Slashdot Mirror
VX30 Ad-Stats Code Online
tmk writes "Drunkenblog has done it again. After deconstructing Maui X-Stream has GPL Violations with reproducable proof, he put a copy of the VX30 Ad-Stats source online. There is also a copy of the phpAdsNew source to compare. Drunkenbatman
says 'This is a community problem, and it's pretty much up to you.'"
So when is it okay to use GPL code? I mean it seems alot of companies use it n beta "to test stuff" or "to use untill we code our own for the full version". When does this start becoming "well, it's easier"?
I mean unless you read every single bit of OSS code and every single bit of closed source code you'd never going to catch all these things.
How long is it untill people start to use GPL code in closed source software and sue anyone who reversse engineers it?
I like muppets.
...out of the normally unsourcable. Bravo!
No, no sig. Really.
ThePromenader
The GNU GPL (General Public License) states that you have to distribute the source code with any binaries you distribute. If no one outside your client's company will receive binaries of your program, then no one but your client is required to have the source code made available to them.
Thank you for your inaccurate trolling.
Darl must be beaming and handing out cigars by now...
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Maui does seem to have a new mode of operation here. Whenever somone proves that they stole some source code, they say 'Oh, that... Yeah that was just a bit of test code we borrowed. The new release is clean.' Then they release a new version which is identical to the old version, except maybe they altered some text strings to make the release appear to be different.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Just because someone is selling something with GPL code, it doesn't mean they also have to offer the source files for everyone to download, but they do have to make it available for no more than a nominal fee to those they distribute it to.
YES THEY DO HAVE TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE. The only way to avoid that is to ship the source with the binaries. Otherwise you have to give the source to anyone who asks ("any third party") for no more than a nominal fee.
Partially correct, it says that you can distribute the code with the binaries, which would be 3a. You can also go with 3b and/or 3c by including a written offer simply saying "ask us for the code within the next 3 years and we'll give it to you" and attach a note saying "the source code is here" respectively.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
OK, so they denied taking something and it was proven (at least to my satisfaction) that they did. Now Maui is "coming clean" that they "borrowed" GPL code and want to play nice. I guess they figure it's easier to ask forgiveness than permission. It makes me wonder if their other products have similar issues.
A slippery slope.
Here's not advice:
Exchange your lawer for one that actually knows his trade.
IANAL: but the GPL FAQ clearly states that output generated by a GPL program isn't covered by the GPL, so it's 100% safe to use programs like GCC for compiling your program.
And another thing, pretty much all Open Source licenses only "restrict" you in one way when you distribute your creation. If it's kept in private you are not "restricted".
We could either give away our hard work, or come up with another solution. Releasing Code is NOT giving away your work. Applying the same logic, one could say that those people who made the kernel GAVE AWAY their work to you. You could 'touch' kernel and give back to the community that gave you the kernel in the first place.
www.lemonodor.com A mostly Lisp weblog
Crap, should have used the "preview" feature.
And this new image protection for posting sucks too.
You are misinformed on many points. Get a better laywer I think.
The GPL is not holding the GNU/Linux OS itself back, only people who want to hoard the code. If you use the software only in-house then there are some limited exceptions within the GPL, so you again should get a better lawyer.
"no business will ever be able to use it. "
Well IBM and many other companies have been able to get on with it. The GPL divides smart and innovative people from the cut and paste brigade. If you can't make a profit then it is your own stupid fault.
"Its draconian requirements"
You are clearly confused and are reading the situation backwards. A normal software license gives you no rights to use the code at all.
The GPL however gives you all the rights but one: you do not have the right to remove the rights of others. You can use the code that has been created at much expense only if you do not attempt to make free software unfree.
No one is forcing you to use GPL'd code. If you want to buy in code to save time then you have to pay for it. The cost for GPL'd software is that you have to share improvements.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, stop crying about it and get on with your life.
My little Linux and tech blog
Yeah. You said that last time. Please come up with a new one. As a troll, copy/pasting old trolls shows a complete lack of wit and intelligence.
Feel free to make shit up, and criticise the GPL. Just be original about it.
I might be talking out of my arse here but if something is uder the GPL you cannot put in extra clauses just because you own the copyright. So what is stopping them from removing the copyright notices? Its not the GPL is it?
if you own the copyright to a piece of software, you can do whatever the hell you want with it.
So what is stopping them from removing the copyright notices? Its not the GPL is it?
FFS yes! Did you ever consider reading the license?
You are clearly confused and are reading the situation backwards. A normal software license gives you no rights to use the code at all.
Not true at all. The software we release uses source code under about a dozen different licences. None of them make any requirements on derived works. Al of them are compatible with each other. Many of them are negotiable.
The GPL is inconvenient in that it appears to be deliberately designed to be incompatible with other licences. Many other vendors bar us from releasing their code. As such there's no way we could possibly use GPL code in our applications. As such, it removes the right to use GPL code with non-GPL code
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
for investigative and prosecutorial branches in the OSS legal community. It might well be self supported from awards and even generate some $ to put in developers pockets.
This is true, although 3b says "Accompany it with a written offer ... to give any third party ... a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code".
It sounds as though the the original troll^W poster doesn't want to have to give the source to anyone outside the company.
(It's also possible that I've misinterpreted this and it actually means that the offer is made only to the receivers, but they could ask the distributor to give the source to a third party. Any thoughts?)
Matt
To save anyone else looking it up, the GPL is here.
