GPL vs MS EULA's
by
Gentoo+Fan
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I know it's mostly apples to oranges, but considering how infrequently the GPL is updated comparing this with both the size and likely tweaking of a standard MS EULA would hopefully be a good arguing point with possible Linux converts. Anyone know of a repository of EULAs and how frequently they get updated?
Re:GPL vs MS EULA's
by
DunbarTheInept
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
They can have it one way or another, but not both. Either EULAs are enforcable contracts entered into willingly and knowingly by both parties, in which case they [b]must[/b] be publicly visible to the consumer BEFORE they make the purchase, or they aren't. If you hide a contract from one of the parties involved until after it is agreed to, then it should not be enforcable.
Of course, that was me living in my fantasy world where the courts are doing their job with fair minded justice and honesty. I now return you to reality, in which EULAs are both proprietary secret documents and enforcable documents.
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:GPL vs MS EULA's
by
0racle
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I have this bad habbit of bringing facts to the irrational discussions on Slashdot. they [b]must[/b] be publicly visible
Since RMS's office is now in the Gates building, maybe he has been assimilated and GPL v3 will include terms allowing Microsoft to make use of GPLed code and not release their sources, since the GPL has t erms allowing you to use a subsequent version
That's one way to close up all the open software. The GPL provides for redistribution under that version of the GPL, or any later version. Microsoft could have RMS killed, and then forcefully take ownership of the FSF. They would right a new GPL to their advantage, and then "release" all of the currently GPL'ed software to themselves under their new license.
-- Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
The GPL provides for redistribution under that version of the GPL, or any later version.
No, it doesn't. The recommended language for using the GPL suggests that you allow that, but the license itself doesn't require it.
A number of prominent authors (I believe Alan Cox is one) release only under v2 for precisely this reason.
Note, too, that the standard copyright disclaimer you sign if you're releasing software to the FSF has language in it that terminates those rights if they distribute under a non-free license (see the disclaimer form for exact wording).
-- rage, rage against the dying of the light
Re:New Terms
by
PugMajere
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Alan Cox is definitely not one of them.
Linux Torvalds, however, distributes the Linux kernel under that license.
Same way the Scientologists took control of the Cult Awareness Network. Sue them, get a judgement to force bankruptcy, buy the name at the court auction, set up shop as the FSF (a Microsoft subsidiary).
-- Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Re:New Terms
by
cpeikert
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Since RMS's office is now in the Gates building...
Actually, it's not -- it's between the Gates and Dreyfoos Towers, but "officially" on the Dreyfoos side. See?
> GPLv2 says I can distribute your software under the terms of GPLv3.
As I said in the post you were replying to, GPLv2 says no such thing--that was, indeed, the point of my post.
There is a recommended way of releasing your software under the GPL which includes the statement
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
Note, though that this statement is NOT part of the GPL. It is merely a common way of legally releasing software under the GPL, and is recommended in Appendix A of the FSF's COPYING--but is clearly after the uppercase "END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS", in a section called "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" that includes a number of other recommendations that are not part of the GPL (e.g. recommended disclaimers of warranty, program startup messages, etc).
The GPL itself says the following (in section 8):
If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
Clearly implying that the "any later version" wording is NOT the only way to release under the GPL.
Among the programs that DO NOT use the "any later version" clause is the Linux kernel; the COPYING file from the Linux source tree says:
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
As another poster pointed out, Alan Cox is not one of the developers who avoids "any later version", but Linus is.
-- rage, rage against the dying of the light
Interesting to note the new terms
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Funny
"By using this software, you agree that Microsoft is teh suxx0rz!!!!"
Patents and compatiability?
by
m50d
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Will this version become comptiable with licenses with patent clauses, like the apache, IBM and CPL licenses?
-- I am trolling
Re:Patents and compatiability?
by
Tony+Hoyle
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
That's a biggie for me at the moment... I'm faced with rewriting all my code to not use GPL libraries or code simply because I want to license under Apache or Sendmail licenses (not decided which, but leaning towards the Sendmail one). It's not like I want to make anything proprietary or closed - in fact I want to *remove* restrictions but the GPL as currently worded won't let me.
Re:Patents and compatiability?
by
eison
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Afraid that is the *point* of the GPL.
The GPL is pushing a political agenda: "preserve, protect and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer software." (from front page of gnu.org)
That restriction is the #1 thing that does support that agenda - if people find GPLed code useful enough that they want to use it, they will need to let others do likewise when they distribute their code.
I find it's not always what I want to do with my code (my agenda is often more in line with BSD), but it strikes me as genius in this means to achieve its end.
-- is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
Re:Draft Copy?
by
MankyD
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Not to be mean, but RTFA:
The changes planned for the next release, Version 3, a draft of which is due next year,...
GPL 3 Now Contains Flouride!
by
dbretton
·
· Score: 4, Funny
They're trying to drain our precious bodily fluids...
Good :)
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I got mod points to burn, so I'll shoot...
Hopefully, they'll include the clause to allow companies to tahe GPL'd software, rip the copyrights out, and incorporate it into their own products and claim ownership.
This would solve the "problems" with the GPL all the "analysts" keep huffing and puffing about, and would allow our good friends at MS to use GPL code in their products and file suits against the authors who wrote it for "copyright violations."
FLAME ON!!! >:)
Only one change in v3.0
by
Neil+Blender
·
· Score: 4, Funny
It is now known as the GNU/GPL license.
Re:Only one change in v3.0
by
InfiniteWisdom
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I guess Steve needs to go to the gym a bit
Is this really necessary?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The GPL works very well at the moment. Introducing a new version could confuse what is at the moment a very easy to understand concept-- if you alter GPLed code you have to let everyone use your alterations as GPLed code as well-- as well as creating schisms in OSS development. As far as I am aware some software-- including the Linux kernel if I'm not incorrect-- don't license to the GPL itself or "GPL 2 or later", they license to one specific version.
