Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Submission + - SPAM: False Advertising To Call Software Open Source When It's Not, Says Court

An anonymous reader writes: Last year, the Graph Foundation had to rethink how it develops and distributes its Open Native Graph Database (ONgDB) after it settled a trademark and copyright claim by database biz Neo4j. The Graph Foundation agreed [PDF] it would no longer claim specific versions of ONgDB, its Neo4j Enterprise Edition fork, are a "100 percent free and open source version" of Neo4J EE. And last month, two other companies challenged by Neo4j – PureThink and iGov – were also required by a court ruling to make similar concessions.

ONgDB is forked from Neo4j EE, which in May 2018 dropped the GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL) and adopted a new license that incorporates the AGPLv3 alongside additional limitations spelled out in the Commons Clause license. This new Neo4j EE license forbade non-paying users of the software from reselling the code or offering some support services, and thus is not open source as defined by the Open Source Initiative. The Graph Foundation, PureThink, and iGov offered ONgDB as a "free and open source" version of Neo4j in the hope of winning customers who preferred an open-source license. That made it more challenging for Neo4j to compete.

So in 2018 and 2019 Neo4j and its Swedish subsidiary pursued legal claims against the respective firms and their principals for trademark and copyright infringement, among other things. The Graph Foundation settled [PDF] in February 2021 as the company explained in a blog post. The organization discontinued support for ONgDB versions 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6. And it released ONgDB 1.0 in their place as a fork of AGPLv3 licensed Neo4j EE version 3.4.0.rc02. Last May, the judge hearing the claims against PureThink, and iGov granted Neo4j's motion for partial summary judgment [PDF] and forbade the defendants from infringing on the company's Neo4j trademark and from advertising ONgDB "as a free and open source drop-in replacement of Neo4j Enterprise Edition" The defendants appealed, and in February the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court decision that the company's "statements regarding ONgDB as 'free and open source' versions of Neo4j EE are false."

Link to Original Source

Submission + - SPAM: Each Launch of the Space Launch System Will Cost an "Unsustainable" $4.1B 2

schwit1 writes: This will likely come as a surprise to no one who has closely watched the development of NASA’s next giant rocket, the Space Launch System (SLS), but it’s going to be expensive to use. Like, really expensive – to the tune of $4.1 billion per launch, according to the NASA Inspector General. That’s over double the original expected launch cost.

It is also an absurd amount of money, coming in at a whopping $58,000 per kilogram launched to low Earth orbit if the expected payload weights are to be believed. Granted, SLS would potentially be the biggest launch system ever created when (or if) it leaves the ground. Therefore, it would have the unique ability to launch single payloads that had never been possible before. So, where did it all go so wrong?

SLS’s development started in 2011 after NASA retired the Space Shuttle. Lacking a system to put its own astronauts into orbit, NASA reached out to its commercial partners to help facilitate its design and construction. Budgeted initially with $7 billion, the project cost has ballooned to over $23 billion, with no end in sight.

Link to Original Source

Comment Re:Critical timing (Score 2) 55

TFA really doesn't explain why it is they want such accurate timing.
The only reasons I can think of are to be immune from GPS spoofing (You expect me to believe those signals? They're off by a whole nanosecond!) and to build your own dynamic positioning network by comparing timestamps of all your various vehicles as perceived by each other (I'm 1234.567m from you, and 2345.678m from him, and how far are you from each other?).

Comment Because it worked well last time (Score 1) 24

NASA paid $396 million to SpaceX (in a series of chunks) to develop Falcon 9 and Cargo Dragon. This investment paid handsomely, saving them a lot compared to what they would have paid for equivalent services from existing providers. They similarly invested in Crew Dragon, and will similarly win from that investment. So I expect they're thinking, hey, let's try that same trick again, see what happens. source

Comment Unidirectional (Score 3, Informative) 132

I notice these ATMs can only be used for turning cash into crypto. But not the other way around, because that would be impossible unless you waited at the ATM for potentially several hours for your transaction to clear.

As such, these ATMs offer only one "improvement" over directly transferring money from a bank account to a crypto account online, via your PC or smartphone: here, you go via cash as an intermediate step. In what circumstance could that extra step possibly be an advantage? When you want to obfuscate the trail. In other words, these are only better when you're up to something dodgy.

Comment Re:Bitcoin in a 3rd world country... (Score 1) 105

Yes, the US dollar is already the currency of El Salvador. They discontinued their own currency in 2001 according to Wikipedia.

I believe the problem they're trying to solve is that current international transfer methods such as Western Union take a huge slice and are hugely inconvenient. So it's possible that if Bitcoin takes a moderate slice and is only moderately inconvenient, it might be an improvement.

Slashdot Top Deals

That does not compute.

Working...