...and so one day me and my buddies stumble upon this remarkable tower which soared into the clouds. We talked to the natives who explained that local peasants had built the tower over a thousand years and that everyone was welcome inside. We were told we could even live in the tower, modify it or add to it if we wanted. Anywho, my buddies and I spent about three months adding a room to the top of the tower. That place was decked out too -- shag carpet, wall-to-wall speakers with a phat 8-track STEREO sound system, posters, a big fountain. I'm tell you, that place was the... well, it was quite nice. So one day we get a knock on the door. The local peasants want to come in and have a look at our addition. They said, "we often are inspired by the ideas of others and would like to see what you have done." Can you believe that?! Fucking pricks. Coming in to STEAL our ideas?! After all the work we had done even! Man, I just don't know about peasants sometime. I don't think they understand anything.
Read paragraph 3 of the GPL - there are 3 ways to Free The Source(tm 2005 FSF), and your way, offering source to all third parties, is only one of them. If you give away the source with the program, you have fulfilled your main obligation.
I can download a trial of the encoder, so according to GPL I'm entitled access to the source of this program.
It sounds all too much like an elaborate marketing scheme on their part. The formula is pretty simple. Build a junk product, use gpl'ed code, make sure someone in the oss community noticed you're not handing out the modified source, let them howl for a few months, brand recognition goes through the roof!
There's no such thing as bad press right ? Slashdot & everybody else shouldn't feed them what they want.. keep quiet and have the EFF sue their asses.
Like I said, this is gotta be a junk product they're building. I don't know what the hell it is and have not read the article(s) here on slashdot.
On second thoughts, probably my second reading is the correct one. This would fit with 3c.
Is this right? Can someone confirm?
Matt
If, and only if, you distribute the code. Read the license closely. The GPL has no effect on using the code. Also, the license is negotiable, if you can get all authors to the table. There is nothing to the GPL that is more problematic than a proprietary license. If you think there is, name it and we'll be sure to prove you wrong.
It's not a community problem... it's a business ethics problem. As long as companies can get away with using open source software in closed source products, they will continue to do so.
Only when the first cases are brought before court, we might see an improvement. Until that moment, this will continue.
If, and only if, you distribute the code.
Which is kinda what we do.
Also, the license is negotiable, if you can get all authors to the table.
There's the problem. If we want to use any other code, we talk to a single person. It's a lot easier.
There is nothing to the GPL that is more problematic than a proprietary license. If you think there is, name it and we'll be sure to prove you wrong.
I can not use GPL code with other code that is not licensed under the GPL. The GPL is incompatible with every other licence I've seen. Every other licence I've seen is incompatible with precisely one licence - The GPL.
Uhmmm... It may have escaped your notice, but I am anonymous. My real name is not "91degrees".
This is nothing more than a copy and paste troll.
Please come up with something original.
Thanks.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Here's a list of their products.
3b says "Accompany it with a written offer ...
If it never leaves the company, then you're more than welcome to provide anyone you give it to (ie, nobody) with the written offer.
haha - I know shit! I should have RTFGPL bagain before I posted.
I need coffee and lots of it.
Let me get this straight, you altered the kernel of Linux so it would work for you and now it's "unacceptable" that you have to show your changes? So you'd rather go to Windows where you CAN'T change the kernel, probably couldn't get Microsoft to alter it for you, and would be SOL? And all of this is the GPL's fault? As I understand the GPL, it's really very simple. If you alter GPL code, you have to post your changes. If you write any code that is comprised of GPL code, you have to post your code. I'm not absolutely certain using a GPL compiler would require your finished product to be open, but perhaps you're right there. What you're describing, in general, is someone who used GPL code, changed GPL code, but doesn't want to "give anything back." You came to the wrong place for sympathy.
So you want to distribute other people's work without following their rules? If you're going to harvest the power of Open Source, you'll have to accept that it comes with responsibilities. It's no different than with any other license. If you prefer to pay someone money for code, that's your problem.
If you think that other licenses are more negotiable, why don't you negotiate with these authors to make their license compatible with the GPL? Not all licenses are incompatible with the GPL. Several other Open Source licenses allow code to be merged with GPLd code. So it's really a limitation of the GPL-incompatible licenses that you can't merge some code with GPLd code.
...I wouldn't see lack of Token Ring support as a negative. More like leading the way.
But seriously...I have seen this exact text before. The author seems to have an agenda.
If you don't want to release the source code to your customer (who, by the way, paid you for "your hard work"), don't use GPL'd code as a basis for your work. Write it all yourself from scratch. Then, you own it all!
And, by the way, using GCC does not in any way, subject the code you compile with it, to the GPL.
I'd suggest you get a second opinion from another law firm.
it is about abusing the license
TODO: 753) write sig.
pretty much all Open Source licenses only "restrict" you in one way when you distribute your creation
What is a "creation" to you? Is it the modified source code or the output of the program? I don't know how it works in the USA but french laws say that you own the output of every program you use (Word document, Photoshop picture, source code compiled with gcc or Lex/Yacc output...)
Fine, you don't want to obey the rules, so we'll just pinch your work in return.
Look, you've not had to put $'000s in man-hours work to get this code, so pay them back.
Also, your complaint is even MORE true of, say Microsoft's license. It's compatible with itself and that's all.
So you want to distribute other people's work without following their rules?
No. We want the rules to allow us to agree to other people's rules for their code as well. The GPL does not allow this, hence we don't use GPL code.
If you're going to harvest the power of Open Source, you'll have to accept that it comes with responsibilities.
We do, and we do. We just don't use GPL code, because it is incompatible with other licences.
It's no different than with any other license.
Yes it is. Other licences are compatible with each other.
If you prefer to pay someone money for code, that's your problem.
We prefer not to. At times we have to. You'd be surprised how much code does not have a GPL licenced equivalent. Since we don't want to rewrite this from scratch, we tendto buy a licence. This precludes us from using any GPL code in the entire application.