The open source community is going to have to deal with patents at some point, since patent abuse will soon be the #1 defense commercial software has (Mr. McNealy of Sun has been making some fascinating comments lately) now that they can't compete on merit or any other fair method. However I hope they are very careful with exactly how they introduce this into GPL3. Patents are already nicely covered in the GPL by requiring that you cannot distribute a GPL program if there are patent restrictions on it. But if a line gets in like "by releasing this program, you grant a universal license to open source software to use all applicable patents" it could hinder uptake of GPLed software by companies fearing that by distributing GPL3'd code they would be at risk of accidentally licensing patents without realizing it.
Re:Is this really necessary?
by
donutz
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
A problem with the GPL, other than patents, is the use of GPL software in a network setting. Let's say I set up a web server, and offer a service to customers, using a modified piece of GPL licensed software. Let's say it's a PHP CMS, for example.
I'm not technically distributing the software, I'm letting people use it, so I'm not required to distribute my changes to my customers or whoever asks for the source. At least, that's how some see it.
A revision to the GPL could eliminate the confusion, and state whether or not such a situation requires distributing modified sources or not.
Re:Is this really necessary?
by
flossie
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
In fact, it amazes me that (AFAIK) none of the megacorps has yet tried to assimilate AnyGPL'd code on the basis that the licence under which it was distributed was GPL version 19,754, as defined by MegaCorp, Inc., and they therefore have full rights (and no-one else has any).
I think you are missing the fact that the GPL itself is covered by copyright. You cannot distribute a work (i.e. license) derived from the GPL without the permission of the copyright holder (the FSF).
Changes to the GPL
by
KJACK98
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
For me the weaknesses that need to be addressed in the GPL are most definitely patents, the confusion around dynamic/static compiling + web services. Get rid of this issue of two licenses (GPL/LGPL/ or the new trend that is even more confusing GPL + Linking Clause?!?) which causes a lot of problems for reuse of code. Having a 'viral license' just scares corporate use of our code. Other issues are enforcement of trademarks, so that companies can have commercial offerings by offering a particular 'brand'. At the end of the day the license must continue to protect its most important aspect, that all code changes to the software must be contributed back - preferably in a free downloadable manner (mailing $15 for the source code when the binary is available free online goes against its principles).
Re:Changes to the GPL
by
mrchaotica
·
· Score: 3, Informative
mailing $15 for the source code when the binary is available free online goes against its principles
According to the GPL FAQ, that's already disallowed:
Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
Yes. You can charge any fee you wish for distributing a copy of the program. If you distribute binaries by download, you must provide "equivalent access" to download the source--therefore, the fee to download source may not be greater than the fee to download the binary.
--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:Changes to the GPL
by
GigsVT
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
See, the thing is, the GPL FAQ isn't the GPL. It's just sorta the way they see it.
The GPL FAQ has no legal weight, other than seeing what the FSF might sue you over and what they might not.
-- I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:Changes to the GPL
by
DunbarTheInept
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The problem is over just what does and doesn't constitute "derivative code". If I publish a product in which my code has a shell script that calls out to gzip, just how derivative is my work? The fear companies have is over this feature. The LGPL is a bit clearer, but the GPL isn't too clear one way or the other. Some ways to read it might give the impression that as long as you ship a GPL tool alongside your own tool, and make any sort of call from your tool to the GPL tool (i.e. a shell script calling gzip), that your own tool is now GPL too.
--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The lack of explicit answers to questions about remote linking and the like are causing increasing problems with the GPL. Currently, you can not statically link to a GPLed library, nor can you dynamically link. However I believe you can dlopen a GPLed library as well as including the functionality in another program which you communicate to via RPC, provided that your program is functionally still useful without the helper program. Further, you may not link against a GPLed appliation but you may communicate with it via RPC, TCP, etc. Finally, you only need to give a copy of the source to a person who you give a copy of the binary to. This of course means that you can put a GPLed application on your webserver and you never have to give the source to anybody if you so choose, even if you make the output freely available, or if use of your application only makes sense by remote execution. So what does 'distribute' mean in this interconnected world? If I can ssh into a box and run a binary, has it been distributed to me? What if I can run it via a web server? Or a caching proxy? And I understand you don't have to release source provided you only use the application internally, but the definition of internally has a few surprises for most lay people.
Now, did anybody follow all that? And I'm not even sure I got it all right. The next version will be long overdue.
You're hopelessly overcomplicating the matter by introducing a lot of noise that isn't in the GPL.
The GPL does not talk about linking.
The GPL does not talk about web servers.
The GPL talks about what you can do with the code. Derivative works have to be available under the GPL. If you give somebody a copy of the program to run then you have to give them the source. That is all.
If you have an application that links to a GPLed library, your application is ***PROBABLY*** a derivative work of the library, because that's the way in which we normally use libraries. No transformations on the method of linking, however creative, will alter this; the work is a derivative because it is a derivative, not because of the manner in which you load the library.
If you give the program to somebody, you have to give them the source. If you run the program for them, and give them the output, you do not have to give them the source. This does not change just because a web server is involved.
Currently, you can not statically link to a GPLed library...
That's why we have the LGPL.
This of course means that you can put a GPLed application on your webserver and you never have to give the source to anybody if you so choose...
Good. Most of the local modifications to GPL'd web-apps would only be needed by people building a website competeing with the author's. Any that are not only of interest to the author should be shared with the community, and that's how the existing system works.
So what does 'distribute' mean in this interconnected world? If I can ssh into a box and run a binary, has it been distributed to me? What if I can run it via a web server? Or a caching proxy?
Better questions would be: What if I lease a computer with GPL'd software to someone? What if I lease a computer to someone with a service level agreement? Do they have the right to make local modifications? Can the SLA be worded so they may make local modifications, but I no longer am required to maintain a certain service level? What if one crown corporation is charged with modifying a product for other crown corporations or government departments? Does this count as distribution or internal use?
Last updated 13 years ago
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You can measure the wisdom of a law document by how *rarely* it gets updated. 13 years is impressively long for a field as dynamically changing as computing. Nice work.
