Some very interesting blog entries below the referenced article suggest that the entire study is a sham. A FUD attempt to discredit the GPL. The following quote is one of the more interesting ones. Makes perfect sense to me--check Savannah and sourceforge for yourself. Just exactly WHO is behind the 451 Group anyway??

"Jasper Nuyens says:
December 17, 2011 at 6:48 pm

I agree with orbit that this is propaganda = possibly sponosered by Microsoft as they are the only company publicly opposing the GPL license and funding BlackDuckSoftware.

Yet one can clearly do the math themselves. Savannah.org and sourceforge.net both allow the searching for license type. It clearly shows that the GNU GPL license is the only important remaining licence, with a big growth in the GPLv3 area the last years (wheiter you like it or not).

Sourceforge lists 1014 MIT licensed projects while over 13.000 GPL projects. Impossible that MIT license would be at 11%
AGPL licensed by sourceforge over 370, so there are only 47 projects licensed unther the AGPL and not on sourceforge? Seems unlikely!

Fear, uncertainty, doubt nice try, but no win today!"

Very good point. You can count on it. And the replacement is most likely not so easy to detect or understand. Perhaps they can switch it on or off and collect the data as a pool at opportune times when it may not be so easily noticed. As long as they have the source code and you don't, there is no way for you to understand how the device works, for or against your wishes. If you are not permitted to rebuild it, then you will never understand how it truly works. ...I guess the poor unwary consumer will just have to *trust* them as money flows aggressively from their shallow wallet to the deep corporate coffers. heh heh.

Stuckmud,
Excerpt from your link above,
"A program called a compiler is used to create the second from the first, and the compiler is usually trusted to do an honest job."

You don't have to just trust the compiler because it also is GPL and open to inspection and rebuilding and calling out anything unusual. The *entire* solution is GPL, including the means to build it. So yes, I stand by my original post. If there are NO secrets, then honesty will "generally" prevail. The more secrets you have, as in proprietary solutions that you are not permitted to see or handle, then the more risk of this type of back-door, hidden features behavior. Big business wants to make money and big brother wants to keep tabs on people when he sees fit to do so. The unwary consumer just wants cool new technology with fancy bells and whistles.

Let everyone, know and build it, and it will stay clean. Under the watchful eyes of many; nefarious back-door privacy or security issues will be called out quickly and corrected. Transparency and sharing knowledge and solutions is the key--the GPL provides one very effective way to address that.

I would not be surprised if any cell phone, even the dumb ones, could be remotely enabled to log keys and other private information at the drop of a hat with order from proper authority. I could see the big corporations and government interesting lying somewhere along the lines of "The technology is capable of it, why not include the feature for the sake of public "security"? Same goes for any of the cloud connected network devices, such as the Kindle. Remember, when you are in the cloud you are in another parties home, running on their network under their control. Do you trust them with your private information? You better read *all* of the fine print before agreeing to it and using their services. Even then, can you really *trust* them?? What can't they tell or reveal to you because their mouths are zipped with all of the blessings of the US government?
"Show me the source code, and let me rebuild it" is the only way to be sure. To be sure you, or someone else who you trust, need to be able to inspect it and reconstruct it to confirm that is does what you want it to do and does not do what you don't want it to do.

Such as in the case of using the GPL. This is why the GPL rules when it comes to privacy and controlling the technology you use. Proprietary solutions, such as found in today's smart phones, are very risky because you have no way of knowing the full extent of what harmful things they can actually do.

You probably gave them your blessings in the user and/or license agreement in one way or another. Not that you would actually understand what you gave up--they would not want that. It's all in the fine print, buried in the legal-eeze. You need a lawyer anymore when you purchase a simple gadget if you really want to understand what it means for you to have it in your possession.

Perhaps Watson could just deduce from it's vast array of data and "knowledge" that software patents are *all* invalid. ...That software has no place in the patent pool, period.

Watson might also find that the heavy cost of all patents, in general, far outweigh the benefits. Patents are a sum dredge on society, stifling innovation, providing government sponsored fleecing, and promoting severe anti-competitive behavior in the markets. Get rid of them all, but keep copyright and trademark protection in force.

No man or business entity should be able to "own" the constructive use of knowledge....I'm sure Watson would agree with me :)

The fees and complexities to file a patent are beyond reach for nearly all of society, except the businesses and people who can afford the cost. Access to the patent system should be free. After all, patents are supposed to benefit society--so why should patents have any fee at all to obtain. The entire patent system would obviously fold if this were the case. So tell me how government sponsored monopolies granted to patent trolls and monopoly organizations somehow advances society and the arts? The patent system is totally abused and convoluted and should be eliminated completely.

The whole patent system, as it is currently, looks like a government propped racketeering system designed to enrich the wealthy at cost to the common folk. The costs in dealing with it bring us down as a society. It does nothing more than stifle competition, breed corruption, and higher prices of goods and services. It is a game of the wealthy, waged with great success, against the common man. Monopolization of ideas--pathetic and sad. Why should anyone be the servant to another's idea?