If you think that other licenses are more negotiable, why don't you negotiate with these authors to make their license compatible with the GPL?
So, you can be absolutely sure that all potential software companies whose software we might want to use could be persuaded to allow us unlimited licence to sell copies of their software at a lower cost than them? Given that these companies make 100% of their revenue from selling copies of their software, I consider this unlikely. If you think they will dop this then you are rather naive about the realities of the software industry.
Name one other licence that makes demands on how software it is linked with may and may not be distributed. All of our software could be distributed with or without source, for free or for a fee. The only exception is the specific code that we have licenced from another company.
Of course, then there's the other problem. If we violate the licence of a commercial company, we have a legal problem. If we violate the GPL, not only do we have a legal problem. We have a PR problem.
This is something that could use some clarification, but my reading of is that you have to provide the source to any third party. You indicate your willingness to do this by putting a notice in your packaging. A third party without your product is entitled to the source - presumably, this is because they could have recieved the binary from someone who got the binary (but not the source) from you. It's strange to me that people do this when you can just include a CD with the source on it with your product.
They are distributing the program themselves without offering source code. They are claiming that the GPL gives them this right, but they aren't offering source as required by the GPL. Yes, this is a technicality, but it seems like a violation.
Lasers Controlled Games!
I am a programmer although actually I have stoped programming for quite some time (because I am making my PhD now) but, I think there is a really easy way of using GPL'd code in a closed source project, how?
APIs.
Ok, imagine I want to use some GPL'd source code program with some other propietary code I have written, well, what I will do is create a "distribution" CD with my program, in which I will put the GPL'd code, and I will add some API's which will be de MODIFICATION to the GPL'd program, of course those APIs would be open, and I will also add my Closed Source (i.e. commercial) software, which, uses the API I created to call the other program.
If the FSF, GPL's guys get really pissing then instead of an API I would use a TCP socket communication protocol, or whatever is needed, of course I WILL have to donate/open the code for the communication mechanism, but, I will be able to have my closed source program intact because they are 2 different programs.
I do not know why any company has thought about it...
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Creation \Cre*a"tion\ (kr?-A"sh?n), n. [L. creatio: cf. F. ... ...
t P LToolsForNF
cr?ation. See Create.]
1. The act of creating or causing to exist.
2. That which is created; that which is produced or caused to
exist, as the world or some original work of art or of the
imagination; nature.
As for the rest, as I said before the GPL FAQ gives the correct answerss:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutpu
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseG
Fine, you don't want to obey the rules, so we'll just pinch your work in return.
What gives you the right to do this? We can't follow the rules, so we don't use GPLed code.
Also, your complaint is even MORE true of, say Microsoft's license. It's compatible with itself and that's all.
Really? We don't use any Microsoft source (not sure who does), but what specific clauses do they have that prevent their code from being used with other people's? Most companies have a allow us to distribute for a flat fee, or a per copy fee, often with limitiations that prevent our customers from distributing copies. All of these work reasonably well together. We can't take advantage of all the rights of a licence that allows redistribution, but since we're not obliged to, we don't.
Hmm... that's an interesting idea for an MMO version of SimTower.
Mind if I *borrow* your idea?
Just to let you know, this is a repetitive Troll I have seen it in several other /. discussions so, do not botter in replying.
/. links for the other messages in different news?
/. awful and unuseful search engine.
If someone else knows, can he/she post the
I am sure I've seen it before but I can not find it with
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
We should start lawsuiting them. If companies think the Open Source Comunity (WE) don't care about OUR (everybody) rights they will break the GPL everyday.
>The GPL is inconvenient in that it appears to be
>deliberately designed to be incompatible with other
>licences. Many other vendors bar us from releasing
>their code
See, it's not the GPL, it's the programmers that chose to license their work under the GPL.
You whould think of it as "The programmers bar us from *not* releasing their code."
BTW, if you some vendors bar you from releasing *their* code, can you please explain what does "None of them make any requirements on derived works." mean?
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
Yeah. Not bad. You'll have to work just a little harder on this piece though before it's actually convincing that you did any such work.
I'll give it a C+.
some vendors bar you from releasing *their* code, can you please explain what does "None of them make any requirements on derived works." mean?
We can still release our own code if we use their code.
This is true.
However it should be noted that if a program links against a GPL'd library then the product of that operation needs to comply with the GPL.
FYI: Parent is a standard cut & paste troll that gets posted in pretty much any Linux/GPL related story.
I can not use GPL code with other code that is not licensed under the GPL. The GPL is incompatible with every other licence I've seen. Every other licence I've seen is incompatible with precisely one licence
I suggest you take a look at the 2 clause BSD license, you may find that:
1. It is compatible with the GPL
2. The GPL is compatible with it
3. There is quite a bit of software around that uses it and you might find the things you need among thoat.
Not to mention the fact that while you have to distribute source code for your modifications on a GPLed program, there is nothing whatsoever preventing you from building an application on top of Linux for example and distribute only the binaries for that application.
You seem to be lacking a bit of information here.
Simple, They do not own the copyright. They are not allowed to remove the copyright notices because somebody else wrote the code and released it under the GPL. They are using code from another GPLed source. They are not allowed to remove the copyrights of the original authors and they must make the source of all GPLed portions of the program available to anyone whom receives the program. Additionally, all of their software which uses the GPLed libraries must be released under a GPL compatible license.
That's basically the same thing. You want the original authors to change their rules to suit you.
So, you can be absolutely sure that all potential software companies whose software we might want to use could be persuaded to allow us unlimited licence to sell copies of their software at a lower cost than them? Given that these companies make 100% of their revenue from selling copies of their software, I consider this unlikely. If you think they will dop this then you are rather naive about the realities of the software industry.No, but why do you assume that OSS developers should change the way they license their software?
