Slashdot Mirror
Domain: gnu.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to gnu.org.
Comments · 13,360
-
Re:You missed the obvious joke...Why?
Because the GPL requires it. See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary and read the
next 4 or 5 entries.
Providing a legitimate link to source is just as good. Otherwise, they could be in for chewing up valuable bandwidth and transfer charges.
It's not "just as good" to provide a link to a site you don't control or have some sort of agreement in place with. From the GPL FAQ:
The GPL says you must offer access to copy the source code "from the same place"; that is, next to the binaries. However, if you make arrangements with another site to keep the necessary source code available, and put a link or cross-reference to the source code next to the binaries, we think that qualifies as "from the same place".
Note, however, that it is not enough to find some site that happens to have the appropriate source code today, and tell people to look there. Tomorrow that site may have deleted that source code, or simply replaced it with a newer version of the same program. Then you would no longer be complying with the GPL requirements. To make a reasonable effort to comply, you need to make a positive arrangement with the other site, and thus ensure that the source will be available there for as long as you keep the binaries available. -
If they didn't modify anything
Then they don't need to show you anything and can ignore your request - especially if the ShowMyPC program and VNC "communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program." On their page they don't say it is a GPL program, but based on open source programs. ShowMyPC should have a page like this that explains how they do not violate GPL http://www.crossloop.com/VNC.html What's most relevant to this topic is probably this. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLIn
P roprietarySystem I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do this? You cannot incorporate GPL-covered software in a proprietary system. The goal of the GPL is to grant everyone the freedom to copy, redistribute, understand, and modify a program. If you could incorporate GPL-covered software into a non-free system, it would have the effect of making the GPL-covered software non-free too. A system incorporating a GPL-covered program is an extended version of that program. The GPL says that any extended version of the program must be released under the GPL if it is released at all. This is for two reasons: to make sure that users who get the software get the freedom they should have, and to encourage people to give back improvements that they make. However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a single program. The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing. If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two separate programs--but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection. If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it "part of" a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software. But if they know that what they have received is a free program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be clear. -
Re:No source needed
Here's a link to the text of the license: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.
h tml If you follow the link and actually read the license, you'll see that section 2 obligates you to tell everyone about the license; it says nothing about the source code. You are apparently thinking about section 3, which does describe various ways to provide the source. -
Re:Theo was right.
Um, no. The "freedom not to contribute changes" is rather like the freedom to own slaves (insofar as the state of having access only to a binary and not the corresponding source is comparable to a state of servitude). Please read this essay and learn the difference between freedom and power. Anybody who tries to lock up code written by you for everyone's benefit as closed-source (an exercise of power) is seeking to deny others their freedom; and if you don't try to stop that somehow, then you are to some extent complicit in that denial of freedom. Use of the GPL is one way to prevent denial of freedom. The BSD project teams have chosen a different approach (wait for someone to try to cage it up, then reproduce any improvements they made and incorporate them in a new free release) which is not less valid than using a licence which specifically forbids caging, but may turn out to be harder work in the long run. You could say that using the GPL to avoid potentially having to redo other people's work is laziness -- but surely using somebody else's code instead of writing your own from scratch is also laziness?
-
Re:They may be fully compliant...Ya know. In the GPLv3 that's no longer the case: You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:
a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange.
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge. Which got me thinking.. maybe that was the intent in the first place.. If you go read the relevant section of the GPLv2: You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, See that "medium customarily used for software interchange" bit? I'm pretty sure that a court would interpret that as "send me a CD-ROM please", not "you can get it from this URL".
Of course, that means any distribution of object code, even with corresponding source code, that wasn't on physical medium would have been against the GPL.. and I doubt that was the intent.
BTW, under the GPLv3 the appropriate clause for network distribution of object code forms is: d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements. Or the peer-to-peer option of (e).
Which is one of the many reasons why the GPLv3 is so necessary. Things that were "adequate" in GPLv2 are just not today, as technology keeps moving forward. -
Re:They may be fully compliant...Ya know. In the GPLv3 that's no longer the case: You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:
a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange.
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge. Which got me thinking.. maybe that was the intent in the first place.. If you go read the relevant section of the GPLv2: You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, See that "medium customarily used for software interchange" bit? I'm pretty sure that a court would interpret that as "send me a CD-ROM please", not "you can get it from this URL".