I heard Marvel is going to sue the creators of the GPL due to the fact that various words and phrases from the document can be mixed around and formed into well-known Marvel comic-book hero quotes.
I, for one, welcome our Free Software overlords.
by
quamaretto
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
"The GPL is just a way of turning humans... into this." [Holds up printout of Linux source code]
"28 days... 6 hours... 42 minutes... 12 seconds... The copyright on the UNIX source will expire."
"You only THINK you've won! While your back was turned, I switched licenses!"
(I did the best I could.)
-- *is run over by rotten tomatoes*
Additional clause added...
by
Spoing
·
· Score: 4, Funny
III.j. For justice, all your base are belong to us.
-- A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Authored by...
by
RealProgrammer
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
According to TFA, GPL 3 will be authored by Eben Moglen and RMS.
That's all fine and everything, since the current GPL got to us that way.
I will be shocked and dismayed if they don't open up the process, though. The GPL is more fundamental to FOSS than any other document, and I'd hate to see it developed in a cathedral.
Re:Authored by...
by
nothings
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
According to TFA, GPL 3 will be authored by Eben Moglen and RMS.
[...]
I will be shocked and dismayed if they don't open up the process, though. [...] They'll surely do it as an open collaboration.
If you read the second page of TFA:
There is also a great deal of work to be done to allow the large number of stakeholders who have grown up around the GPL to have an opportunity to express Opinions and to have their thoughts taken into account in trying to frame the best possible license, Moglen said.
Re:Draft Copy?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Funny
If you patent anything you put into the software, you loose your rights to use/distribute the software unless the patents are transfered to the public domain.
Actually, knowing the high level of literacy open source freaks regularly show, that's probably EXACTLY what it will say.
GPL Server Hole
by
SashaM
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Hopefully they will plug the server hole. As it stands right now, the GPL makes no sense for server-side applications.
Re:GPL Server Hole
by
asuffield
·
· Score: 2, Informative
After considerable discussion on debian-legal, we concluded that we cannot think of any ways in which this "hole" could be plugged and still result in a free license.
That suggests it is not a hole at all. This is intuitively correct: I should not have to release my modifications just because I showed somebody the output from my program.
Here A Slide From The FSF About GPLv3
by
gen2002
·
· Score: 2, Informative
look here: http://web.novalis.org/history-of-fsm/slide-47.htm l
in this page shows a link to the license that inspired the update the would become GPL version 3
Re: the definition of 'soon'
by
sczimme
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Well, we have only ~6 weeks to go in 2004. If the draft came out in early January I imagine we could call that 'soon', particularly since v2 has been in place for a while.
I was going to make a snarky comment about (defining soon) == (the Clinton defense) but decided to behave.:-)
/whoops
-- I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
If the first draft isn't due out until next year, perhaps Slashdot could qualify "soon" in the headline of this article.
I think "soon" for Slashdot means "by the time we fix all the various problems with Slashcode, implement basic spellchecking for the editors, and train ourselves to look for dupes before publishing them to the front page."
-- I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
Re:Draft Copy?
by
mark-t
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I realize that I'm just being a pedantic pain in the arse by pointing this out here, but the GPL really only covers the issue of _copying_, not mere use.
Lets hope they don't screw up . You know the existing GPL has a clause: "9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. "
Lots of work ships with the "any later version" clause..
If your name is Bill Gates, Daryl McBride or Orrin Hatch you cannot use this software.
If this software is being used in a company whose name ends in AA (like in MPAA, RIAA), you cannot use this software.
If you are wondering where is the start button is, why you cannot install IE on it, or how come Kazaa doesn't work on it, type rm -rf and all your problems will be gone...
-- how long until/. fixes commenting on Chrome?
Re:Yay, a later version!
by
rewt66
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This, to me, is a big deal. The "any later version" is a blank check where RMS can change your licensing terms under you. However...
I don't always agree with RMS, but here is one place I do trust him. He showed a lot of foresight in the terms he put in the GPL. Also, unless I have totally misjudged him, he would literally kill himself before he would do something that betrays people's freedom.
Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . .
by
Fantastic+Lad
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The fact that people care about things like the GPL makes the effort of living on this planet worthwhile. It's nice to know so firmly what side of the fence one is on. The IP wars are one of today's most amazingly metaphoric and clearly delineated battle grounds of the Human spirit.
Those who create and wish to share are the Good Guys, while the Bad Guys are vile lawyers and manipulative billionaires. This corner of reality is like living in the pages of a four-color comic book.
-FL
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . .
by
Idarubicin
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Those who create and wish to share are the Good Guys, while the Bad Guys are vile lawyers and manipulative billionaires. This corner of reality is like living in the pages of a four-color comic book.
What about the Guy Who Wants to Make a Few Bucks Writing Useful Software So He Can Pay His Rent? He wants to create and share, but would like to earn a living wage doing it. Is he a Bad Guy, too?
What about the vile lawyers who work for the FSF?
Why aren't there any shades of gray?*
*I know. I must be new here.
-- ~Idarubicin
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . .
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If you actually paid attention to what RMS says, you will see that creating a market monopoly and using this monopoly to retard the distribution of public knowledge is immoral.
Making money from software is NOT immoral, and yes there are plenty of ways to make money in a competitive (non monopoly) marketplace.
Re:Man, this brings a tear to my eye. . .
by
ewe2
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You know, this is getting repetitive, but if you don't like GPL rules, don't play the GPL game. Oh? You want to play with GPL code but you don't like it's rules? Tough. Find some code under some other licence. Nothing is stopping you from making a few bucks - look at Bram Cohen. Vilifying FSF's lawyers is cheap.
If your idea of grey is this black and white, you're not just new here. You're working for The Other Side.
-- insecurity asks the wrong question
irritation gives the wrong answer
finally removes the word "suckers" and is totally written in leetspeak.
Not as simple as previously stated.
by
jbn-o
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The GPL works very well at the moment. Introducing a new version could confuse what is at the moment a very easy to understand concept-- if you alter GPLed code you have to let everyone use your alterations as GPLed code as well-- as well as creating schisms in OSS development.