Of course, then there's the other problem. If we violate the licence of a commercial company, we have a legal problem. If we violate the GPL, not only do we have a legal problem. We have a PR problem.That's not really a problem just don't violate the license!
I'm sorry it's just the same old complaint over and over, with the same solution. If you don't agree with the license terms don't use the code!
I'll give you this, at least it doesn't sound like you are advocating using GPL against the license, or claiming that it's not valid :) /p
May the source be with you!
This would work, but the reason that companies that don't comply with the GPL don't do this is that it takes much more work than just "s/phpAdsNew/AdStats/g" and whatnot.
They'd have to WORK for it. And even that patch to allow all the functions of the program to be accessible by API would be a huge plus.
Right, so if you use GPL'ed code you can't release yours ?!?!?!
You got it all wrong. Naturally you can release your code. You can do whatever you want as long as there is no GPL code in it.
You can even release it if it contains GPL code, you just have to license it under GPL as well.
You have made it pretty clear that you don't like the GPL. However, you must understand that whoever releases his code under GPL does *NOT* want you to use it in any other way. Respect their wishes and go on with your programming.
P.S. If you need to use some GPL library:
Contact the author, if he did release a library under GPL (Extremely rare, but it has happened) he propably made a mistake. Almost all of the libraries in the GPL world are licensed under LGPL, which allows you to link against them without making your code GPL.
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
I suggest you take a look at the 2 clause BSD license, you may find that:
Ah yes. Okay,I'll grant you, there are a few free licences around that are compatible. Of course, the BSD licence had to be modified explicitely because of GPL compatibility problems.
Not to mention the fact that while you have to distribute source code for your modifications on a GPLed program, there is nothing whatsoever preventing you from building an application on top of Linux for example and distribute only the binaries for that application.
I never said there was.
You seem to be lacking a bit of information here.
Yes, but the basic point that GPL software is incompatible with a lot of other software, purely for legal reasons, still remains. It is the only licence that causes this problem.
You only have to release the portions covered by the GPL under the rules of the GPL. GPL software is built on top of proprietary libraries all of the time.
>I can not use GPL code with other code that is not
>licensed under the GPL. The GPL is incompatible
>with every other licence I've seen. Every other
>licence I've seen is incompatible with precisely
>one licence - The GPL.
Ok, i'll bite..
1) If another license is less restrictive than GPL that means that you are allowed to change the license for that code (considering that this is basically the restriction GPL enforces). So you can GPL the code, and the license is compatible with GPL.
2) If the license is more restrictive than GPL, and you cannot change it, I agree that you have a problem. But it's a problem with the other license, (at least) as much as it's a problem with GPL, no?
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
Ah yes. Okay,I'll grant you, there are a few free licences around that are compatible. Of course, the BSD licence had to be modified explicitely because of GPL compatibility problems.
Not exactly.
The GPL may have played a role there, but the advertising clause was problematic in general.
Btw, the x.org license is also compatible with the GPL.
Yes, but the basic point that GPL software is incompatible with a lot of other software, purely for legal reasons, still remains. It is the only licence that causes this problem.
Those who made the GPL and those who use it did that on purpose. You may disagree with that purpose, fine, go spend the time and money to build equivalent software yourself then.
Just to be clear, I am myself not a big fan of the GPL, but I do respect the choice of those who use it, and will not complain about their use of it, rather, I will pick an alternative when needed.
Seriously, Who would significantly modify the linux kernel and THEN sort out the licensing? Talk about putting the cart before the horse.
Right, so if you use GPL'ed code you can't release yours ?!?!?!
No, ut we no longer have the choice. We can't release bits and pieces as we choose.
You got it all wrong. Naturally you can release your code. You can do whatever you want as long as there is no GPL code in it. You can even release it if it contains GPL code, you just have to license it under GPL as well.
"Just" license it under the GPL? Just contact a dozen vendors, and negotiate individually for what amounts to them surrendering full rights to their code?
You have made it pretty clear that you don't like the GPL. However, you must understand that whoever releases his code under GPL does *NOT* want you to use it in any other way. Respect their wishes and go on with your programming.
We do. I just disagree with the suggestion that the GPL is the only license that grants rights. I argue that in some cases it takes away rights.
Those who made the GPL and those who use it did that on purpose. You may disagree with that purpose,
I know they did. That's largely my point. I do wonder if they realise that it actually means that some organisations are therefore incapable of using their code.
I know I'm just a noob, but could someone please explain to me who enforces the GPL, and why so many companies shamelessly violate it?
Explain to me please: What do you exactly mean with compatible. because I don't see the compatibility here:
1. I can release any modifications to BSD-licensed code under GPL.
2. I can release no modifications to GPL-licensed code under a BSD-license. (Unless I'm the original author of the GPL'ed code)
The GPL is a very special license and does only serve some very special purposes. For many cases there are better licenses.
By the way, quite a few licenses restrict what you can and cannot do with the resulting work. I've seen several commercial licenses that prevent you from releasing your source code. Heck, thats exactly what SCOs take on the original UNIX license is. I've seen (many) component-ware licenses (ActiveX controls and the like) that forbid you from release products that use them as freeware or open source, even if the control is royalty-free. Many licenses forbid you from exposing the functionality of the library to user code - the Qt license is a good example. You can't use a commercial Qt license to simply write a wrapper layer around Qt and expose the functionality to your users. It's not common now, but licenses for compilers and associated libraries, like the C standard library, contained clauses preventing you from using them to create competing products.
I'm curious what kind of libraries you're using where theres no GPL/open source equivilent. Perhaps not as good, or as polished. But none? Certainly all the tools/libraries you'd want for normal off-the-shelf application development are there.
