Posted 09/23/09 at 12:37:53 PM by David Murphy

The phrase "open-source" is such a sexy term.

It's so hip and fresh. Open-source singlehandedly represents the latest and greatest thinking in the modern-day technological movement. Drop it into a conversation and you're suddenly talking like a futurist. Throw it into a company's strategic roadmap and suddenly we've created innovation and depth. Suggest that virus-makers are embracing open-source, and you've got the attention (and clicks) of Web geeks worldwide.

Wait a minute. Open-source viruses?  How does that work?

Read More

Posted 07/30/09 at 04:00:31 PM by David Murphy

Hell hath no fury like an open-source developer scorned. In the red corner, we have Portable Apps and its developer, John Haller. In the blue corner, we have LiberKey and project manager Christophe Peuch. Both programs are suites of applications that can sit on your USB key for portable use. Both offer a number of open-source or freeware apps that assist you in your everyday PC tasks without costing you a single penny. At one point, it was argued that both shared an identical design, layout, and operation. But that's just one of the many charges being heaved across the battleground--its accuracy, along with the others, is subject to dispute.

I wrote a while back about the confusing issues surrounding open-source and freeware licensing. They haven't changed. The controversy over LiberKey is a perfect example of the confusion--enough so, that Maximum PC itself removed a mention of the suite from one of our freeware roundups after allegations of wrongdoing on the developer's part. But is this piece of software as guilty of the violations as the Internet chatter would have you believe? Or has LiberKey done its fair share to eliminate the liabilities caused by its inclusion of open-source and freeware apps into a large package manager?

Why should you care? That's the easiest answer of them all. Supporting applications that stick to the legal guidelines of trademark, permissions, and licensing ensures you're downloading stable, safe, and secure packages that foster the spirit of open source software. If you support software that flaunts the rules, you disrespect the work of those who contribute their works to the greater community. And I wouldn't want to lose these developers--nor their awesome (usually) free applications.

Click the jump to find out the full details on LiberKey!

Read More

Posted 07/16/09 at 02:34:27 PM by David Murphy

With a mighty "yehhh," the city of Vancouver, British Columbia, passed a motion to adopt open standards in its local government this past May.  I find it to be a wonderful development--not just because I write about open source.  Rather, I think that the move is a twofold triumph: It allows governments to free themselves of pricy, proprietary software burdens while simultaneously opening up more areas of government for access by conventional citizens. 

It's no secret that programs like HOST and CRADA are helping the U.S. bring new, open standards of communication and accessibility to the forefront of the discussion.  I'd nevertheless like to see more cities working the answer from a bottom-to-top approach, adopting motions like Vancouver's--or, for that matter, using Vancouver's exact template--to call for the integration of open-source ideas and programs wherever possible in local government.

It's not an idle dream, as various cities in the United States have already started to dip their toes into open waters.  If our brethren to the north can take the plunge into open source sans hesitation, why not us as well?

Click the jump to learn more about Vancouver's open initiative!

Read More

Posted 05/26/09 at 09:07:10 AM by Paul Lilly

As netbooks continue to grow in size, you might be left wondering where netbooks end and traditional notebooks begin. The answer is 10.2 inches, assuming news and rumor site DigiTimes has been fed accurate information. Citing un-named sources at Taiwan-based ODM notebook makers, DigiTimes says Microsoft and Intel agreed to decrease the screen-size ceiling for netbooks running Windows 7 from 12.1 inches to 10.2 inches.

Should the restriction be put in place, it would spell the end for 11.6-inch Atom Zxx-based netbooks once Windows 7 launches, the sources said.  It could also hamper VIA, who doesn't put any restrictions on how vendors use its CPUs and chipsets. VIA-based netbooks larger than 10.2 inches wouldn't qualify for the lower Windows 7 licensing rates, thereby potentially taking away any advantage VIA might have had in the 11-inch and above market.

Read More

Posted 05/21/09 at 03:30:00 PM by David Murphy

If you're a fan of open source, you're a fan of licensing. Okay, maybe not a fan. But you still have to respect the legal power of the documents attached to open-source software and projects, which describe for you the exact ways you can and cannot use, modify, and pass-along the licensed material. While a newcomer to the open source might see these licenses as restrictive entities prohibiting commercial exploitation of a body of work, they're the lifeblood of those who spend untold hours poring over the bits and bytes of a dream. Not as a means of financial extortion for companies that want to use the software, rather, these licensing documents ensure that the spirit of open source carries on regardless of a project's potential iterations.