Of course, that means any distribution of object code, even with corresponding source code, that wasn't on physical medium would have been against the GPL.. and I doubt that was the intent.
BTW, under the GPLv3 the appropriate clause for network distribution of object code forms is: d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements. Or the peer-to-peer option of (e).
Which is one of the many reasons why the GPLv3 is so necessary. Things that were "adequate" in GPLv2 are just not today, as technology keeps moving forward. -
Re:Why not?
From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#Develope
r Violate
"Is the developer of a GPL-covered program bound by the GPL? Could the developer's actions ever be a violation of the GPL?
Strictly speaking, the GPL is a license from the developer for others to use, distribute and change the program. The developer itself is not bound by it, so no matter what the developer does, this is not a "violation" of the GPL.
However, if the developer does something that would violate the GPL if done by someone else, the developer will surely lose moral standing in the community." -
Re:/. isn't where you report this
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
There ya go. -
small footprint means no gui
-
small footprint means no gui
-
Faves
CD ripping: abcde. Easy to control and customize.
Text editor: vim Yes, it is bigger than, say, nvi. But on most any machine, it usually runs lightning fast.
Shell: zsh. Not one of the smallest CLI shells, but very capable and well-documented. In many ways, easier to use than any GUI shell (and much lighter compared to any GUI shell.)
Calculator: command-line wcalc
Finances: Ledger whips everything I have ever tried; I would never switch to a GUI program for this again.
Lists and databases: colon-delimeted plain text files. Search and get records with awk or grep. Quicker and easier than spreadsheets, and I could (should) easily encrypt them with GPG.
Nutrition tracking: see sig (immodestly)
Task tracking: todo.txt
Photo sorting: just use GNOME's Nautilus and folders; all the photo album apps seem to be too much trouble. Wrote a zsh script to pull photos from memory cards, rename them so I know what camera they came from, rotate them, and dump them into a hard-drive folder so I can sort them out.
Light doesn't always pay: I got tired of trying to configure Fluxbox and Gentoo; now I'm on GNOME and Ubuntu. Light also doesn't pay for things done infrequently, as light often comes with a bigger learning curve. I usually resort to GUI tools to, for example, add users to the system.
I wish I could find a good CLI audio player--full featured, but CLI. MPD seems to come closest, but it can't get me away from Amarok. Similarly, GNUpod is pretty good for ipods, but I move stuff in and out of my iPod fairly rarely so I found Amarok is just easier to use. -
GAWK (the GNU awk)
The original awk cannot parse fixed-field data, which makes it nearly useless outside of academia (where inputs can be controlled, and profits are not an issue).
GNU awk, as maintained and extended by Arnold Robbins (author of Unix in a Nutshell, etc.) not only handles fixed fields reasonably elegantly, it also has socket I/O and numeric base manipulation functions. It's like a smaller, faster perl with a cleaner syntax - so clean almost anybody can learn it in two weeks or less (2 days for an expert programmer).
The only major thing wrong with it is the same thing that's wrong with all awks - it uses the space character as the string concatenation operator, which is a really stupid idea. -
Re:Oh!
Why yes, it actually does. http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/tour/
-
Oh!
Now that one's easy! `ed`. It's the standard editor for a reason, after all.
-
Re:Well, except that they haven't.
When I saw this yesterday, I actually experienced a few seconds of excitement that there might someday be a good X11 mail client.
Grab emacs 22; it includes a copy of gnus, an mail/news/RSS reader. Instructions on setting up email can be found in the info page (in emacs, C-h i m gnus m getting mail) or in the online documentation.
GNU emacs runs in a console, but it also runs in X11. It is capable of displaying inline images, of coloured/styled/font-ed text and of providing menus and toolbars if those float your boat. It's the best text editor out there, the best IDE and the best mail reader.
-
Choices aren't all equal.
Teh Lunix is all about choice... you can choose any application teh FOSSies want you to. But don't you DARE choose Microsoft.
While you may have hit a sore spot about the open source movement (which seems to have no problem with proprietary software when that software is reliable and powerful), the free software movement has never supported "choice" where any of the choices are non-free software. Prioritizing "choice" makes equals out of all possible choices which, in this context, makes it impossible to distinguish between software that denies and supports users' software freedom. Proprietary software always denies users software freedom and is therefore always objectionable. The FSF is quite clear about this; consider what they say about the "Sincere Choice" program which is a response to Microsoft's "Software Choice" program:
We don't completely agree with Sincere Choice, since it says that proprietary software is just as legitimate as free software. We firmly disagree: software should be free. However, if you know people who have been taken in by "Software Choice" please refer them to the Sincere Choice site.