Lastly, I find it amusing and somewhat sad, although not entirely suprising, that the idea that people will react badly to you violating the license is considered a problem with the license.
That's basically the same thing. You want the original authors to change their rules to suit you.
That would be nice. But actually, I think it's a little pigheaded of them to insist that their rules have to apply to everyone else as well. We can't force our other vendors to agree to these terms, and shouldn't have to. They don't try to make the GPL programmers agree to their terms. The GPL software and the third party libraries are totally separate. It makes their software extremely expensive. I'm always critical when software has a prohibitive licencing cost. Ultimately it's up to the copyright holder, but I have the right to criticise.
No, but why do you assume that OSS developers should change the way they license their software?
I don't. It would be helpful if they did, but it's up to them.
That's not really a problem just don't violate the license!
Are you suggesting that no company has ever inadvertantly violated terms of the GPL?
I'm sorry it's just the same old complaint over and over, with the same solution. If you don't agree with the license terms don't use the code!
We don't. But that's not my point. My main point is that the GPL is more restrictive than other licences, and hence we can't use GPL code. People are denying that these problems exist, so I mention the specific problems we encounter to illustrate how this is a problem.
It's certainly not the only license that grants rights - when stated like this, people are normally comparing the GPL to an EULA from a users perspective, rather than to a commercial library license from a developers perspective. However, it does *not* take away rights. Ever. If you're creating a derived work, you *never* had the right to distribute that work. This, of course, is true of any license for a software library - it'd be pretty useless otherwise. From a developers perspective, the GPL restricts the developer in order to presever the freedom of the user. This is something that a great many people do not understand, and many people who do understand it don't like it because they want to sell closed source applications. Which is fine with me, as far as it goes, because I'm not as extreme as RMS is. But understanding why the GPL does what it does is important to using it properly.
Read the FoxPro license? You don't get the code, but you are enjoined from
a) Saying anything bad about it
b) Using it anywhere other than Windows (cf. WINE)
c) Decompiling it
d) Selling on
You CAN follow the GPL rules. Release the code under GPL *only to those to whom you sell your code*. If you feel that *in your particular case* that this is a bigger cost than writing code anew, then fine. If you found the commercial Qt license too expensive, then you could refuse to use it. Doesn't mean you can continue to use it, like you want to do.
Look, if I had code under GPL that you wanted, I could license it to you under whatever terms I wish. Including GPL only. So, even if there is only one source, that doesn't help. Any closed source company would do the same (with the added restraint of an NDA *before* you get to see the code).
So, if you're being reasonable (this one was a lot more than earlier posts), then there is nothing to say. You can't in your case use GPL and you don't. That's it. Previously, you required the GPL to be relaxed for your use before you could use it. I guess that could be done. 'Course you'd have to remove copyrights (and we get back to nicking copies of your code again...).
I thought that linux was the kernel.
There is certainly some confusion (myself included) about just who is entitled to ask for the source code of a GPL'ed program that is sold in binary form.
In actual practice, however, I think the question is moot. My reasoning is this:
Once *anyone* has received a copy of the source from the company that sold the binaries, they can (and, given the folks who bother to do the requesting, at least one person likely will) distribute the source to EVERYONE else without restriction.
This means that once ONE copy of the source is distributed, it makes no difference whether the distributor of the binaries limits its offer of source code to those who bought the binaries, or just posts the source for all to download. The source is out there, and the seller cannot make any claim that anyone "improperly" received it, since its redistribution is unrestricted per the GPL.
It is certainly possible that litigious scoundrels might try to sue under this circumstance, but such a suit would certainly be doomed. Damages for "improperly" receiving something you could easily have received for free by an essentially-equivalent "proper" process that has the identical result? The judge would fall off the bench laughing.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Note that rulings of copyright infringement aren't based on an absolute, literal interpretation of the law, but on the discretion of the judge/jury.
If the API appears to only be a layer to glue together a piece of GPLd code and a piece of closed code (e.g. these are the only useful pieces of code that implement the API), then it can be argued legally that the two pieces of code communicating via the API in fact form what should be considered a single program when interpreting the GPL.
This can even apply if the API is done over sockets (it's still an API, just using a different method of invoking functionality). If it looks like the intent behind creating the layer has been to work around the GPL, you might still be in trouble.
Those are easy to answer, and the answer is not specific to the GPL. This is a matter of copyright law, and everyone in the US is subject to those rules. All of the above would constitute copyright infringment. If you "rewrite" a function through a clean room implementation (never seen the original code, it just happens to look the same due to the fact it does the same thing), then you're OK, unless you've infringed on a patent in the process.
Why should they care?
Look, you can go GPL with your code and get back "free" debug and enhancement, making your code better for free.
Or, you can sell your code and get cash.
However, getting cash means that you now have to be an accountant. You also need a solicitor. And you need enforcement so that you aren't missing out on money due you. Also, your code will now be up against all the free stuff and all the commercial stuff, but without the market budget of the commercial entities and without the ease of "try before you buy" that the free stuff gives you.
When the return on investment is small and not assured (you won't get a solicitor on contingency here!), then there is little loss of revenue.
However, a company may already have the marketing dept and solicitors. They see little ongoing costs in exploiting your idea. So they can "steal" your idea and make profit off it. For those who don't care, the BSD works well. However, that means you did your work for nothing. Most people would prefer to get the benefit of free bugfixes so use GPL.
