certain unspecified changes to the company's governance arrangements with its biggest shareholder, Brookfield Asset Management (BAM), to whom Pershing also sold more than 18 million warrants to buy General Growth shares. The firm additionally agreed not to take an activist role again for at least four years.
The hedge-fund manager, who's better known of late for broadsides against multi-level marketing firm Herbalife (HLF), had been pushing for a sale to Simon Property Group (SPG), and against a takeover by Brookfield, which held about 38% of the company at last disclosure, according to FactSet Research Systems.
"We usually don't push for sales of companies," my colleague Avi Salzman reported the activist investor telling an audience in New York a few months back. "The problem is Brookfield is working very hard to get control of the company without paying a premium…If we don't do a transaction the shareholders will forever lose the possibility to earn a premium."
The Reporting Persons filed the Original Schedule 13D on October 24, 2011 to reflect, among other things, the Reporting Persons' intent to have conversations with Simon Property Group Inc. ("SPG") in respect of SPG's interest in acquiring the Company on favorable terms to the Company and its shareholders. Subsequent to the filing of the Original Schedule 13D, the Company discussed a potential transaction with SPG on terms that the Reporting Persons believed would have been in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders and would also have been economically accretive to SPG. In that SPG has chosen not to go forward with that or any other potential transaction with the Company, and Brookfield Asset Management Inc. and its affiliates ("Brookfield") have subsequently agreed to modify Brookfield's governance arrangements with the Company, the Reporting Persons no longer believe that the Company should consider a sale of the Company and it should therefore remain an independent publicly traded corporation. Furthermore, the Reporting Persons are satisfied with the Board's oversight of the Company and therefore intend to return to their status as passive shareholders of the Company. Consequently, the Reporting Persons are terminating their Schedule 13D filing and are filing a Schedule 13G concurrently herewith reflecting that the Reporting Persons no longer reserve the right to engage in the matters referenced in (a)-(j) of Item 4 of Schedule 13D.


text:
Dixon Police
Joseph V. Ferlauto, 18, of Dixon; 7:10 p.m. Wednesday in the 200 block of South Hennepin Avenue; unlawful possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia; taken to Lee County Jail.
Steven L. Pritchard, 37, of Dixon; 8:18 a.m. Wednesday in the 200 block of Highland Avenue; Lee County warrants – contempt, nonpayment – operating an uninsured vehicle, failure to appear – driving with a suspended license; posted bond.
Amboy Police
James B. Hollingsworth, 18, of Ladd; 12:23 a.m. Monday at Mason Avenue and Provost Street; speeding, operating an uninsured motor vehicle; posted bond.
Robert W. Moore, 46, of Amboy; 10:03 p.m. Wednesday at Mason Avenue and Bluff Street; speeding; posted bond.
Gered R. Botts, 19, of Amboy; 2:24 a.m. Thursday at Wasson Road and north East Avenue; operating an uninsured motor vehicle; posted bond.
Rock Falls Police
Lonnie McGee, 58, of Sterling; 12:50 a.m. Sunday; driving with a suspended license; given notice to appear in court.
Ogle County Sheriff
Penny Isham, 53, of Lebanon, Tenn.; Wednesday; warrant – no seat belt; given notice to appear in court.
Donica Baisten, 29, of Rockford; Wednesday; warrant – failure to appear; taken to Ogle County Jail.
Billie J. Gooch, 37, of Summit; Wednesday; warrant – resisting, obstructing a peace officer; taken to Ogle County Jail.
Robin M. Kazlauskas, 45, of Dixon; 3:37 p.m. Wednesday on state Route 64 at Skare Road; driving with a suspended license, four Boone County warrants and one Kane County warrant; taken to Ogle County Jail.
Jeanette Lozano, 45, of Oregon; 7 p.m. Wednesday at River Road and state Route 72; driving under the influence of drugs, improper lane useage, operating an uninsured motor vehicle. Lozano was taken to Rochelle Community Hospital; posted bond.
Gregory Heidel, 45, of Chicago; 9 p.m. Wednesday on Interstate 88; driving with a suspended license; taken to Ogle County Jail.


text:
Submission + - Samsung Want to Sell Liquavista to Amazon (the-digital-reader.com)
Nate the greatest writes: Bloomberg is reporting early this morning that Liquavista, Samsung's cutting edge electrowetting screen tech research firm, is up for sale. Details are still thin but Bloomberg's unnamed source indicates Amazon is looking to buy Liquavista for somewhere under $100 million. This rumor confirms earlier reports that Amazon had launched a new holding company in the Netherlands and was going to use it to buy Liquavista. There have also been rumors circulating screen tech conferences for the past 5 or 6 months that Samsung was interested in selling the company. No one in the industry really understands why Samsung would want to do that, but I think the latest demo video from Liquavista explains it. This screen tech simply isn't as good as current LCD or OLED screens, and Samsung might be looking to cut their losses.