-
Gnash
Want an alternative to Adobe's Flash? Take a look at gnash, the GNU Project's Flash player. It's still in alpha but works with a lot of flash stuff, including eg YouTube, and on 64-bit.
We don't need Yet Another Microsoft 'Standard'. -
Instead of putting the text in a program code
How about using a language tag like system( something similar to gettext http://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/ )? And spellchecking those files. Makes it easier to make an application support multiple languages as well.
-
A digital locker you can't own but must have.
This brings us one step further to losing your right to read. All they need to do is fill it with non free textbooks and tell you not to share them. If there's something everyone needs, you don't need to put it in a locker. A private space for students and computer access would be nice, but not if it's just another tool of control. Requiring the use of non free software is just the first part of that control and it's funny that one of the reasons given was the lack of reliability of the old non free software. The web already offers ways to share calendars, movies and the rest outside the control of the school.
-
BSD License ConfusionTheo,
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. I can take BSD code and make it proprietary and not even tell the original author.
But if I use this piece of code (Dual Licensed) you think I am obligated to share it with the OpenBSD guys? Hmmmm.
Lemme google for a sec......... Ok.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
Were these conditions met? Yep. The way I see it you have two choices.
F Off, or Contact the author of modified code and ask for permission to use in openBSD code. Note, The author of modified code has the right to say no, the code is GPL only.
These semi-bi-annual rants kinda make me want to release a complete dupe OS based on openBSD with all the code GPL'd. GNBSD (GNBSDs not BSD) Who's with me?
Seriously, I've never seen anyone outside of Microsoft so Anti-GPL.
You know, Theo, There is a license available to meet your share and share alike requirements. I think its called the General Public License http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html or something, by some crazy hippie guy who believes software should be freely distributed, shared, and modified.
Of course he's on the fringe and nobody would use software under those conditions. I mean how are we to make money with a scheme like that?
Surely if it worked, I'm sure major Corporations like IBM, SUN, and others would use it almost exclusively right?
-
Re:How's this funny again?
What's scary is, I'm betting Silverlight will be usable and well supported on 64-bit Linux before Flash is.
Depends what you mean by "64-bit Linux". Flash works fine on my AMD64 running 64-bit Linux -- it just does so as a 32-bit binary. Some 64-bit Linux systems (x86-64 and IA64) support 32-bit x86 binaries just fine.
I'd be surprised if Silverlight ever supports other 64-bit platforms (Sparc, PPC64, Alpha (if there are any of those still around -- I've got one but it hasn't been powered up in years)). Meanwhile, there's also gnash, GNU's Flash. -
Divisive BS.
If you want a particular function, app, service, etc to be completely GPL, WRITE THE FUCKING THING YOURSELF!
That might not be so hard with free code sitting in front of you. That's the beauty of free software. As easy as it may be, it's a duplication of effort and it kind of makes the dual licensing look silly.
What exactly is a dual license if the GPL provisions don't apply or have force because of the BSD portion? There's a fundamental difference in licensing philosophy that can't be ironed out by using both. People who strongly believe in the gpl don't want people using their code the way bsd allows and will never be able to "give back" in any other way than with gpl'd code of their own.
At the same time, what's the big deal with people stripping out the bsd portion? If the bsd people are really OK with the software being distributed as binaries by people who will NEVER give back anything, why would they be so angry at people who will only give them gpl'd code?
It all looks like a tempest in a teapot from lists that have have been played by the usual suspects in Redmond. When someone is an implacable ass, there's often a reason.
GPL and BSD people can live and let live. While it might be argued that BSD code can be used directly by the enemies of software freedom, no one would seriously propose that either the BSD or GPL camp would like to eradicate or subjugate the other.
-
Re:No... It's about something a little different..Since you seem to have a good handle on this I'll ask you: See what happens when you sound assertive enough on Slashdot? People are suckered into thinking you actually know what you're talking about!
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
Or the new GPL v3.0:9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
No, you're not required to accept the GPL at all, and if you choose not to accept it, then you are not bound by its terms. This section says nothing else grants you permission, but in the case of dual-licensed software, that's not the case: you can choose to accept the other license, and be bound by its terms instead. -
Re:No... It's about something a little different..Since you seem to have a good handle on this I'll ask you: See what happens when you sound assertive enough on Slashdot? People are suckered into thinking you actually know what you're talking about!