(especially useful for reformed IP litigation companies who've gotten a conscience)
1. Identify companies who are violating the GPL by secretly incorporating it into their proprietary products.
2. Make licensing arrangements with the Open Source authors involved, so as to be able to sue on their behalf. Register the copyrights involved on behalf of the authors (this allows increased damage awards for willful copyright violation, IIRC)
3. Contact the GPL violators and get them to comply and pay a please-go-away fee; sue those who won't comply, and win by judgement or settlement (including GPL compliance either way).
4. Profit! (in an ethically responsible way, even!)
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
I do wonder if they realise that it actually means that some organisations are therefore incapable of using their code.
Depends on your definition of "use".
Use as in running such software for whatever purpose? the GPL is very clear about that, it puts NO restrictions on that whatsoever.
Use as in incorporate it into their own products or derive from it? That you cannot do that unless you (can) comply with the GPL is the entire point of the GPL, so I would somehow think they are aware of that....
Please, do not feed the trolls.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
2. I can release no modifications to GPL-licensed code under a BSD-license. (Unless I'm the original author of the GPL'ed code)
It does not prevent you from making this combination, that the end result will be GPL licensed does not change that. It is a limitation on what you can do, sure. You can argue that that means that they are not compatible there.
The GPL is a very special license and does only serve some very special purposes. For many cases there are better licenses.
No argument there, you might have read my previous posts in this thread a bit better, it states that I am not too fond of the GPL. I just get extremely tired of people wanting to use GPLed software as part of their own product but do not want to comply with it, stop whining and use something else.
The name of EVERY FUNCTION is completely different. All the ones in Maui software start with ADSTATS and in the so-called original, all the function names begin with PHPSTAT.
How could this be copying code?
And as for all the function bodies being exactly the same code, well, it's a miracle. I guess good programmers all format their code exactly the same, use the same comments, and even misspell the same comments. Uhm, I gotta go.
Sincerely,
Maui X^H^H^H^H^H^H Someone with no financial interest in the outcome of this situation
I looked into the Maui X stuff and checked, and yes, they are very cleraly violating the GPL. It strikes me, however, that by making it impossible to obtain the source code, they are circumventing the technological measure of access control (namely, the source code in ASCII form).
The DMCA doesn't necessarily require an access control measure to lock someone out of access to a work (how it is typically employed). Specifically, a technical measure is:
I'd argue that distributing source code so as to grant access to the work is an effective measure to do so, and that in the normal course of it's operation (communicating the structure of an application) that it requires the application of information (headers, expert knowledge, software analysis tools), a process or treatment (at the very least, a system tath can decode ASCII and render it as glyphs on a display or printed page), and the authority of the copyright owner (a license; namely the GPL).
It seems to mee that if you contact their ISP you can have their site shut down. Further, you can complain to the FBI since it's now a federal criminal complaint:
My God! How many times are you going to cut-n-paste this in and have people run and post the same old replies? I mean, is you penis that fucking small that this is the only way you can satisfy you ego?
... lack of Token Ring support ... unable to defrag its ext2 file system ... copyrighted under something called the GPL
You, sir, have no idea what you're talking about, neither technically nor legally.
Also, you were surprised that your access to the source code came with some conditions? Please remind me to never hire you as a consultant. Checking facts like that first before you invest considerable time and money is one of the most basic skills you should have.
btw.: It's not copyrighted under the GPL, it's copyrighted under the Berne Convention. It is licensed under the GPL. Big difference.
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
its source code released.
Fire your lawyer and hire someone who can read.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Like those who said that GPL is like cancer and uncostitutional? Pigheaded are on both sides.:(
My main point is that the GPL is more restrictive than other licences, and hence we can't use GPL code.
I think that the restrictiveness(?) of a license depends on the point of view. Someone who wants to sell the software sees GPL more restricitve, someone who wants to use, study or doesn't have money the software sees a proprietary license more restrictive. And also proprietary licenses are mostly compatible with themselves, GPL-like are mostly compatible with themselves, and few are compatible with almost all license (BSD, LGPL).
And I also think that FreeSoftware, means that the software is free, not those who want to sell it, close it or make it proprietary. Depending on your aim you can like or dislike GPL, like any other thing.
Thank you,
Nice to see someone who owns up that they have made a mistake.
Well done Sir!
Actually, I haven't seen the image protection yet, so that's why I'm posting this. :P
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
Hehe. Very funny. Were's all the "It's inevitable now. You can't stop it, so you might as well give in to it" talk? Or everyone's favourite "Free advertising!". It sounds great when you're talking about someone elses work. It's a different thing when it's YOUR work being exploited.
TFA is great work and right on target, but too bad the blog also stoops to doing some personal snooping and posting links to some personal info stuff about a couple of people involved. That brings it almost to the level of the O'gara stuff about PJ. It even points out one person's religion (ala OGara), as if that matters. You could argue that its part of the investigation of who is who in this affair. Thats a judgement call, I suppose. To me it was gratuitous.
Depends on your definition of "use".
In the way I've described us as wanting to use it in countless other posts.
Use as in incorporate it into their own products or derive from it? That you cannot do that unless you (can) comply with the GPL is the entire point of the GPL, so I would somehow think they are aware of that....
But are they aware that some companies are incapable of complying with the GPL?
But are they aware that some companies are incapable of complying with the GPL?
No, for the simple reason that this is not true.
Your inability to comply with the GPL is the consequence of choices you are making. Those choices may work better for you but they are choices. Make a different choice and you can comply.
The choice might be to write your own implementations of things that currently make it impossible for you to comply with the GPL, or make the choice to not use GPLed software.
You want to eat your cake and have it.
"Only the Sith deal in absolutes"
However, it does *not* take away rights. Ever. If you're creating a derived work, you *never* had the right to distribute that work.
I disagree. Before I include the GPL code, I have the right to release my code with or without source, and prevent redistribution. After I include it, I no longer have the right. I've gained a right as well, but I've traded one right for another.