"Personally, I wouldn't want to fly in a plane that hadn't been certified by the FAA."
How about flying in a plane that has been certified by an private organization that can provide proof that their certification program is at least an order of magnitude better than the FAA certification--but they don't bother with the FAA certification? Would you fly in the aircraft then?

There ARE bazillions of good ideas out there now that may never be patented because the folks can't afford to proceed with the current system. I personally have many very good ideas that I choose not to patent because of the high cost of entry. That does not make my ideas any less worthy of patent protection. Worse yet, some of those can be found, stolen, or rediscovered by others or businesses, with the money to patent them and they do.

So then why should only the few who can afford the big money risk it takes to get one be afforded the monopoly on their idea. It should be accessible to all on an even basis--it is not currently fair in this regard because of the cost of entry. If in the end, the result after making it available to all at no cost, is that it is deemed worthless or not worth the cost to maintain, then so be it--all for the better. We do not need patents at all, they serve to artificially inflate the costs of goods and services through government condoned and enforced monopolies. U.S. Government is supposed to be "For the people, by the people", not "For the business, by the business".

The current system is rigged to benefit the wealthy. The answer for how to fix the system is very simple. Make the patent system truly accessible to all. Force the patent office to reduce the charges of filing and obtaining a patent to $0. Then anyone could write and submit a patent, even a person of little means. By allowing anyone, on an even scale of zero cost to submit a patent, we would then see how fast the system got fixed, streamlined, and simplified. Why should a system that is supposed to be "beneficial to society" be accessible only to the people and businesses who have the money to buy into it? Why not let anyone with a decent idea be permitted to submit, at *zero* cost?

If we were to do this, the patent absurdity would be magnified to the point that we would all agree that patents are silly, unfair, and should be abolished. Patents are nothing but a detriment to society. Patents need to be abolished in the better interest of promoting innovation, competition, and the advancement of society and the arts. Stick a fork in them all!

If my memory serves me, the government can be considered "exempt" in any case of of patent infringement. Go figure.

Oh yea. I did just sign that petition. Spitting into the wind... Thanks.

To the proprietary game vendors you ARE a magpie with a wallet, but that is your choice. They aim their powerful marketing cannons and blast away. Consumers just eat it up and pay pay pay only to find that whatever they buy becomes obsolete in fairly short order. Repeat cycle over and over again. You play "their game".
Well perhaps you should just stop playing "their game". If you have a decent computer, then download/get a copy of BZFlag and go with that. It is a great game and is totally free to install and use. You can even design your own boards for it if you want to. BZFlag is free as in GPL and costs nothing to obtain and use and it is loads of fun. It beats any proprietary game out there.

You typically do not know how long the systems will be used. In many cases they are used to the point that they no longer work. When you are dealing with Windows, that does not take very long. Many windows users actually replace their systems when the software fails--they think they need a new PC. If the systems are older you won't even get latest Windows to run on them--and if it does somewhat run it will be a wast of time for them because the systems will be slow and problematic.
Then there is the licensing issue. Can you distribute Windows to them? Do you have a license to distribute Windows? Are you breaking the license agreement that you agreed to when you originally installed Windows on those systems. IANAL, but you may be setting yourself up for a legal mess with Windows. Read the EULA for details--get good legal advise to be sure. ..Then also how long will Windows run effectively before it gets roached and what about anti-virus software costs, and added costs of applications. When you give them Windows you give them a headache and expenses they do not need--like giving them a free Great Dane puppy from the pound but not as lovable.
So after the 2.5 years of XP support, then what do you do? Endgame in action, more costs.
Now consider the solution using Linunx Mint, or Ubuntu long term support (LTS). When the current LTS support expires the next LTS version will already be available at no charge and supported for another two years. Then on top of that you get the freedom of the GPL, so you can set up a system as a server without the restrictions and costs that occur with Windows. Hell, you can not even set Windows desktop up as a server--it is against the license. But you can use a NIX system any way you want, server, desktop, storage appliance, or whatever is needed. Windows desktop is heavily restricted in what you can use it for--single purpose desktop single user, that is it.

With Linux (Ubuntu, Mint, or others) you can duplicate, replicate, install, move hard drive images around, all you want without having to go through the reactivation mess of Windows. With Ubuntu or Mint, updates take seconds and most times do not even need a reboot. Windows updates take hours, days, and can result in totally screwed up systems--been there many times.

If you want the typical bloated, slow, resource sucking, application with all the bells and whistles that runs only on Windows platform, then go for it. Pony up the cash, saddle up and ride away. If you can convince customers to pay good money for the ride, then more power to you.
On the other hand, if you want to be able to leverage code artifacts to the fullest and reuse solutions for other, more cost efficient platforms, say Linux, then your .NET application is totally stuck in the muck. Don't even think about moving it, you will have all kinds of IP problems, and will be unable to make any kind of efficient move to another platform anyway. Was .NET more about locking business into the myopic servitude of a Windows-only world? It succeeded at that. ...but egads! its no longer a Windows-only world.