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
Or the new GPL v3.0:9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.
You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
No, you're not required to accept the GPL at all, and if you choose not to accept it, then you are not bound by its terms. This section says nothing else grants you permission, but in the case of dual-licensed software, that's not the case: you can choose to accept the other license, and be bound by its terms instead. -
Use the GPL as well
Those technical solutions are all very well, and I wish governments would get with the times and offer official digital timestamping services of their own, or bless some of the existing ones. Unfortunately, there's at least one good technical excuse why they need not rush to embrace these new ways. We don't have a proof that P!=NP, and a great deal of crypto (and other things) depends upon the assumption that P!=NP. Would be a bummer to set everything up, get systems, procedures, offices, legal traditions etc. all established, and then someone discovers that P=NP after all. (As if the possibilities from P=NP wouldn't be more than enough compensation for that drawback, but enough digression.) Well of course that's not why governments have not done more of this. It's not like governments waited around for proof that Intellectual Property was a good idea or even made sense before enshrining those concepts in law.
But being an Open Source, free-to-the world sort of person, I'm willing to share my knowledge to the world, as long as all credit points unambiguously to me.Very good. Why not use the Gnu Public License, or some other similar license? Here is how the GPL answers your concern.
If you think about it, identification is crucial. Neither copyright nor the GPL could not work if there was no way of attribution. Otherwise, anyone could claim to be the author of some GPLed software, and therefore perfectly within their rights to release "their" code under any other license they want. Imagine if no one could dispute a claim by Tivo that Tivo was the author of all the GPL code in their devices, because there was no legal means to identify who really wrote something.
Note that copyright law, and therefore the GPL, sidesteps all question of proof by technical means. The law dates to times long before there were even the concepts of one way hashes, public key encryption, and digital signatures, let alone equipment capable of doing it. The law simply uses witnesses. There are a few details to try to make witnessing more reliable, such as the process notaries go through to become notaries, or the registration process at a copyright office. The law is not without problems-- for instance there are rumors it is possible to copyright something in country A, and get shafted in country B as someone else copies your stuff and copyrights there in their name before you get around to it.
-
Re:scribd with non-proprietary sw?Isn't there a nonproprietary, 3rd-party flash implementation or two available? Might not hurt to see if any of those work. There is Gnash. It plays some Flash 7, but it's not complete.
-
Re:Hmm...
It also says,
slow down or terminate user accounts that AFACT has determined are being used to distribute copyrighted works.I upload copyrighted works all the time, such as this Slashdot post. I also upload source code I have written to my web page. I share free software with people. Looks like AFACT would have shut someone like me down.
Or we can stop saying broad things like this. The University of Kansas says, "if you are caught downloading copyrighted material, you will lose your ResNet privileges forever." You can't use the Internet without downloading copyrighted material. Unless you have spent your life in a coma, you are probably a copyright holder yourself. Even if you are not (for some odd reason), there are lots of copyrighted works that you have permission to share with anyone.
-
Re:Actually, yes, that CAN be a GPL violation.I see a problem with this related section:
Can I apply the GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free program?
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with the non-free main program would violate the GPL. However, you can resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license, giving permission to link it with the non-free main program.
Let's say I write a closed source program and several closed source plug-ins, distributing them together and also publishing the plug-in API. Someone else writes a GPL plug-in. Per this section, "that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with the non-free main program would violate the GPL". The plug-in developer can "resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license", or he could use the LGPL instead, but supposing he (perhaps intentionally) doesn't? In that case, who is in violation? The end-user who combines them has not distributed anything, so the GPL doesn't apply. According to this section, the developer of the GPL plug-in cannot be in violation of the GPL for his role here. Under the reasonable principle "Programs don't violate the GPL, people violate the GPL", there is only one actor left: me, the inadvertently GPL-violating author of the closed source application with a published plug-in interface. I'd like to think the FSF is not being intentionally vague here.
- T -
Re:Actually, yes, that CAN be a GPL violation.I see a problem with this related section:
Can I apply the GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free program?
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with the non-free main program would violate the GPL. However, you can resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license, giving permission to link it with the non-free main program.