I sometimes wish I could apply a license to everything I do on the Internet. And perhaps you will too, once you realize that you're a content creator -- just like me, anyone who writes for this site, and any of the estimated 17 million (and counting) microbloggers on the popular Twitter service. As of yesterday, Twitter has joined forces with Threadless. The t-shirt retailer and community hub is now the centerpiece in a massive effort to transform your witty public Tweets into cash-generating, hipster t-shirts. But this partnership respects the spirit of licensing, even though the actual legal rights you hold as a Twitter user are still open for debate.

 Fire up your best 140-word comment and click the jump to learn about this fashionable new deal!

Read More

Posted 03/18/09 at 03:00:50 PM by Paul Lilly

The dispute between Intel and Nvidia over disagreements pertaining to Intel's Nehalem chipset license almost seems like old news now that Intel and AMD are going at each other. Intel claims AMD doesn't have the legal wherewithal to "unilaterally extend Intel's licensing rights to a third party," which in this case would be Globalfoundries, and has threatened to pull its 2001 agreement within 60 days if AMD doesn't address Intel's concerns. AMD, on the other hand, says it isn't doing anything wrong.

So who's in the right? To help determine that, Intel has offered to make the terms of the x86 cross-licensing deal public, for which AMD has agreed, but not without a stipulation. AMD wants Intel to lift the secrecy demand on all antiturst evidence submitted by AMD in the 2006 antitrust case.

"We will make the entire cross-license agreement public if they drop their insistence on secrecy on the evidence in the U.S. antitrust case," said Patrick Moorehead, AMD VP of marketing.

Intel does't appear willing to do so, and as far as the No. 1 chipmaker is concerned, AMD might just as well have rejected the offer outright.

"Intel is willing to make the entire [x86 cross-license] agreement public," said Chuck Mulloy, Intel spokesman. "We've told AMD we would be fine with making the entire agreement public. AMD has declined to do so."

Someone pass the popcorn.

Read More

Posted 02/18/09 at 04:15:47 PM by Paul Lilly

This is starting to get ugly. It's bad enough watching Intel and Nvidia go at each other over licensing disputes (remember how long we waited for SLI on Intel chipsets?), but the two aren't showing any signs of letting up. In response to Intel's recent lawsuit, which alleges Nvidia has no right to produce chipsets that are compatible with any Intel processor that has an integrated memory controller, the GPU/chipset maker had some choice words for Intel.

"We are confident that our license, as negotiated, applies," said Jen-Hsun Huang, president and CEO of Nvidia. "At the heart of this issue is that the CPU has run its course and the soul of the PC is shifting quickly to the GPU. This is clearly an attempt to stifle innovation to protect a decaying CPU business."

Huang has never been one to mince words, at one time declaring his company would "open a can of whoop-ass." Now less than a year later, the quote-worthy CEO has declared the CPU just another run-of-the-mill component taking a backseat to the GPU.

Nvidia's press release went on to talk up the company's Ion platform, and was quick to point out that it "offers 10x the performance of Intel's current three chip design." Huang also said that given the broad and growing adoption of Nvidia's platforms, including the Ion, he's not the least bit surprised Intel is disputing a four-year-old contract.

Anyone else feeling just a wee bit uncomfortable?

Read More

Posted 02/18/09 at 03:15:35 PM by Paul Lilly

You know that couple that is always at odds with each other, turning parties and other get-togethers into awkward affairs? The worst part is when they both turn to you to pick a side, and all you're trying to do is have a good time. For power users, that couple is Intel and Nvidia. We don't know what it is with these two, but just when their relationship appears to be on an upswing, another squabble breaks out.

After years of butting heads, Intel and Nvidia just recently came to agreement over licensing the GPU maker's SLI technology for use on Intel chipsets, and all appeared to be right in the world. But now the two are at it again, this time with Intel taking the offensive. Intel has filed suit against Nvidia this week claiming that the four-year old chipset license agreement between the two does not cover both its current and any future CPUs with integrated memory controllers.

"Intel has filed suit against Nvidia seeking a declaratory judgment over rights associated with two agreements between the companies," Intel said in a statement. "The suit seeks to have the court declare that Nvidia is not licensed to produce chipsets that are compatible with any Intel processor that has integrated memory controller functionality, such as Intel’s Nehalem microprocessors and that Nvidia has breached the agreement with Intel by falsely claiming that it is licensed. Intel has been in discussions with Nvidia for more than a year attempting to resolve the matter but unfortunately we were unsuccessful. As a result Intel is asking the court to resolve this dispute."

Nvida contends that the license agreement is still valid, however admits that it has been "working with Intel to come to some kind of agreement" for the past year. And despite the lawsuit, Nvidia says it has no plans of changing its roadmap, including those chipsets which extend to future processors.

Not even our divorced parents fight this much.

Read More