...FOSS Free Open Source Software This means you have the freedom to copy and re-use software rather than to have to pay for each version or new edition. Though the term is used inclusively there are differing ideas surrounding each. For example Free software is more about the freedom it gives user whereas Open Source is praised for the strength of the whole peer-to-peer modle that is used. The whole general idea of FOSS arose in the 1980’s through one Richard Stallman who was the founder and creator of the GNU project which later went on to become the Free Software Foundation. FOSS philosophy simply states that it is the right of every user to use, modify, and distribute computer software for any purpose. The right to use, distribute, modify and redistribute derivative versions, the so called "four freedoms," are based in and representative of an extreme form of anti-discrimination resistant to categorization into the typical “left, center and right” political schema. This element of nondiscrimination, coupled with the broad nature of FOSS's philosophical foundation, enables the easy adoption of FOSS technologies. FOSS's broadly defined freedom acts as an important starting point and one conceptual hinge useful in understanding the wide circulation of FOSS as a set of technologies, signs, methodologies and philosophies. An analysis of the way in which this philosophical and legal form is animated and redirected in particular ways through the use of FOSS technologies...
Words: 794 - Pages: 4
...The Progress of Technology I would like to know how to speed up the internet ie: data delivery. I think data delivery is going to progress by leaps and bounds in the near future. The internet has been around for quite some time now and it is time for a change in the way data is delivered. Currently it’s by one packet of information (data) at a time. After some research I have learned there are a number of ways people are trying to change this method of data delivery. Some of them are: • Packets • Capsules • Holograms and Lasers • Teleportation I will give a brief explanation of each one and include the advantages and disadvantages. The current technology uses packets which are small files of information wrapped by a header and footer with security information on the both sides. These are the destination the packets are being sent to and the source that the packets are coming from. The advantages are: Packets are very secure because they can use encryption. Key exchange algorithms are used to securely exchange a shared secret value between two computers over an unsecured network connection. The computers exchange information that, when processed by the algorithm, produces the shared secret value. A third computer listening on the network and intercepting network packets between the first two computers cannot determine the shared secret value. The shared secret value can then be used as a session key, or to generate a session key, to encrypt the rest of the communications...
Words: 1069 - Pages: 5
...for engineering research increasingly rely on the development and use of FOSS systems (e.g., the International Thermonuclear Energy Research (ITER) project for fusion research), and in some topics, the development and experimentation with FOSS-based systems are likely to be central to future research activities (e.g., advanced health informatics, secure cyberspace, enhanced virtual reality, and advanced personalized learning systems). However, FOSS remains a computing technology at its core, while FOSS development remains a web of complex socio-technical processes. But these processes are not well understood nor readily predictable, as informal practices are widespread and continually adapting. As such, FOSS is amenable to technological advances, socio-technical innovations, and systematic empirical studies that can emerge from research in the Computer Science community and beyond. We seek to articulate both multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary perspectives on how and why FOSS has become such a source of technology-centered global transformation, and what the future may hold. We need to identify key research problems and experimental studies going forward, along with the requisite research infrastructure and shared data repositories needed to support this research. We also need to identify future roles that Computer Science can play in fostering, sustaining, and expanding the ongoing development of FOSS as a realm of technology development and use, as an engine of innovation...
Words: 622 - Pages: 3
...Microsoft and FOSS 4/23/2012 IT 302 Research Paper Free Open Source Software also known as FOSS has fared pretty good since the Microsoft posted a high-level summary of 235 patents that were allegedly violated in 2006. Since this scenario happen FOSS has grown and partner up with big name companies. In an interview that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said that ”We live in a world where we honor, and support the honoring of, intellectual property, FOSS patrons are going to have to play by the same rules as the rest of the business. What is fair is fair." Today FOSS is still going strong because of its high quality and because the most important reason it is FREE. Software that is free is good to anybody. It’s good to individuals that used open source applications on their smart devices, to large companies which use these applications for daily activity for their need in their company. FOSS is great for everyone because it can be shared, copied, changed and of course downloaded. Everybody now in days have smart phones that carry FOSS operating systems. An everyday person likes FOSS instead of paying five dollars to 30 dollars for applications from apple, when if you have an Android phone it’s free. FOSS is not going anywhere just for the reason being that it’s free. Since 2006 big corporate companies have been changing their philosophy on open source software. Major corporations like IBM, Oracle and Google have been using FOSS. They are big allies...