Let's say I write a closed source program and several closed source plug-ins, distributing them together and also publishing the plug-in API. Someone else writes a GPL plug-in. Per this section, "that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with the non-free main program would violate the GPL". The plug-in developer can "resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license", or he could use the LGPL instead, but supposing he (perhaps intentionally) doesn't? In that case, who is in violation? The end-user who combines them has not distributed anything, so the GPL doesn't apply. According to this section, the developer of the GPL plug-in cannot be in violation of the GPL for his role here. Under the reasonable principle "Programs don't violate the GPL, people violate the GPL", there is only one actor left: me, the inadvertently GPL-violating author of the closed source application with a published plug-in interface. I'd like to think the FSF is not being intentionally vague here.
- T -
Re:fsf is a fair weather friend
Such assignment is non-exclusive. Basically, once copyright is assigned to the FSF they then grant a non-exclusive permissive license back to the assigner. In this way, he who wrote the code can still relicense or put his tree to whatever use he likes.
Secondly the GPL doesn't forbid one from examining code to see how something is done. If you positively absolutely want to develop a proprietary implementation of a method you saw in GPL code then no one will stop you. It would probably be best to use a Chinese Wall method but even just writing a spec from GPL code and re-implementing it seems to happen in the BSD world from time to time. This is fine as long as no copy/paste is going on.
What is and isn't permitted with a codebase isn't a black and white free-for-all or utterly-proprietary choice. I have no problem with BSD and proprietary code but then the GPL isn't the devil either. I don't have much truck with the FSF definition of "Free" but the GPL does embody a good approximation of what I call "Fair". It is pretty much tit-for-tat applied to software licensing which I and others find equitable enough. -
Actually, yes, that CAN be a GPL violation.
Read for yourself...
Read the GPL FAQ and it's discussion of linking. It's all about how you're linking.
For those folks who might not bother to follow a link:
Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?
It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license of the plug-in makes no requirements about the main program.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. In order to use the GPL-covered plug-ins, the main program must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when the main program is distributed for use with these plug-ins.
If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.
So, sometimes you're right, and there's no requirement that the other code be GPL'd.
BUT, conversely, sometimes there's code co-mingling, and that does mean that the new code is required to also be GPL'd.
What it boils down to is what you're really doing, and how you're really doing it, which seems pretty reasonable, when it comes down to it.
-
GPL plug-insNot if the GPL software is all in DLL's. Using a DLL with an app may constitute combining two programs into one work, in which case an app that imports from a DLL also imports obligations under copyleft. Whether or not a judge would apply copyleft depends on the facts, including whether the DLL is an integral part of the application's functionality (which implies combination) or is a replaceable plug-in (implies aggregation), and whether the interface between the app and the library resembles shared memory (combination) or streams (aggregation). See "Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered plug-in?" in the GPL FAQ.
-
source? No license!
In the gplv2
rule 1 states one must keep the licence intact.
Rule 2 asks for source.
So even if they provide source ( i bet they refer you to the download link of sourceforge.net) they still fail to obey the GPL because they DID NOT INCLUDE THE LICENSE. -
Re:What's the issue here?
Selling Free Software is just fine.
-
Re:Misleading summary
Part of the GPL says that they must "give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program." (section 1 at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.
h tml ). If the program did "included GPL and LGPL software without any mention of the GPL", it's a violation as far as any GPL software is concerned. I looked over the LGPL briefly, but didn't see any problems. ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html if anybody else wants to look.) -
Re:Misleading summary
Part of the GPL says that they must "give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program." (section 1 at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.
h tml ). If the program did "included GPL and LGPL software without any mention of the GPL", it's a violation as far as any GPL software is concerned. I looked over the LGPL briefly, but didn't see any problems. ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html if anybody else wants to look.) -
Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?
You've overlooked the key point: flash card provider is just passing along, unmodified, one-to-one, the copies he received from his upstream provider. This does NOT require permission of the copyright owner.
The flash card provider isn't passing it along*, the flash card provider is selling it. It's a bundle, but each component of that bundle has its own licensing requirements.
Perhaps this is why the GPL v3 uses the term "convey" rather than "distribute". Did you read the linked sections?
But if you aren't doing anything with software that requires permission, you have no obligation to obey GPL.
Nobody is under an obligation to obey the GPL if they don't distribute/convey.
Hypothetically, if there was actually no obligation to obey copyright restrictions/licensing when an item was resold, then the following scenarios may occur:
- Any second-hand books would be in the Public Domain.
- Any other resold software could be in the Public Domain or have any other license.
