Re: The penguin puts on a tie (Jan. 24)
MySQL comes under both the GPL license and a traditional commercial license. So our customers need not figure out anything at all regarding
licensing – they can simply go for the commercial license which is similar to any commercial software license out there.
Technical support should not be a problem. MySQL AB — the company that owns, develops and markets MySQL — has offered commercial 7×24 support to small and large customers since 1999. As an example, you may know that Yahoo uses MySQL in mission-critical applications to power their Web site.
Re: Vets want leash put on fee for pet ID chips (Jan. 21)
I am upset after reading about the annual fee in ITBusiness.ca. We had our dog microchipped on the basis that this was a one-time cost. As an IT person with 30-plus years experience, I know it doesn’t take $18-plus a year to administer a database: $3,600,000 (400,000 X 1/2 X $18) is ridiculous!
The article stated that pet owners didn’t seem to be against it. Well I am. I am a pensioner now and don’t need rules changing like this and praying upon the love of my pet. I am sure there are alternative ways of operating. Anitech needs to get their act together.
Re: The people’s operating system (Jan. 17)
I find it amazing that you could link Microsoft’s ‘Shared Source’ concept with anything in the open source community, or that you find it new.
Being able to access the source is not a big deal in and of itself, but being able to access the source, fix it and then release that fix out to others for free or for cost is. Microsoft doesn’t allow this, but has allowed governments to view their source code at a cost for years. This announcement is simply that they are allowing more companies to do it.
I do not see this as a win or a tie for open source. I see it as Microsoft muddying the waters around what open source means.
Re: The people’s operating system (Jan. 17)
Unfortunately, Microsoft’s move to make source code available to governments under its “”Government Security Program”” isn’t nearly as positive as it may seem at first blush. All Canadian provinces, territories and municipalities, all 50 U.S. states and all U.S. municipalities are expressly excluded from this program. (“”The program is not designed for government agencies at a state, or provincial, or local level.”” – per Craig Mundie, senior vice president and chief technical officer of advanced strategies and policies at Microsoft – seehttp://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2003/Jan03/01-14gspmundie.asp)
Surely security is as big an issue for provincial, state and local governments as it is for governments at the federal level, yet they’re not entitled to the benefit of this program. Does that make sense to you? Is this truly a “”win-win-win”” situation or just window-dressing?
Province of Ontario
Management Board Secretariat
Re: New Year’s reality check (Jan. 10)
I would like to clarify the difference between suing someone and filing a criminal charge. Intentia has not sued Reuters. To be able to do this we must prove in what way they caused us financial damage. We have not defined this and consequently not sued Reuters.
What we did was to conclude that by looking at Swedish criminal law we could not rule out the fact that what they did could be considered a criminal act. Obviously the police and later the district attorney (DA) believed the same since they both initiated a formal criminal investigation. Does this mean that the DA will take Reuters to court on the for illegal entry or breaking the rules of corporate secrets (corporate espionage)? No one knows — yet. In the coming days we are expecting the DA to make his decision.
One thing which has been absolutely obvious in this case is that Swedish criminal and IT laws do not have any reference cases whatsoever to lean on, which is why many in both governmental and the private sector are very interested in this case.
Head of investor & corporate relations
Intentia International AB
Re: Media levy hike may force vendors to drop products (Dec. 11)
I would like to bring another aspect of this story to your attention. After the initial outcry, there were many Canadians and businesses that were willing to take up the fight on this issue. The list of objectors was quite lengthy and their official statements were equally so. In order to avoid having to hear out everyone, the objectors were basically conned into attending a meeting in early September. At this hearing, they were locked out of the proceedings without being able make any statements and only the official lawyers were able to make any representations on their behalf or address the proceedings. Many of these individuals had to shell out of pocket for flights to attend this meeting or lose their status as objectors. The official transcript makes it very clear that there was never any attempt to even hear these individuals out. Since that date the reviewing panel has scheduled and re-scheduled the meeting a number of times, forcing additional fees on the objectors in an attempt to get them to drop off. This was very apparent from the transcripts that were available on the board’s Web site.
In December, an interim ruling was put in place with language that allows the tariffs to be held in place for an indefinite period, even beyond the time frame covered by the original language. This allows the board to drag out the proceedings until they can whittle down the objectors.
The latest blow in this scheme, is that they are no longer providing transcripts of the proceedings due to the negative comments they have been receiving as a direct result of the online access to those transcripts. At this time you are referred to a third party company that doesn’t even allow you to purchase the transcripts individually. Or at least they wouldn’t let me order them without subscribing to just about everything happening in Ottawa.
Just another log on this fire for your consideration.
Letters to the editor must include the writer’s name and company name along with an e-mail address or other contact information. All letters become the property of ITBusiness.ca. Editors reserve the right to edit submissions for length and content.