Actually, private derivatives are allowed. Having the freedom to make derivatives one does not share with others in any form is required by the definition of free software:
You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist.
Also, use of a program (that is, merely executing the program) is not a power regulated by US copyright law. And the GPLv2 specifically states that it does not control this activity:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted [...]
So, no, "if you alter GPLed code you have to let everyone use your alterations as GPLed code as well" is untrue.
Also, you have (perhaps inadvertantly) repeated one of the most misleading parts of the article (and the editorial linked to the article): Associating the GPL with the open source movement profound miscredits who did what and what goals the GPL was written to achieve.
This latest revision of the GPL has almost nothing to do with "OSS" development. The open source movement (which doesn't like to talk about software freedom) did not exist when the current version of the GPL (version 2) was written. The free software movement (which is based on software freedom) predates the open source movement by over a decade. This upcoming version (version 3) of the GPL will be the first version of the GPL written since the open source movement started. As far as I know, nobody from the open source movement is writing the next revision of the GPL; it is still written by the people at the FSF (most notably, RMS and Eben Moglen, both of whom make it quite clear in their speeches that they are doing work to promote software freedom). So, the open source movement is receiving a great deal of credit for work it did not do and the danger of tying the GPL with the open source movement is that the open source movement's philosophy, which doesn't object to proprietary software, will be conflated with a license built to create and maintain a commons where software freedom is the rule.
Will GPL 2 and GPL 3 be compatible?
by
SamNmaX
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
While we won't know yet, a big issue with all this is how compatible the licences will be with each other. While there is a fair amount of software that says it's compatible with GPL 2 or greater, much is specifically locked to a specific version.
For this type of software, will we be able to use it in software that's under GPL 3? GPL 2 won't allow for additional restrictions, nor will it allow being mixed with other software that isn't under GPL 2.
As far as I can see, the only way that GPL 3 can allow compatibility if you are able to 'downgrade' to GPL 2. If that option is available, that may make it difficult if not impossible to achieve the goals that the FSF has in mind.
Another possibility is to try to get the original authors to rerelease their software under the new licence. This may be possible in cases where a central authority has the redistribution rights to do this (such as the FSF has with much of their software), but a lot of GPL'd software isn't quite so careful. Many patches may have been included into a piece of software not by giving full redistribution rights but instead under licence of GPL 2, in which case those authors technically need to be contacted to allow for their use in GPL 3 software.
Another possibility is that it could split the set of GPL software in two: one under GPL 2, and another under GPL 3. I have a feeling this won't happen, but it wouldn't be great. People of like minds who want to share their software would not be able to simply because of licensing issues that may be too hard to resolve at this point.
Anyway, I'm sure Moglen and RMS are taking this into account while they work on the licence. I hope it's put together in an open manner, so that all these kinds of issues are addressed.
Re:Will GPL 2 and GPL 3 be compatible?
by
Piquan
·
· Score: 2, Informative
While we won't know yet, a big issue with all this is how compatible the licences will be with each other. While there is a fair amount of software that says it's compatible with GPL 2 or greater, much is specifically locked to a specific version.
The last sentence of the article:
The primary goal is ensuring that code licensed under the current version of the GPL, Version 2, can be combined with code licensed under Version 3, said officials of the Boston-based FSF.
Re:BSD and MIT licenses anyone?
by
Zachary+Kessin
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
First of all a few misconceptions, the GPL only kicks in in this context if you take code someone else wrote and modify it and want to distribute those changes. If you just want to keep them for yourself you are ok.
As a developer I would rather release my stuff under the GPL, if I release under BSD/MIT type licence there is nothing to prevent someone else from taking my code and changing it and not giving it back to me. Now anyone can download my code and use it for what they like. But they can't sell it without returning the source.
Now with a BSD licence it is true the various people could fork closed versions of software, the question is, is this a good thing? Did having 25 different versions of Unix, none of which worked the same was as was the case 15 years ago good for unix? I would think not. The number of Unix like OS's is down to about 4 at this point (Linux,BSD including OS/X, Solaris and maybe AIX) at least those are the only 4 that matter.
In sort the bug you have pointed out is to most people really a feature
-- Erlang Developer and podcaster
Re:Draft Copy?
by
Megaweapon
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Yes, because expecting just a moderate level of competence from a website that asks for money for subscriptions is too much to ask.
-- I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
You don't quite get it.
by
gr8_phk
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
GPL "Protects" your "rights" to the software while stripping the rights of anyone else to modify the software for their own use.
GPL doesn't restrict your right to modify software for your own use. In fact, it grants that right which would otherwise be illegal or questionable. GPL does impose some conditions on your redistribution of that derivative work (i.e. provide source code and GPL) which are there to ensure other people have the same rights you are granted. Or don't you think others deserve the same rights as you?
I used to be amazed at how many people got upset that they can't take someone else's work, and profit from it any way they see fit. Now I know that's just some peoples definition of business.
The Affero General Public License is a free software license, copyleft, and incompatible with the GNU GPL. It consists of the GNU GPL version 2, with one additional section that Affero added with FSF approval. The new section, 2(d), covers the distribution of application programs through web services or computer networks. The Affero GPL is incompatible with the GNU GPL version 2 because of section 2(d); however, the section is written so that we can make GNU GPL version 3 upward compatible with the Affero GPL. That is why we gave our approval for Affero to modify the GNU GPL in this way.
Citation Please?
by
HopeOS
·
· Score: 2, Informative
According to item 7 of the LGPL you may link any library of any license against LGPL libraries. What specifically are you referring to? The incompatibilities are not with linking against LGPL'd libraries, but GPL'd libraries. LGPL was written explicitly with this issue in mind.
7. You may place library facilities that are a work based on the Library side-by-side in a single library together with other library facilities not covered by this License, and distribute such a combined library, provided that the separate distribution of the work based on the Library and of the other library facilities is otherwise permitted, and provided that you do these two things:
* a) Accompany the combined library with a copy of the same work based on the Library, uncombined with any other library facilities. This must be distributed under the terms of the Sections above.