It's a copy-and-paste job. I called him on it. How is that "feeding the trolls"?
Please don't use a phrase unless you understand what it means.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
It seems like the GPL was designed for a more perfect world. Unfortunately this is not the case.
Since we cannot get rid of people who will try to benefit off the hard work and good will of others while giving nothing in return, maybe a rewrite of the GPL is in order? To avoid cases like this one in the future.
Maybe GPL'd open source projects should also state explicitly that any modifications to the source should always be made available to the original authors? And within a reasonable timeframe(like a week/month) a derived work is released?
VStrider.
No, for the simple reason that this is not true.
Where are you going to get a GPL compatible licence for a proprietry CODEC?
Your inability to comply with the GPL is the consequence of choices you are making. Those choices may work better for you but they are choices. Make a different choice and you can comply.
Well, yes. We could write totally different software. Alternatively we could open a shoe shop.
The choice might be to write your own implementations of things that currently make it impossible for you to comply with the GPL,
Which is hardly practical, and still not always possible. What about patents?
or make the choice to not use GPLed software.
yerrrsss... Which is hardly what I'd call "complying" with the GPL. Certainly not what I meant by it anyway.
You want to eat your cake and have it.
Yes... We'd like to do a lot more too. We're a business. We want to make as much money for as little as possible.
We'd quite like to use some GPL code as well. We'd be quite happy to abide by the terms, however, we can't. The reason is that the GPL insists on inflicting its terms on everyone else's code.
If you could compile a version of your application which contained no GPL code, then you could distribute that all you want - thats yours, and you have the rights to it. You're claiming that somehow you lose rights because you can't distribute GPL code alongside yours, which is false. Do you feel that you lose rights because you can't distribute your application without having paid money to commercial library vendors? It's the same thing. You aren't losing a right because you never had one in the first place.
If the FSF, GPL's guys get really pissing then instead of an API I would use a TCP socket communication protocol, or whatever is needed, of course I WILL have to donate/open the code for the communication mechanism, but, I will be able to have my closed source program intact because they are 2 different programs.
I do not know why any company has thought about it...
This has been discussed many times (along with the "I'll just create a plug-in protocol and distribute the GPL'd code with a wrapper that implements the plug-in protocol"). IIRC, MySQL has a GPL license that strictly forbids this in non-GPL'd applications. It is also, I believe, going to be addressed in the next version of the GPL.
FreeSpeech.org
I realise what you're saying. I just felt I sshould point out that "free" is a matter of opinion and position. In this case, the GPL is so agressive about enforcing freedoms that we're not free to distribute GPL code.
By the way, quite a few licenses restrict what you can and cannot do with the resulting work. I've seen several commercial licenses that prevent you from releasing your source code.
I'm pretty certain ours don't. We supply source for a lot of our stuff so presumably there's an exception.
I'm curious what kind of libraries you're using where theres no GPL/open source equivilent. Perhaps not as good, or as polished. But none? Certainly all the tools/libraries you'd want for normal off-the-shelf application development are there.
It's usually code for dealing with proprietry communications protocols and compression mechanisms. I suspect there's a chunk of fairly trivial stuff that does have open source equivalents.
Lastly, I find it amusing and somewhat sad, although not entirely suprising, that the idea that people will react badly to you violating the license is considered a problem with the license.
It's not a problem with the licence per se. It's still a potential issue associated with GPL code, which is pretty much the same thing.
A troll is a troll, regardless of if the guy copy/pasted it or not. It only existed to get people to respond to it. A troll. You responded.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
The GPL has been tested in a court of law-- several, even (Germany and the US being two big countries to test it). Google is your friend.
The GPL is not a contract. It is a grant of copyright under specific terms. One of the fundamental ideas of copyright is this: you cannot publish a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright owner. That's what the GPL is, permission from the copyright owner. The GPL outlines the conditions under which you may use the copyrighted work.
One of the reasons the GPL hasn't been in too many high-profile court cases is simple: the defending lawyers read the license of copyright, tell their clients they are screwed, and advise them to rectify their copyright breach.
It is up to the individual owners of the copyright to defend their copyright. That is the primary reason the FSF likes you to assign a copyright to them for your GPL works, so they can legally defend the copyright. Otherwise, it's up to each programmer to pursue violations themselves.
Hope that helps clear things up.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Look, you can go GPL with your code and get back "free" debug and enhancement, making your code better for free.
No we can't. It's unlikely that people will bother given that we have a world market of a few hundred units.
Or, you can sell your code and get cash.
Nope. We don't do this. We sell hardware.
Now, we'd love to use open source code. We'd love to comply with the licences, and just shove all the source onto a partition, but then we lose a chunk of other code because we're not allowed to distribute the source. Since this has no open source equivalent, and the open source stuff has some proprietry equivalent, there's no choice in the matter.
Where are you going to get a GPL compatible licence for a proprietry CODEC?
You don't, you write your own, or you use a setup where you do not have to link to it.
Well, yes. We could write totally different software. Alternatively we could open a shoe shop.
Thats your choice.
Which is hardly practical, and still not always possible. What about patents?
Hardly practical? There are thousands of examples of how practical this is. It will cost you something in the form of time and efford.
Patents have nothing to do with the GPL.
or make the choice to not use GPLed software.
yerrrsss... Which is hardly what I'd call "complying" with the GPL. Certainly not what I meant by it anyway.
You do comply that way, it is simply the alternative to using GPLed software.
Yes... We'd like to do a lot more too. We're a business. We want to make as much money for as little as possible.
Yeah, and the people who write GPLed software dont work for free either. Too bad, but you simply get what you pay for, you are not prepared to pay the price? your problem, stop whining.