Words: 402 - Pages: 2
...In 2006, when Microsoft Corp. stated that the Linux kernel and other software’s violated their patents, deal has been struck between the FOSS community and Microsoft. Some customers actually entered into direct patent licenses with Microsoft and including some "major brand-name companies" in financial services, health care, insurance and information technology. (He says they don't want to be identified, presumably because they fear angering the FOSS community.) Others wanted Microsoft to work out the patent issues directly with the commercial distributors like Red Hat and Novell. (Red Hat has about 65 percent of the paid Linux server market, according to IDC, while Novell has 26 percent.) Microsoft and Novell agreed not to sue each other's customers for patent infringement. That would be okay, because it's something that the GPL does not address. On those terms, Novell agreed to give Microsoft a percentage of all its Linux revenue through 2011 (or a minimum of $40 million). The pact also included a marketing collaboration. Microsoft agreed to pay Novell $240 million for "coupons" that it could then resell to customers (theoretically for a profit), who would, in turn, trade them in for subscriptions to Novell's Linux server software. In addition, Microsoft gave Novell another $108 million as a "balancing payment" in connection with the patent part of the deal. It might seem counterintuitive that Microsoft would end up paying millions to Novell when Microsoft...
Words: 587 - Pages: 3
...Table of Contents Introduction of the Case of Foss v. Harbottle…………………………………………………………………….Pg. 2 Describe and explain the rule set out in Foss v Harbottle and identify the exceptions to the rule …………………………………………………………………………………..……Pg 3,4,5 & 6 Describe the remedies, if any, which are available for ‘minority’ shareholders who feel that they have been the victim of wrongdoing by those in a ‘majority’……….…………………...Pg 7 & 8 References………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Pg 9 & 10 Introduction of the Case of Foss v. Harbottle The Victoria Park Company is a company had been established during September 1835. This company is to establish a residential area for the prosperous business and professional families to stay. This estate will be established to the east of Wilmslow Road. Richard Foss and Edward Starkie are the minority shareholders. A bill was lodged by 2 shareholders of the company that incorporated by Art of Parliament, on their own and the other shareholders’ behalf. In the case they claim that fraudulent transactions misapplying the company’s assets did by 3 bankruptcy directors, a solicitor, proprietor and architect, and take some unqualified people to put in board of director to make it full and a company without clerk or office, in this situation the proprietors has no rights to take out the property from the hand of defendant directors. Observations were made on this point of case is that the trust between the company and company promoters...
Words: 3041 - Pages: 13
...Foss v. Harbottle 1 Principles and Applications and Exceptions to the Principles INTRODUCTION Basically, both under the general law and under the Companies Acts there are some protections of minority. Example of minority protection is the doctrine under the general law that the majority of the members must not commit a fraud on minority but must act bona fide for the benefit of the company as a whole. Here, the topic that I am about to touch is the rule of Foss v. Harbottle in which there are some exceptions to this particular rule protect the minority. As for the beginning, Foss v. Harbottle was originally a case reported in 1843. The Victoria Park Company was established for the purpose of ‘laying out and maintaining an Ornamental Park within the Township of Rusholme, Charlton-upon Medlock and Moss Side, in the country of Lancaster’. The capital of the company was to be $500,000, divided into 5,000 shares of $100 each. It was to be controlled by five shareholders. The first directors were Thomas Harbottle, Joseph Adshead, Henry Byrom, John Westhead and Richard Bealey. It was provided that three directors should constitute a board and that the acts of three or more should be as effectual as if done by the five. To sum up the feature of the case, two shareholders in the company, Richard Foss and Edward Turton, brought an action against the company’s directors, on behalf of themselves and the other shareholders except the defendants. The defendants were the five directors, a shareholder...
Words: 6231 - Pages: 25
...FOSS has it helped or has it hurt? Bonita Jones-Bey Class IT 302 Professor Emerenini July 26, 2013 Upon my undertaking of this assignment I wasn’t aware of the in-depth concept of Free and Open-Source Software. I had very little understanding of how or why a patent would be needed or just how much controversy came with this ideology. So to be able to understand my assignment I had to understand what the issues were and get a clearer conception of business patents and monopolizing the market and the draw backs and cons.( Sean Michael Kerner ) What is Free Open-Source Software? Free is software at no cost and open source software is software that is liberally licensed by OSI that uses an open source list of open source licenses, that grant users the right to use and re-use, copy, study, modify, and improve its design through the availability of its source code, rather than having to purchase software or ask permission. The Free Software Foundation, an organization just for this type of software and they ensure that users have availability at completely no cost even when some companies try otherwise. This software’s focuses on the perceived strengths of its peer-to-peer development model and is used by many software packages. Students get to enjoy these software’s for modification and design capabilities, they create games redesign programs and a host of other things they would be not be allotted to change due to copyright laws .(cite: terrybollinger.com) Microsoft...