* b) Give prominent notice with the combined library of the fact that part of it is a work based on the Library, and explaining where to find the accompanying uncombined form of the same work.
Server Hole versus LAMP?
by
Just+Some+Guy
·
· Score: 2, Informative
IANAL and I haven't really followed the "server hole" debates, so I'm really ignorant of this subject. That said, it sounds like the gist of the discussion is that people are trying to find a way to require that web applications built on GPL components must itself be GPLed. If that's correct, how would this affect LAMP applications that are built with MySQL? Would switching to PostgreSQL be the only legitimate way to keep such applications "closed"?
By the way, to my untrained eye the Affero GPL (an alternative license suggested by GNU themselves) sucks. Section 2a reads:
If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with users through a computer network and if, in the version you received, any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to request transmission to that user of the Program's complete source code, you must not remove that facility from your modified version of the Program or work based on the Program, and must offer an equivalent opportunity for all users interacting with your Program through a computer network to request immediate transmission by HTTP of the complete source code of your modified version or other derivative work.
Gigantic loopholes include:
The use of the phrase "any user" at the beginning of this run-on sentence is ambiguous. Does that mean "at least one user" ("Did you see any deer?") or "each and every user" ("Any programmer could read this")? I assume they meant the former, but if I wanted to rip off code under this license, I'd ask my lawyer to argue the latter.
Q: "[M]ust offer an equivalent opportunity for all users interacting with your Program through a computer network to request immediate transmission by HTTP of the complete source code"? A: 403 - request denied. It doesn't say you actually have to honor the request; you just have to allow them to make the request.
I think I understand what they're trying to do, but again, is it a good idea? Does anyone have a good idea about how to really accomplish it? Are there any licenses right now that don't have the glaring holes of the Affero GPL?
-- Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:Draft Copy?
by
Mr.+Slippery
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
but the GPL really only covers the issue of _copying_, not mere use.
Yes, but in the bizzare world of copyright, there are those who allege that loading a program into memory constitutes making a copy.
I'm waiting for them to claim that looking at an image or piece of text creates a copy on my retina or in the neurons of my occipital lobe.
-- Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog You cannot wash away blood with blood
"Open Software License" fixes that
by
u1048576
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
you can put a GPLed application on your webserver and you never have to give the source to anybody
That's exactly why I opted for the Open Software License over GPL for my latest web app. I want it to stay free (speech-wise). Nobody should be able to hide their modifications if used in public.
With the Open Software License they say basically the same things as in GPL, but a published webapp counts as "distribution".
IANAL, so could anyone enlighten us about any possible compatibility problems between the OSL and the GPL?
Forum to discuss new GPL, defensive patents, etc?
by
expro
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I have significant code I have been working on for some time. I have placed GPL language at the top, etc. in anticipation that I would publish it as soon as I felt I and it were ready.
One thing stopping me is that the code has lots of quite new ideas in it that I feel could become quickly widespread in use, in some cases as an alternative to existing, increasingly encumbered and controlled, standards.
I feel that it may be good to take out lots of patent claims, not that I feel that offensive patent use is ever justified, but that I see Microsoft patent around such things as XML.
I would like to stop them or anyone else to the extent from patenting use of the technology for X or Y (as Microsoft does with XML, for example), when it is obvious to anyone that it is a technology that is general purpose in nature and should be open to all uses.
I need to discuss this sort of thing, preferrably on a forum with someone actively pursuing FSF agendas to talk about the pitfalls and what might be possible in this respect. I would be perfectly happy signing patent rights to a third party as long as they could be used defensively by myself and others to the widest extent possible.
(Let me make it clear that it would not be my intent to use such to control or enforce a particular usage in any way, as Sun or Microsoft, for example, often try to do when making a "public" grant).
Comment removed
by
account_deleted
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Re:Forum to discuss new GPL, defensive patents, et
by
GreenCrackBaby
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You can copyright your code (it is copyrighted automatically but paying the nominal fee to do so explicitly will help in any future legal hassles) and achieve the same effect. If Microsoft goes for a similar patent to one of yours, chances are they'll get it anyway. The number of conflicting patents is only going to grow as prior art searches become next-to-impossible and overly-broad patents keep getting granted.
Patents are very expensive to file, and if you want more than just a US patent you need to file in all the major countries (you are talking thousands of dollars in fees typically). If you use a lawyer to draft the patent (and you really need to) then your fees skyrocket.
By copyrighting your code explicitly you establish prior art should a similar patent ever get granted and a legal battle ensue.
--
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
I don't see a subscriber icon on your name: so how does asking for money for subscriptions impact *your* life?
-- Sig under construction since 1998.
Let me clarify. . .
by
Fantastic+Lad
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
There is nothing wrong with making money.
People need energy to live and produce. To create, one must consume. The trick is living in balance. --In making as clear and uncluttered a conduit of power out of yourself as possible. The level of clarity is determined by your Intent.
The Bad Guys are the ones who have knots tied in their systems; they are more interested in one-way transactions of energy, or coming as close to achieving one-way transactions as they can manage. Accumulating power for themselves is more important than in feeding the overall system of which they are a part.
When people join with the ethic of feeding easily to those who need, (but only to those who share the same ethic, otherwise the system is bled), as well as taking from the system when they themselves are in need, then the whole grows out of proportion to the sum of its parts. I don't think it is possible to create energy from nothing, but I think that these types of systems appear to do so because they have a way of grooving themselves to more easily accept and polarize the ambient energy of the world around.
--For example. . . When several people are working on an exciting and worthy project, others who are not even associated with that group feel compelled to help out or offer resources. I see this happen all the time.
-FL
EULA is supposed to be a contract
by
roesti
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
There are a couple of things that are wrong with your argument.
Firstly, the EULA is not made visible when, and where, you buy the software - that is, you really should be able to read it when it is time for money to change hands. It's one thing for you to say that an informed buyer can read the EULA on the web before buying, but it's another thing entirely to ignore that a large proportion of buyers are not that informed.