*Passing it along: I'm not sure what that means, but if it's something other than selling, please clarify. It looks to me like transfer of ownership of content fixed in a tangible medium and thus falls under copyright law.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html might explain it better than I can. Or perhaps this.
Upon closer look at 109's wording, lawfully made seems to be the key. If the accompanying CD is discarded then the product is no longer lawfully made and the First Sale doctrine might not apply. However, the caselaw is still coming into being.
-
Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?
When a customer buys your router, and finds out there is Linux in there somewhere, and wants the source, who do they get it from?
You have not modified the Linux I shipped to you. You have not made a copy of it. All you have done is take 5000 particular copies that I made, inserted flash cards containing no GPLed software, and then shipped out those particular copies. Does the first sale doctrine get you off the hook? It seems like it would.
You said "customer buys", so clearly this isn't an internal matter. It's instead a commercial matter.
This would be illegal under GPL v3 part 6, or GPL v2 part 3 or GPL v1 part 3. Providing only object code and depending on the buyer to get source code from upstream is only allowed in a noncommercial setting. The flash card provider would need to provide source code under one of the other options of those parts, or refrain from distribution.
-
Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?
When a customer buys your router, and finds out there is Linux in there somewhere, and wants the source, who do they get it from?
You have not modified the Linux I shipped to you. You have not made a copy of it. All you have done is take 5000 particular copies that I made, inserted flash cards containing no GPLed software, and then shipped out those particular copies. Does the first sale doctrine get you off the hook? It seems like it would.
You said "customer buys", so clearly this isn't an internal matter. It's instead a commercial matter.
This would be illegal under GPL v3 part 6, or GPL v2 part 3 or GPL v1 part 3. Providing only object code and depending on the buyer to get source code from upstream is only allowed in a noncommercial setting. The flash card provider would need to provide source code under one of the other options of those parts, or refrain from distribution.
-
Re:How is Microsoft bound by GPL3?
When a customer buys your router, and finds out there is Linux in there somewhere, and wants the source, who do they get it from?
You have not modified the Linux I shipped to you. You have not made a copy of it. All you have done is take 5000 particular copies that I made, inserted flash cards containing no GPLed software, and then shipped out those particular copies. Does the first sale doctrine get you off the hook? It seems like it would.
You said "customer buys", so clearly this isn't an internal matter. It's instead a commercial matter.
This would be illegal under GPL v3 part 6, or GPL v2 part 3 or GPL v1 part 3. Providing only object code and depending on the buyer to get source code from upstream is only allowed in a noncommercial setting. The flash card provider would need to provide source code under one of the other options of those parts, or refrain from distribution.
-
Re:Bogus!
You don't need a separate processor. There are other ways around the GPL.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlu gins
"It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them."
So you could have the proprietary stuff in a different process, i.e. a different address space. This seems to confirm it, so long as the proprietary stuff is communicated over a API which doesn't involve 'exchanging complex internal data structures'
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggre gation
Or you could make your own C runtime library and put them in that -
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WindowsRu ntimeAndGPL
Then when users in your company use the compiler they're allowed to link to the proprietary run time. -
Re:Bogus!
You don't need a separate processor. There are other ways around the GPL.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlu gins
"It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them."
So you could have the proprietary stuff in a different process, i.e. a different address space. This seems to confirm it, so long as the proprietary stuff is communicated over a API which doesn't involve 'exchanging complex internal data structures'
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggre gation
Or you could make your own C runtime library and put them in that -
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WindowsRu ntimeAndGPL
Then when users in your company use the compiler they're allowed to link to the proprietary run time. -
Re:Bogus!
You don't need a separate processor. There are other ways around the GPL.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlu gins
"It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them."
So you could have the proprietary stuff in a different process, i.e. a different address space. This seems to confirm it, so long as the proprietary stuff is communicated over a API which doesn't involve 'exchanging complex internal data structures'
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggre gation
Or you could make your own C runtime library and put them in that -
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WindowsRu ntimeAndGPL
Then when users in your company use the compiler they're allowed to link to the proprietary run time. -
Re:Seems fair to me
Moreso: What the Hypervisor is thought to achieve in an attempt to circumvent the GPL is actually something that was designed into the GPL from the very beginning: It was never forbidden to run proprietary code and GPLed code on the same machine. It was only forbidden to make a derivative work from GPLed code and distribute this with a license that is incompatible with the GPL. The FSF stated from the very beginning: If the proprietary code and the GPLed code don't share GPLed libraries or run in the same segment, everything is fine.