Words: 907 - Pages: 4
...IT 320 Research Paper 2 Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) has been a pinnacle of the corporate world ever since it came around. It has been an easy to use and replicate without worry of patent or licensing infringement. However, in 2006 Microsoft found that many of their patents had been infringed upon by several different aspects. The Linux kernel found in most servers was one of them. Microsoft took a big leap going after FOSS for 235 patents. FOSS is run by Stallman who was responsible for the GNU Manifesto also known to most as the GNU General Public License (GPL) . With Microsoft heading the full speed train against FOSS it took a demanding tire on both parties. While Microsoft, in the mean time was also striking a deal with Novell on its Linux based server support. FOSS was sure to go under as Linux was the base of all its open source used in many applications and the applications within Linux such as samaba or Open Office. The Deal with Novell was made to walk around the GPL of the GNU and expose loop holes for Microsoft’s gain but also creating a pressing dilemma for the GNU. The deal struck between Novell and Microsoft was a “we don’t sue you and you don’t sue us” which indicates that not only was FOSS involved in patent infringement but also Microsoft. The Deal included over 200 million dollars to Novell and 43 Million to Microsoft for “license distribution” of Novells’ Server software. The after effects of this deal resulted in a addition...
Words: 419 - Pages: 2
...According to the rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843), the minority of companys member (depositor and debentures holder) had been constrain to sue or brought action to corporation, the majority of members, board of directors or companys director as the damage or loss was due to negligence of directors and majority of members who endure the identical loss and not with any type of advantage. (Choong & Sujata, n.d.). In the case of Pavlides v Jensen [1956], the plaintiff claims that the defendants (companys directors and corporation itself) sold the corporation owned mine underrate negligent, therefore the mistaken done require to be redress. Nevertheless, the action of plaintiff was not maintainable due to the judgment of selling the...
Words: 1029 - Pages: 5
...Open Source Software (FOSS). These complaints included 42 violations from the Linux Kernel, 65 from the Linux GUI, 45 from the FOSS Open Source Suite, and 15 dealing with FOSS email programs (Microsoft's Smith and Gutierrez, 2007). Since this issue in 2006, FOSS has prospered beyond belief. Not only has FOSS survived, but it has grown enormously. Also in 2006, Microsoft signed a deal with Novell, agreeing that neither would sue the other (Upfold, 2006). Instead of fighting the FOSS business model Microsoft chose to instead join them with Novell's SuSE Linux model. Novell and Microsoft worked together in an attempt to collaborate with both open and closed source software. Their main competitor was Red Hat, who also was working on their own Linux system. Even more recently, Novell sold 882 patents to CPTN Holdings LLC in 2011. Upon the transaction, CPTN would dissolve itself. The patents were split up and purchased by Apple (25%), EMC (25%), Oracle (25%), and Novell's parent company Attachmate (25%). Another agreement of the deal allowed all companies involved to be free of any suits stemming from all 882 patents (Fosspatents blog, 2011). Microsoft was not negatively affected by the deal as they would essentially co-own the 25% share of patents Attachmate would recieve, as their deal with Novell allowed. This deal would allow FOSS continued growth full speed ahead. Today, all smart phones and many other devices, such as Ipads, run on some version of FOSS. Our government and...