Secondly, if you buy the software from a retail store, you have a pretty poor chance of getting a decent return/refund policy. There aren't many stores near me that have a good return/refund policy for computer software, so even if you decide not to use it, you can't get your money back.
Thirdly, if you buy the software from an OEM, you often don't see the agreement at all - the distributor agrees to include the manufacturer's product - and yet, you are a party to that contract, since you are buying and using the software. In that scenario, at least, the user cannot be a party to the EULA, rendering the agreement worthless.
I know I haven't provided a solid legal basis for claiming that EULAs are dodgy at best, but I can't be bothered looking it up in more detail. The point is that if you don't have a chance to agree or disagree to a contract, on whatever grounds, that contract simply cannot legally oblige you in any way.
Slashdot Mirror
I know it's mostly apples to oranges, but considering how infrequently the GPL is updated comparing this with both the size and likely tweaking of a standard MS EULA would hopefully be a good arguing point with possible Linux converts. Anyone know of a repository of EULAs and how frequently they get updated?
Since RMS's office is now in the Gates building, maybe he has been assimilated and GPL v3 will include terms allowing Microsoft to make use of GPLed code and not release their sources, since the GPL has t erms allowing you to use a subsequent version
"By using this software, you agree that Microsoft is teh suxx0rz!!!!"
Will this version become comptiable with licenses with patent clauses, like the apache, IBM and CPL licenses?
I am trolling
Not to be mean, but RTFA:
The changes planned for the next release, Version 3, a draft of which is due next year,...
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
They're trying to drain our precious bodily fluids...
I got mod points to burn, so I'll shoot...
Hopefully, they'll include the clause to allow companies to tahe GPL'd software, rip the copyrights out, and incorporate it into their own products and claim ownership.
This would solve the "problems" with the GPL all the "analysts" keep huffing and puffing about, and would allow our good friends at MS to use GPL code in their products and file suits against the authors who wrote it for "copyright violations."
FLAME ON!!! >:)
It is now known as the GNU/GPL license.
The GPL works very well at the moment. Introducing a new version could confuse what is at the moment a very easy to understand concept-- if you alter GPLed code you have to let everyone use your alterations as GPLed code as well-- as well as creating schisms in OSS development. As far as I am aware some software-- including the Linux kernel if I'm not incorrect-- don't license to the GPL itself or "GPL 2 or later", they license to one specific version.
The open source community is going to have to deal with patents at some point, since patent abuse will soon be the #1 defense commercial software has (Mr. McNealy of Sun has been making some fascinating comments lately) now that they can't compete on merit or any other fair method. However I hope they are very careful with exactly how they introduce this into GPL3. Patents are already nicely covered in the GPL by requiring that you cannot distribute a GPL program if there are patent restrictions on it. But if a line gets in like "by releasing this program, you grant a universal license to open source software to use all applicable patents" it could hinder uptake of GPLed software by companies fearing that by distributing GPL3'd code they would be at risk of accidentally licensing patents without realizing it.
For me the weaknesses that need to be addressed in the GPL are most definitely patents, the confusion around dynamic/static compiling + web services. Get rid of this issue of two licenses (GPL/LGPL/ or the new trend that is even more confusing GPL + Linking Clause?!?) which causes a lot of problems for reuse of code. Having a 'viral license' just scares corporate use of our code. Other issues are enforcement of trademarks, so that companies can have commercial offerings by offering a particular 'brand'. At the end of the day the license must continue to protect its most important aspect, that all code changes to the software must be contributed back - preferably in a free downloadable manner (mailing $15 for the source code when the binary is available free online goes against its principles).
If the first draft isn't due out until next year, perhaps Slashdot could qualify "soon" in the headline of this article.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
The lack of explicit answers to questions about remote linking and the like are causing increasing problems with the GPL. Currently, you can not statically link to a GPLed library, nor can you dynamically link. However I believe you can dlopen a GPLed library as well as including the functionality in another program which you communicate to via RPC, provided that your program is functionally still useful without the helper program. Further, you may not link against a GPLed appliation but you may communicate with it via RPC, TCP, etc. Finally, you only need to give a copy of the source to a person who you give a copy of the binary to. This of course means that you can put a GPLed application on your webserver and you never have to give the source to anybody if you so choose, even if you make the output freely available, or if use of your application only makes sense by remote execution. So what does 'distribute' mean in this interconnected world? If I can ssh into a box and run a binary, has it been distributed to me? What if I can run it via a web server? Or a caching proxy? And I understand you don't have to release source provided you only use the application internally, but the definition of internally has a few surprises for most lay people.
Now, did anybody follow all that? And I'm not even sure I got it all right. The next version will be long overdue.
You can measure the wisdom of a law document by how *rarely* it gets updated. 13 years is impressively long for a field as dynamically changing as computing. Nice work.
I heard Marvel is going to sue the creators of the GPL due to the fact that various words and phrases from the document can be mixed around and formed into well-known Marvel comic-book hero quotes.
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"The GPL is just a way of turning humans... into this." [Holds up printout of Linux source code]
"28 days... 6 hours... 42 minutes... 12 seconds... The copyright on the UNIX source will expire."
"You only THINK you've won! While your back was turned, I switched licenses!"
(I did the best I could.)
*is run over by rotten tomatoes*
III.j. For justice, all your base are belong to us.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
According to TFA, GPL 3 will be authored by Eben Moglen and RMS.
That's all fine and everything, since the current GPL got to us that way.
I will be shocked and dismayed if they don't open up the process, though. The GPL is more fundamental to FOSS than any other document, and I'd hate to see it developed in a cathedral.
They'll surely do it as an open collaboration.
sigs, as if you care.
If you patent anything you put into the software, you loose your rights to use/distribute the software unless the patents are transfered to the public domain.
Actually, knowing the high level of literacy open source freaks regularly show, that's probably EXACTLY what it will say.
