Straight from /. http://www.novell.com/training/certinfo/cle/index.html I thought it is still worth highlighting. (although I think they fail to mention it is GNU/Linux) Also I badly need a certification. Wonder when this will ever be available here. An exams only version will be nice. Regards, Ramanan
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Ramanan Selvaratnam wrote: > Straight from /. > > http://www.novell.com/training/certinfo/cle/index.html Novell certification will finally produce a scheme that business is willing to accept. > Wonder when this will ever be available here. > An exams only version will be nice. Yes but they wouldn't get the same level of income from that. ;) Jason Clifford -- --
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Ramanan Selvaratnam wrote: > > Yes but they wouldn't get the same level of income from that. ;) > > I would have thought Novell's existence is not dependent on the course > fees. No but every income stream is surely worth having. > I think MCSE's can be done on exams only basis... > Also I think I saw the RHCE can be done exams only. Yes they both can. Perhaps Novell are going to tie it up with some of their proprietary systems as well though as they are claiming it will feature enterprise (or Nterprise) systems. Jason Clifford -- -- UKFSN.ORG Finance Free Software while you surf the 'net http://www.ukfsn.org/ 1Mb ADSL Broadband - just £27.50 / month + Free Activation on all ADSL services
On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 09:36, Jason Clifford wrote: > > An exams only version will be nice. > > Yes but they wouldn't get the same level of income from that. ;) I would have thought Novell's existence is not dependent on the course fees. I think MCSE's can be done on exams only basis... Also I think I saw the RHCE can be done exams only. Best regards, Ramanan
On Sun, 2003-11-30 at 19:14, Alex Hudson wrote: > > Cool. With OSS watch we already have a lead then... > > IMHO a leaflet stand itself at the forthcoming event could go a long > > way. > > I'm not sure how much use a stand would be, but talking to people there > definitely would be useful. If anyone wants to go.... ;) OK, unless there are positive responses to stall we should get our very professional looking 'brochure' into any conference pack. If there is no conference pack then leaflet. The goal is visibility. No compromise to talking though. All the best, Ramanan
> Yes they both can. Perhaps Novell are going to tie it up with some of > their proprietary systems as well though as they are claiming it will > feature enterprise (or Nterprise) systems. Cool. I should get good marks on how to use Ximian EvolutionBeing more serious, does anyone know how active Novell are in the UK?
Traditionally manic-hyperbolic subhead from Wired introduces an interesting article: "Software is just the beginning … open source is doing for mass innovation what the assembly line did for mass production. Get ready for the era when collaboration replaces the corporation." http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/opensource.html -- -- Robin "it's FREE and we get the ability to modify the source code ourselves, something that is extremely dangerous to do, was discredited decades ago..." - Howard Strauss writing in Syllabus magazine http://www.syllabus.com/article.asp?id=8460
(1) I'm not sure whether I'm posting this to the right place, and (2) there's probably nothing to worry about anyway; -- But: has anybody checked the GPL against the proposed new EC antitrust regulation on technology transfer and licencing ? http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/legislation/draft_technology/regulation_en.pdf The draft regulations were published in October (I think) and the official consultation period has just closed (26th November). http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/legislation/entente3_en.html#technology For the first time, the new regime is explicitly intended to apply to copyright licencing as well as patent licensing. At issue is Article 81(1) of the EC treaty, and regulated exemptions to it. http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html > The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market, and in particular those which: > > (a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions; > > (b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment; > > (c) share markets or sources of supply; > > (d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby(Continue reading)
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 20:50, James Heald wrote: > Could it conceivably be argued that prima facie the terms of the GPL > might somehow be a restriction of freedom under 81(1)(a), 81(1)(b) or > 81(1)(e) ? 81(1)(a) seems to be a restriction on collusion (or whatever the word is ;) - as in, a restriction on cartels. However, I guess it is possible that the restriction within the GPL to do with resale value of source code is such a cartel. 81(1)(b) I'm not hugely worried about - I'm not sure how you might argue the GPL limits or controls production (there is none) nor markets nor investment. Maybe development could be arguable. 81(1)(e) similar - it's a fairly pure copyright licence, so I would suspect it would be difficult to argue any of it is supplementary in any way (I think this clause is more aimed at something like the BitKeeper licence, which would seem to contravene these regulations: it prevents you from developing completing software, which would seem to be both a supplementary restriction and a restraint on technical development). 81(1)(a) seems the most worrisome. Resale value of source code doesn't just apply to the original code, but also to your derivations. That's one point that I could see is arguable. However, I think 81(1)(a) is framed at agreements between competitors, not between supplier and customer, in which case it wouldn't apply to the GPL per se. > (b) any direct or indirect obligation on the licensee to assign, in > whole or part, or to a third party designated by the licensor, rights to > improvements to or new applications of the licensed technology. > > Could this affect the GPL ??(Continue reading)
On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 20:50, James Heald wrote: > (1) I'm not sure whether I'm posting this to the right place, and (2) > there's probably nothing to worry about anyway; > > -- But: has anybody checked the GPL against the proposed new EC > antitrust regulation on technology transfer and licencing ? > > http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/legislation/draft_technology/regulation_en.pdf > > The draft regulations were published in October (I think) and the > official consultation period has just closed (26th November). > http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/legislation/entente3_en.html#technology > > For the first time, the new regime is explicitly intended to apply to > copyright licencing as well as patent licensing. > > > At issue is Article 81(1) of the EC treaty, and regulated exemptions to it. > http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/legislation/treaties/ec/art81_en.html > > > The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market, and in particular those which: > > > > (a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions; > > > > (b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment; > > > > (c) share markets or sources of supply;(Continue reading)
RSS Feed2 | |
|---|---|
6 | |
4 | |
1 | |
4 | |
2 | |
15 | |
1 | |
6 | |
21 | |
6 | |
1 | |
20 | |
8 | |
22 | |
2 | |
4 | |
1 | |
4 | |
8 | |
4 | |
6 | |
13 | |
5 | |
7 | |
3 | |
177 | |
21 | |
1 | |
1 | |
13 | |
10 | |
6 | |
17 | |
4 | |
23 | |
114 | |
28 | |
98 | |
422 | |
19 | |
27 | |
12 | |
32 | |
3 | |
17 | |
25 | |
31 | |
19 | |
51 | |
37 | |
56 | |
71 | |
73 | |
56 | |
35 | |
4 | |
29 | |
26 | |
46 | |
70 | |
32 | |
58 | |
31 | |
8 | |
16 | |
28 | |
17 | |
8 | |
50 | |
85 | |
20 | |
13 | |
106 | |
59 | |
57 | |
29 | |
140 | |
186 | |
93 | |
59 | |
57 | |
51 | |
186 | |
110 | |
41 | |
89 | |
186 | |
120 | |
77 | |
238 | |
140 | |
170 | |
149 | |
265 | |
245 | |
37 | |
23 | |
43 | |
23 | |
56 | |
24 | |
35 | |
25 | |
20 | |
81 | |
21 | |
132 | |
285 | |
93 | |
1 | |
1 |
