Six barriers to open source adoption - TechUpdate - ZDNet: "But there are still significant barriers to overcome before Linux and other open source projects are broadly accepted across enterprises. During a keynote at the Open Source Business Conference 2004 in San Francisco last week, Ray Lane, former Oracle executive and a general partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, outlined six objections gleaned from interviews with a few dozen CIOs at Fortune 500 companies. The six objections won't forestall the march of open source into data centers and desktops, but they provide a good framework for discussing the roadmap for open source software."

One Nation, Under Hallmark, Indivisible - Is the God of the Pledge of Allegiance a deity or a greeting card? By Dahlia Lithwick: "One of the thorns in this case is that supporters of the pledge say the words 'under God' are political, historical, ceremonial -- anything but religious. But if the protests and demonstrations and national polls reveal anything about the merits of this case, it's that the words 'under God' really are about the Jesus-Church-Prayer type of God for most Americans."

Stuff I read about the "pledge case," Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, from an article in Slate by David Greenberg dated 3/25/03 or so.

The original Pledge of Allegiance (with no mention God) was written in 1892 by the socialist Francis Bellamy for the popular magazine Youth's Companion to commemorate the first celebration of Columbus Day. The key words for Bellamy were "indivisible," which recalled the Civil War and the triumph of federal union over states' rights, and "liberty and justice for all," which noted the balance between equality and indvidual freedom.

Efforts to break down the church-state wall began as early as the founding. They reached a peak during the Red Scare of the 1950s when every politico was climbing over each other to outdo each other in the piety and patriotism game. Examples: Eisenhower started the prayer breakfast; Congress built a prayer room; Eisenhower and Congress worked together to add the words "In God We Trust" to paper money; and the official motto of the USA was changed from E Pluribus Unum to In God We Trust.

The campaign to include "under God" in the Pledge was part of this movement. And contrary to Solicitor Olson and pro-state religion forces, its singular purpose was to promote religion by declaring by force of law that the USA and its people were (presumeably Christian) God-fearing and by requiring all children to recite this on a daily basis. Both the President and Congress at the time readily admitted as much. The legislative history of the 1954 Act states Congress's intent to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon . . . the Creator . . . [and] deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism." At the bill signing ceremony, Eisenhower remarked that from then on, "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town . . . the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." [Greenberg: That the nation, constitutionally speaking, was in fact dedicated to the opposite proposition seemed to escape the President."]

These facts and more show the lie of those who would argue that the "under God" reference is merely a notation of the historical fact that the founders believed that man's unalienable rights and the right to form the republic itself sprang from "God." Not only does this plainly contradict the context of the 1954 Act, it ignores without shame the fact that it is "Pledge" we are talking about. An incantation. A prayer of sorts. Those who would argue that it is de minimis or a mere "backdrop" devoid of meaning actually mock those of use who do, individually, without seeking state sponsor or approval, worship a God.

Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled in 1971 that forced recital of the pledge was unconstitutional. Engel v. Vitale struck down a law allowing prayer in school, even where non-denominational and students were allowed to abstain from exercise. In 2000, the Supreme Court held that voluntary, student-led prayers at school functions are unconstitutionally coercive because the force students into an unacceptable position of either proclaiming religious beliefs they don't share or publicly protesting.

The Pledge as it now stands, by its words and design, is a state sponsorship of religion. The Supreme Court's precedent makes clear beyond question that the Elk Grove practice of leading their students in the Pledge regularly is unconstitutional. Reasonable minds cannot disagree. Case Closed.

Via vnunet.com:

"Legal battles are the biggest threat to the future of open source, according to Linux creator Linus Torvalds."

Netscape Co-Founder's 12 Reasons for Growth of Open Source (LinuxWorld)

"The 12 reasons Andreessen - he of the all-time great quote: 'The Valley is going to save the Valley' - came up at the conference with were as follows:
'The Internet is powered by open source.'

'The Internet is the carrier for open source.'

'The Internet is also the platform through which open source is developed.'

'It's simply going to be more secure than proprietary software.'

'Open source benefits from anti-American sentiments.'

'Incentives around open source include the respect of one's peers.'

'Open source means standing on the shoulders of giants.'

'Servers have always been expensive and proprietary, but Linux runs on Intel.'

'Embedded devices are making greater use of open source.'

'There are an increasing number of companies developing software that aren't software companies.'

'Companies are increasingly supporting Linux.'

'It's free.'"

Logic also supports the filtering of independently-created elements. The purpose of the substantial-similarity analysis is to answer the question whether the defendant copied the work of the plaintiff. Ordinarily, similar elements between known work of the plaintiff and the defendant’s work will, depending on the degree of uniqueness and originality of the element, support such an inference. However, where defendant owns a prior work containing the same elements, he has no reason, beyond the illicit thrill of copyright infringement, to copy wrongfully from another what he could legally copy from himself. Therefore, where an element occurs both in the defendant’s prior work and the plaintiff’s prior work, no inference of copying can be drawn. See Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 1936) (“If the defendant has had access to other material which would have served him as well, his disclaimer [of copying] becomes more plausible.”); Ellis, 177 F.3d at 507 (“[A]n inference of copying is rebuttable by evidence of independent creation of the allegedly infringing work.”) (citations omitted). Such elements should be removed from consideration.

Therefore, we hold that elements of a copyright defendant’s work that were created prior to access to a plaintiff’s work are to be filtered out at the first stage of substantial-similarity analysis, just as non-protectible elements are. In the present case, no reasonable jury could have found substantial similarity solely on the basis of the six minor elements not so filtered. Therefore, Fox’s motion for judgment as a matter of law should have been granted.

Murray Hill v. Twentieth Century Fox (6th Cir. 2004).

The Myths of Open Source - Open Source - CIO Magazine Mar 1,2004

Fast Company | Wealth Creation, 21st-Century Style

Iraq on the Record

InfoWorld: Startup to sell open source insurance: March 16, 2004: By : Platforms

InfoWorld: Microsoft exec: Open source model endangers software economy: March 16, 2004: By Paul Krill: Platforms

[print version] Novell plugs open source, dings SCO | CNET News.com

[print version] Sun reluctant to make Java open source | CNET News.com

Answer questions? I'm late for the Rodeo. From Talking Points Memo