Hopefully they will plug the server hole. As it stands right now, the GPL makes no sense for server-side applications.
look here: http://web.novalis.org/history-of-fsm/slide-47.htm l
in this page shows a link to the license that inspired the update the would become GPL version 3
Well, we have only ~6 weeks to go in 2004. If the draft came out in early January I imagine we could call that 'soon', particularly since v2 has been in place for a while.
I was going to make a snarky comment about (defining soon) == (the Clinton defense) but decided to behave.
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
If the first draft isn't due out until next year, perhaps Slashdot could qualify "soon" in the headline of this article.
I think "soon" for Slashdot means "by the time we fix all the various problems with Slashcode, implement basic spellchecking for the editors, and train ourselves to look for dupes before publishing them to the front page."
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
I realize that I'm just being a pedantic pain in the arse by pointing this out here, but the GPL really only covers the issue of _copying_, not mere use.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
According to this slide the Affero GPL is a prototype.
get 7 free Japanese lessons.
Don't forget: "Get rid of the people who use every possible chance to bitch about slashdot and keep coming back."
Thou Shalt Not Commit Thy Software for Commerce
Thou Shalt Smite Thy Microsoftie
Thou Shalt Bow To Thy Benovolent Leader RMS Thy God And Have Ye No Other God Before Him
That Shalt Not Take the Name of GNU/Linux In Vain
Thou Shalt Mod Down the unholy SlashDot Troll, For He is an Abomination unto Thee
Thou Shalt Not Click on false Gmail Links
Thou Shalt Not Fall to the Evil Seductress BSD, for She is an Unrighteous Whore Unto Thee
Thou Shalt Close Thine Ears Upon Hearing the False Testimony of the SCO, the Lies of TCO, and the injustices of the CMDRTCO.
Thou Shalt Moderate this Post to the Heavens, That All The Earth May Know of the Great And Fearful GPL.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
Lets hope they don't screw up . You know the existing GPL has a clause:
..
"9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. "
Lots of work ships with the "any later version" clause
No,no...
You forgot:
If your name is Bill Gates, Daryl McBride or Orrin Hatch you cannot use this software.
If this software is being used in a company whose name ends in AA (like in MPAA, RIAA), you cannot use this software.
If you are wondering where is the start button is, why you cannot install IE on it, or how come Kazaa doesn't work on it, type rm -rf and all your problems will be gone...
how long until
I don't always agree with RMS, but here is one place I do trust him. He showed a lot of foresight in the terms he put in the GPL. Also, unless I have totally misjudged him, he would literally kill himself before he would do something that betrays people's freedom.
Those who create and wish to share are the Good Guys, while the Bad Guys are vile lawyers and manipulative billionaires. This corner of reality is like living in the pages of a four-color comic book.
-FL
/. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
finally removes the word "suckers" and is totally written in leetspeak.
Actually, private derivatives are allowed. Having the freedom to make derivatives one does not share with others in any form is required by the definition of free software:
Also, use of a program (that is, merely executing the program) is not a power regulated by US copyright law. And the GPLv2 specifically states that it does not control this activity:
So, no, "if you alter GPLed code you have to let everyone use your alterations as GPLed code as well" is untrue.
Also, you have (perhaps inadvertantly) repeated one of the most misleading parts of the article (and the editorial linked to the article): Associating the GPL with the open source movement profound miscredits who did what and what goals the GPL was written to achieve.
This latest revision of the GPL has almost nothing to do with "OSS" development. The open source movement (which doesn't like to talk about software freedom) did not exist when the current version of the GPL (version 2) was written. The free software movement (which is based on software freedom) predates the open source movement by over a decade. This upcoming version (version 3) of the GPL will be the first version of the GPL written since the open source movement started. As far as I know, nobody from the open source movement is writing the next revision of the GPL; it is still written by the people at the FSF (most notably, RMS and Eben Moglen, both of whom make it quite clear in their speeches that they are doing work to promote software freedom). So, the open source movement is receiving a great deal of credit for work it did not do and the danger of tying the GPL with the open source movement is that the open source movement's philosophy, which doesn't object to proprietary software, will be conflated with a license built to create and maintain a commons where software freedom is the rule.
Digital Citizen
For this type of software, will we be able to use it in software that's under GPL 3? GPL 2 won't allow for additional restrictions, nor will it allow being mixed with other software that isn't under GPL 2.
As far as I can see, the only way that GPL 3 can allow compatibility if you are able to 'downgrade' to GPL 2. If that option is available, that may make it difficult if not impossible to achieve the goals that the FSF has in mind.
Another possibility is to try to get the original authors to rerelease their software under the new licence. This may be possible in cases where a central authority has the redistribution rights to do this (such as the FSF has with much of their software), but a lot of GPL'd software isn't quite so careful. Many patches may have been included into a piece of software not by giving full redistribution rights but instead under licence of GPL 2, in which case those authors technically need to be contacted to allow for their use in GPL 3 software.
Another possibility is that it could split the set of GPL software in two: one under GPL 2, and another under GPL 3. I have a feeling this won't happen, but it wouldn't be great. People of like minds who want to share their software would not be able to simply because of licensing issues that may be too hard to resolve at this point.
Anyway, I'm sure Moglen and RMS are taking this into account while they work on the licence. I hope it's put together in an open manner, so that all these kinds of issues are addressed.
First of all a few misconceptions, the GPL only kicks in in this context if you take code someone else wrote and modify it and want to distribute those changes. If you just want to keep them for yourself you are ok.
As a developer I would rather release my stuff under the GPL, if I release under BSD/MIT type licence there is nothing to prevent someone else from taking my code and changing it and not giving it back to me. Now anyone can download my code and use it for what they like. But they can't sell it without returning the source.
Now with a BSD licence it is true the various people could fork closed versions of software, the question is, is this a good thing? Did having 25 different versions of Unix, none of which worked the same was as was the case 15 years ago good for unix? I would think not. The number of Unix like OS's is down to about 4 at this point (Linux,BSD including OS/X, Solaris and maybe AIX) at least those are the only 4 that matter.
