Well. we need no more proof. The movement behind GNU/Linux want to undermine property rights.
>>Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this easier for all of us.
Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives software programs ``owners'', most of whom aim to withhold software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we use. >>
LOL, all this time and they have only two servers up.
There Windows server trials started in October 2001!!!
Almost 2 years ago!
That should mean they only have about 15 more years to go until they are a Windows shop.... hehehe..
I love digging out fact from Microsoft PR.
thanks. where do I find more information?
I'm sure there is more out there. The GPL was at the center of the case, it really doesn't matter who is won one way or the other. The GPL was upheld as a legal agreement between the parties. I think it is the parties view of what they agreed to that is in doubt.
btw, if I post a question, and you quote it in a reply, please include the question mark.
Sorry, it wasn't on purpose. Just my mad copy and paste skillz at work. ;-)
>>I think we are seeing that blurb from Microsoft's site for what it really was, wishfull thinking.<<
Fantasy is big part of the softie world :) They are still convinced that thier dream of Windows as a Unix replacement is reality. LOL
Um, they aren't done yet.
LOL, all this time and they have only two servers up. Running Aphache no less! Meanwhile, every one of their Linux systems are up to date, latest software, latest PHP, latest everything (btw, Good going guys!) So instead of ripping out IIS and replacing it with Apache and instead of installing the latest greatest Linux, shouldn't they have been setting up a little more than two Windows boxes? Is it really all that hard?
And then to claim how much money they are saving before they actually even use the product! LOL, this is Microsoft at it's best.
I think AtomIC is learning that Microsoft may have been blowing smoke up their butts.
Seems their migration is going about as well as Microsoft's HotMail migration went. Atomic actually has customers to take care of however, and no real reason to use Microsoft if it doesn't work as advertised.
I think we are seeing that blurb from Microsoft's site for what it really was, wishfull thinking.
from a discussion:
> This was supposed to be the first court battle over the validity of the
> GNU GPL,
Actually not. The judge wouldn't hear arguments on the GPL because it was not
the issue. Read on to find out why ...
> but the license still have to be tried in court.
not that this clip is gospel, but the author seemed pretty authoritative.
the search continues!
>>But access to Shared Source is COMPLETELY FREE.<<
And YOU would access the code by waving your Harry Potter wand, and not by paying MSDN Premium, right?
>>I have proven that this is NOT TRUE.<<
Actually you you proved the opposite. I didn't actually expect to admit that you were wrong.
>>AGAIN I ASK: Where does it say that you can contribute code to MSFT???<<
Reading comprehension skills fading Zog? I posted a direct link that states exactly that about 5 posts ago.
Sorry to step on thread... ran into this article some time back. Columbia law prof who pro bono's as General Counsel at FSF:
Of course, as GC he's not gonna state the "bad" but this is on point.
well, hey now. ms is a company. open source is a movement. not fair to equate the likelihood that one holds beliefs of the organization in a 1:1 way. imo, more likely in the case of open source. his assumption was fairly fair. ;-)