Words: 448 - Pages: 2
...Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) has been a pinnacle of the corporate world ever since it came around. It has been an easy to use and replicate without worry of patent or licensing infringement. However, in 2006 Microsoft found that many of their patents had been infringed upon by several different aspects. The Linux kernel found in most servers was one of them. Microsoft took a big leap going after FOSS for 235 patents. FOSS is run by Stallman who was responsible for the GNU Manifesto also known to most as the GNU General Public License (GPL) . With Microsoft heading the full speed train against FOSS it took a demanding tire on both parties. While Microsoft, in the meantime was also striking a deal with Novell on its Linux based server support. FOSS was sure to go under as Linux was the base of its entire open source used in many applications and the applications within Linux such as samba or Open Office. The Deal with Novell was made to walk around the GPL of the GNU and expose loop holes for Microsoft’s gain but also creating a pressing dilemma for the GNU. The deal struck between Novell and Microsoft was a “we don’t sue you and you don’t sue us” which indicates that not only was FOSS involved in patent infringement but also Microsoft. The Deal included over 200 million dollars to Novell and 43 Million to Microsoft for “license distribution” of Novell’s’ Server software. The after effects of this deal resulted in a addition to...
Words: 333 - Pages: 2
...1. How would you characterize the MySQL vs MariaDB problem? What were the key reasons for MariaDB's creation? Do you foresee this becoming the norm (corporate-community forks) or is this simply a set of really disagreeable personalities? Truly Open Source because all code in MariaDB is released under GPL, LPGL or BSD. MariaDB does not have closed source modules like the ones that can be found in MySQL Enterprise Edition. In fact, all the closed source features in MySQL 5.5 Enterprise Edition are found in the MariaDB open source version. MariaDB includes test cases for all fixed bugs. Oracle doesn't provide test cases for new bugs fixed in MySQL 5.5. All bugs and development plans are public. MariaDB is developed by the community in true open source spirit. MariaDB has a lot of new options, extension, storage engines and bug fixes that are not in MySQL. 2. How does GPL version 3 differ from GPL version 2? There are many differences between the two versions of the GNU Public License, but it’s important to note that GPLv3 serves as an alternative, rather than a replacement of GPLv2. The reason for this is that the two licenses are incompatible, and there is no legal way to combine any code that uses the GPLv2 with any code that will be used under the GPLv3. One of the common issues facing those who utilize GPLv2 software is the uncertainty as to whether other code that is used or distributed in conjunction with GPLv2 Code would be subject to the terms of the...
Words: 1284 - Pages: 6
...MARKET ASPECT CHAPTER 1 MARKET STUDY I. MARKET DESCRIPTION Foss Coffee will focus its marketing activities on reaching the University students and faculty, people working in offices located close to the coffee shop and on sophisticated teenagers. Since coffee consumption is universal across different income categories and proximity to the University Belt campuses will provide access to the targeted customer audience. It will also cater to people who want to get their daily cup of great-tasting coffee. Such customers vary in ages, the location of our proposed business is at Upper ground floor of SM City Manila near Pizza Hut. The lease contract has an option of renewal for three years at a fixed rate that Foss Coffee will execute depending on the financial strength of its business, although the location is close to the University campus means that most of its clientele will be college students and faculty members. Our market study shows that these are discerning customers that gravitate towards better tasting coffee. Furthermore, a lot of college students are pulling off all nighters for their exams and they need caffeine to keep them awake and this will provide a unique possibility for building a loyal client base. II. DEMAND The demand is based on the population of the university students, faculty members and office workers in the vicinity of Ermita, Manila in the National Capital Region. This is for a five (5) year period beginning 2010 to 2014. YEAR | HISTORICAL...
Words: 2484 - Pages: 10
...criticism is known as neo-Aristotelian criticism. Neo-Aristotelian criticism was said to be the first formal method of rhetorical criticism developed in the communication field (Foss, 21). This theory is also referred to as the “criticism” or “neoclassical” method of criticism. Unlike literary criticism, neo-Aristotelian focuses on the effect that the speech has on its specific audience, not just the performance. The critic should deal with every component of the artifact from the speaker’s personality down to the arrangement of speech patterns. Rhetorical or neo-Aristotelian criticism became the study of speeches because the approach required that a critic determine the effect of rhetoric on the immediate audience and not just what was written (Foss, 22). When using this approach to criticism, the critic uses a four-step process to analyze his or her artifact. This process includes selecting an artifact, analyzing the artifact, formulating a research question, and writing the essay (Foss, 24). Specifically under the second process noted, analyzing the artifact has a dimension of three different subfields. These subfields include reconstructing the context in which the artifact occurred, application of the five canons of rhetoric to the artifact, and assessing the impact of the artifact on the audience (Foss, 24). The five canons of rhetoric include the major ideas or content of the artifact, the organization or pattern of arrangements, the use of language, the delivery of the speech...
Words: 2090 - Pages: 9
