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
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!
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
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...
Only one change in v3.0
by
Neil+Blender
·
· Score: 4, Funny
It is now known as the GNU/GPL license.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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: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
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
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.
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...
It is now known as the GNU/GPL license.
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
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.
Hopefully they will plug the server hole. As it stands right now, the GPL makes no sense for server-side applications.
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
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
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
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 based on user account deletion
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