(See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndNon freeOnSameMachine)
The hypervisor is just another method to achieve exactly this behaviour that was built into the GPL from the very beginning: Make a clear distinction where the proprietary code runs, and where the GPLed code resides. So no: The hypervisor is not a "circumvention device against the GPL3". -
Re:The more you tighten your grip, RMS,
you can't GPLv3 your DRMing code
You are full of shit.you can use code released under GPLv3 to develop any kind of DRM technology you like.
-
Deals like this are bad and must be attacked
The problem with deals like the MS-Novell deal is that they have the potential to partition our community. Such deals are also bad from a purely economic point of view, as they give an unfair advantage to a single distributor. I don't think we want any future deals like this, so the GPLv3 included provisions designed to ensure that you can't just choose who will get patent protection - you must extend the protection to everyone if you do offer such protection at all.
Remember that the GPL is designed to protect the users of computer software, and I think GPLv3's provisions against patent protection deals is a good thing. We must attack such deals as a community. The Slashdot headline is a bit too speculative, but I think FSF would have a valid case if this reached the court one day, but IANAL (I'm not a lawyer).
Full disclosure: I'm a Contributing Member of the FSF.
I copy from the GPLv3 FAQ written by brett:
Section 11 How do the new terms of section 11 affect the Microsoft-Novell deal? We attack the Microsoft-Novell deal from two angles. First, in the sixth paragraph of section 11, the draft says that if you arrange to provide patent protection to some of the people who get the software from you, that protection is automatically extended to everyone who receives the software, no matter how they get it. This means that the patent protection Microsoft has extended to Novell's customers would be extended to everyone who uses any software Novell distributes under GPLv3. Second, in the seventh paragraph, the draft says that you are prohibited from distributing software under GPLv3 if you make an agreement like the Microsoft-Novell deal in the future. This will prevent other distributors from trying to make other deals like it. -
Bah.
The only open source java project worth noting these days is GCJ.
Anything deriving from Sun's JVM is over. Done. Good riddance. -
Re:And the very same thing RMS warned us about...Interestingly, Richard Stallman warned us about "Treacherous computing" years ago. It's sad that these things are becoming reality. Call him a zealot, call him an idealist, call him a communist if you want, but if there's one thing you positively can't call Richard M. Stallman, it's stupid.
But if you think Stallman was smart in 2002, when Trusted Computing was a brand new buzzword, remember that he actually predicted DRM before there was such a word as DRM -- he used the term 'copyright monitor code'. The Right to Read was written in 1996, more than 10 years ago. I remember reading it in a copy of Communications of the ACM early in 1997 and thinking 'OMG, he's right!' -
And the very same thing RMS warned us about...
Interestingly, Richard Stallman warned us about "Treacherous computing" years ago. It's sad that these things are becoming reality.
-
That's not the point being made. Crazy Law Ahead!
Let's worry about the actual point being made:
the Howells argued that their file-sharing program was "not set up to share" and that the files found by Media Sentry were "for private use" and "for transfer to portable devices, that is legal for 'fair use.'"
To see how retarded this is, take this "making available" nonsense a few steps down the slippery slope to DRM hell, where sharing is a crime:
- By putting copyrighted files on a shared computer, I'm making them available. At least one company has already been destroyed by the RIAA for letting their employees load music to an ftp server.
- By lending you my CDs, I'm making them available. This applies to libraries as well.
- Publishing any material that other people might copy is making it available.
Citizen, have you been sharing your password access? Do you have the right to read anymore?
Copyright is supposed to encourage publication for the benefit of the public domain. It is supposed to be a temporary exclusive right to publish. People violating that exclusivity could be told to stop and sued in civil court by the rights holder. Punishing people who are actually performing copyright's original function, without actual proof of damages is little more than coporate welfare. Don't think for an instant that you will be protected in the same manner if some big dumb company takes your text, images or recordings and sells them. A $40,000 judgment is sure ruin to most people, but less than a slap on the wrist to the companies pushing these crazy cases.
If we give this kind of power to publishers, every education will create a life time's worth of debt for little more than access to textbooks. Imagine music industry methods applied to all human knowledge. As Newton understood, every person's contribution to human knowledge is dwarfed by the accumulated store. What you have will be held cheap and you will have to work very hard to get what you need.