I think it is SCO Group ...
which is seeking to draw out the agony of everyone involved.
http://groklaw.com has at least as much as anyone could wish to know about this, carefully and I think reliably written.
8 posts • joined 17 Apr 2007
And no inconsistency at all. I got good value out of the version of SuSE I bought as a boxed set long ago in PC World, despite having previously installed one without the hard copy - the books were useful. Oddly, I didn't need the support that was included, and I suspect the expectation is that a small proportion of people will need a small amount of simple support.
The business model of Microsoft depends upon preventing people being able to do stuff.
Except when MS can extract a rent for them doing it.
Given how hard it is to make things work when all your efforts are directed at making them work, this explains many outcomes.
Here their behaviour is clearly against the best interests of the species.
Some of the security stuff intended to make sure that only the correct million people read your medical records has been cunningly coded to require IE6. It doesn't seem to be anything to do with needing any feature that goes away in IE7, although use of a better browser does seem to have been prevented by designing in an Active X component, it is just that the things apparently check if they are talking to IE6, and if not demand that someone pays to restart the process from scratch.
That would be a dubious decision - there is no need for the Microsoft formats to be declared international standards for people to carry on using them, and it is abundantly clear that what MS are presenting is nothing like a standard, or the documentation required for a standard.
Such a decision would merit close scrutiny of the people and organisations involved, which is quite fashionable nowadays, extending even to the expenses and allowances of members of parliament.
If it is GPL'd then you can get at the source to check your source code for bits that you need to rewrite (I suggest checking _before_ the launch, the bit about having to release it all under GPL is hyperbole) .
A probably more common situation is where the code subcontracted into your application belongs to someone else and you can't see their source code because they don't publish it. So they might ambush you at launch, that being the first chance they get to check your object for their copyright material.
When an organisation declines to release an application as Open Source despite it being clear that this is the rational thing to do my suspicion nowadays is that they are unable to say that nobody else owns parts of the code, and that, given average competence, means that they are using it without a licence to do so.
I think that the Scottish NHS should release the General Practice computer system GPASS as Open Source. They say it is impossible. I've therefore seen none of the source code.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021