In sort the bug you have pointed out is to most people really a feature
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Yes, because expecting just a moderate level of competence from a website that asks for money for subscriptions is too much to ask.
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
GPL doesn't restrict your right to modify software for your own use. In fact, it grants that right which would otherwise be illegal or questionable. GPL does impose some conditions on your redistribution of that derivative work (i.e. provide source code and GPL) which are there to ensure other people have the same rights you are granted. Or don't you think others deserve the same rights as you?
I used to be amazed at how many people got upset that they can't take someone else's work, and profit from it any way they see fit. Now I know that's just some peoples definition of business.
I'm actually an RMS fanboy, but I've seen glaciers that move faster than some of the GNU projects.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I realize that I'm just being a pedantic pain in the arse by pointing this out here. . .
Well, it's your shift. I'm on break.
KFG
The FSF has been working with Affero to address this issue. Check out the list of GPL-incompatible free software licenses under the section called "Affero General Public License" which says:
The Affero General Public License is online as well. I'm sure both organizations would welcome your feedback.
Digital Citizen
I noticed the link in the article about SCO saying that the GPL is unconstitutional.
. as p
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1581586,00
My question is:
Has SCO ever indicated which part of the Constitution the GPL violates? Or is it just a general statement without any backing?
Can someone provide the section of the Constitution that the GPL specifically violates, that other licesnes (such as the ones SCO uses) wouldn't?
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
It's a gnu (aka wildebeest).
By the way, to my untrained eye the Affero GPL (an alternative license suggested by GNU themselves) sucks. Section 2a reads:
Gigantic loopholes include:
I think I understand what they're trying to do, but again, is it a good idea? Does anyone have a good idea about how to really accomplish it? Are there any licenses right now that don't have the glaring holes of the Affero GPL?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Yes, but in the bizzare world of copyright, there are those who allege that loading a program into memory constitutes making a copy.
I'm waiting for them to claim that looking at an image or piece of text creates a copy on my retina or in the neurons of my occipital lobe.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
you can put a GPLed application on your webserver and you never have to give the source to anybody
That's exactly why I opted for the Open Software License over GPL for my latest web app. I want it to stay free (speech-wise). Nobody should be able to hide their modifications if used in public.
With the Open Software License they say basically the same things as in GPL, but a published webapp counts as "distribution".
IANAL, so could anyone enlighten us about any possible compatibility problems between the OSL and the GPL?
I have significant code I have been working on for some time. I have placed GPL language at the top, etc. in anticipation that I would publish it as soon as I felt I and it were ready.
One thing stopping me is that the code has lots of quite new ideas in it that I feel could become quickly widespread in use, in some cases as an alternative to existing, increasingly encumbered and controlled, standards.
I feel that it may be good to take out lots of patent claims, not that I feel that offensive patent use is ever justified, but that I see Microsoft patent around such things as XML.
I would like to stop them or anyone else to the extent from patenting use of the technology for X or Y (as Microsoft does with XML, for example), when it is obvious to anyone that it is a technology that is general purpose in nature and should be open to all uses.
I need to discuss this sort of thing, preferrably on a forum with someone actively pursuing FSF agendas to talk about the pitfalls and what might be possible in this respect. I would be perfectly happy signing patent rights to a third party as long as they could be used defensively by myself and others to the widest extent possible.
(Let me make it clear that it would not be my intent to use such to control or enforce a particular usage in any way, as Sun or Microsoft, for example, often try to do when making a "public" grant).
While you 5-digit IDs get all hot and bothered by a silly person with a 6-digit ID, us 4-digit ID users will sit back and chuckle.
At least, this one will. ;-)
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
Are you sure?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Patents are very expensive to file, and if you want more than just a US patent you need to file in all the major countries (you are talking thousands of dollars in fees typically). If you use a lawyer to draft the patent (and you really need to) then your fees skyrocket.
By copyrighting your code explicitly you establish prior art should a similar patent ever get granted and a legal battle ensue.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
I don't see a subscriber icon on your name: so how does asking for money for subscriptions impact *your* life?
Sig under construction since 1998.
People need energy to live and produce. To create, one must consume. The trick is living in balance. --In making as clear and uncluttered a conduit of power out of yourself as possible. The level of clarity is determined by your Intent.
The Bad Guys are the ones who have knots tied in their systems; they are more interested in one-way transactions of energy, or coming as close to achieving one-way transactions as they can manage. Accumulating power for themselves is more important than in feeding the overall system of which they are a part.
When people join with the ethic of feeding easily to those who need, (but only to those who share the same ethic, otherwise the system is bled), as well as taking from the system when they themselves are in need, then the whole grows out of proportion to the sum of its parts. I don't think it is possible to create energy from nothing, but I think that these types of systems appear to do so because they have a way of grooving themselves to more easily accept and polarize the ambient energy of the world around.
--For example. . . When several people are working on an exciting and worthy project, others who are not even associated with that group feel compelled to help out or offer resources. I see this happen all the time.
-FL
Firstly, the EULA is not made visible when, and where, you buy the software - that is, you really should be able to read it when it is time for money to change hands. It's one thing for you to say that an informed buyer can read the EULA on the web before buying, but it's another thing entirely to ignore that a large proportion of buyers are not that informed.
Secondly, if you buy the software from a retail store, you have a pretty poor chance of getting a decent return/refund policy. There aren't many stores near me that have a good return/refund policy for computer software, so even if you decide not to use it, you can't get your money back.
Thirdly, if you buy the software from an OEM, you often don't see the agreement at all - the distributor agrees to include the manufacturer's product - and yet, you are a party to that contract, since you are buying and using the software. In that scenario, at least, the user cannot be a party to the EULA, rendering the agreement worthless.
I know I haven't provided a solid legal basis for claiming that EULAs are dodgy at best, but I can't be bothered looking it up in more detail. The point is that if you don't have a chance to agree or disagree to a contract, on whatever grounds, that contract simply cannot legally oblige you in any way.
Attack its weak point for massive damage!