We'd quite like to use some GPL code as well. We'd be quite happy to abide by the terms, however, we can't. The reason is that the GPL insists on inflicting its terms on everyone else's code.
Only if you use GPLed code. I don't when I have a better alternative for exactly this reason, but I don't whine at authors of GPLed software for not giving away their work without asking something back. If I use someone elses work, that someone else dictates the terms on which I can use it, simple.
Again, stop whining.
Like I said, come back when you understand what the phrase actually means.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
hmm... have to try this :P
> And this new image protection for posting sucks
> too.
Image protection? Haven't seen that. What gives?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Yeah, and the people who write GPLed software dont work for free either. Too bad, but you simply get what you pay for, you are not prepared to pay the price? your problem, stop whining.
I'll stop whining as soon as GPL zealots stop insisting that using GPL code doesn't restrict your rights. It all depends on how you use it. If you use it as a component within existing code, you have to sacrifice the right to use proprietry third party code with it.
Patents have nothing to do with the GPL.
Except the preamble and clause 7. My point is that if we use a patented algorithm, then however hard we try, there is no way to release our software in a manner compliant with the GPL. If we don't use patented algorithms, then our equipment is no longer compatible with the standard and therefore useless.
You do comply that way, it is simply the alternative to using GPLed software.
Yes, but that's splitting hairs. It doesn't actually help does it?
If I use someone elses work, that someone else dictates the terms on which I can use it, simple.
Fine, but if you're dictating terms, stop claiming that you're providing me with freedom. I'm only "free" to do things your way.
If the license is more restrictive than GPL, and you cannot change it, I agree that you have a problem. But it's a problem with the other license, (at least) as much as it's a problem with GPL, no?
The issue is that the other licence makes no comment on how we deal with any other code. The GPL does make demands on how we release software based on proprietry libraries. The GPL code is not linked to the proprietry code, doesn't call it, is not called by it, uses none of the interface, yet the GPL would insist that we release the code for that as well as the modifications we make to the original code.
Do you feel that you lose rights because you can't distribute your application without having paid money to commercial library vendors?
Yes.
We have a piece of software. We add a line of GPL code. We no longer have the right to redistribute outside of the terms of the GPL. We have lost the right until we remove that code. We add a line of code that requires a per copy licence fee. We no longer have the right to use that code without paying the fee. We regain that right by removing that line of code. Most of it is still my code, but I no longer have full rights to it because I'm obliged to abide by the terms of another person.
Even if someone else takes away the line of GPL code I added, I still no longer have any right to control what they do with the code if they abide by the terms of the GPL.
Have to bite here, if I modified GPL code (such as the Linux kernel) for my own purposes, and only ran it myself, then everyone else can go spin if they want my changes.
I don't have to release source if I don't release binaries. If you wanted the same modifications done, then either a) do it yourself or b) persuade me to release it.
However you wouldn't necessarily know that I had made the necessary changes...
We add a line of code that requires a per copy licence fee. We no longer have the right to use that code without paying the fee.
This line perfectly describes your confusion. It's wrong. You have every right to use *your* code without paying a fee. You have no right to use that 1 line of code without paying a fee. There is not just one "code" that was yours and becomes not yours - there's simply the aggregation of all the code. When the "whole" that you're talking about is your code + someone elses code it should be obvious that it's not wholey yours. Your rights to your own code are never restricted. I don't know how to be any more clear here. Whats supposedly stopping you from distributing your "own" code is the other code you're trying to distribute with it. You can't distribute OTHER peoples code without permission, pure and simple, and thats all thats happening with the GPL.
The point about removing the line of GPL code is true, but has nothing to do with your rights over the code, and it's not the GPL affecting that. Basically you're saying that you can't retroactively re-license your code, which is true with pretty much everything.
Maybe one more analagy will make it clear. Lets say you have a bag of apples. If I ask you for an apple, you can give me an apple or not, as you desire. Now lets say you license a caramel-apple-maker from someone and he says you have to give him a quarter for each caramel apple you give away. If I ask you for an apple, you can still give me an apple. Those are your apples. But you can't give me a caramel apple, because the guy who owns the caramel wants his quarter. Thats his caramel. You can't give me his caramel without agreeing to his terms. Sure, you own the apple thats under the caramel - but you can't give it to me with the caramel on it, because you don't own the whole candy apple. You only own the plain apple part.
I'll stop whining as soon as GPL zealots stop insisting that using GPL code doesn't restrict your rights. It all depends on how you use it. If you use it as a component within existing code, you have to sacrifice the right to use proprietry third party code with it
Hmm yes... that is why I can use a machine with nvidia video hardware, running Linux with a non GPLed nvidia kernel module for example.
There are people who strongly believe in the goal that the GPL tries to achieve, you are obviously not among them, and that is fine, I am not among those either. I do however respect the choice that people made with regards to what license they use.
Except the preamble and clause 7. My point is that if we use a patented algorithm, then however hard we try, there is no way to release our software in a manner compliant with the GPL. If we don't use patented algorithms, then our equipment is no longer compatible with the standard and therefore useless.
Well, if you choose to use something that puts up additional restrictions then that indeed can mean you cannot use GPLed code, but that is not always the case, it depends on how exactly things are intefgrated with eachother. See my example from above.
If you use a patented algorithm on which you own the patent, and you do not put additional restrictions on its use in GPLed software, then you can use a patented algorithm.
If you don't own the patent then well, that is not going to work, but in that case you may find that the GPL is not unique, it is a consequence of using a patented algorithm.
Yes, but that's splitting hairs. It doesn't actually help does it?
It does not help you for the simple reason that you want something that the GPL will not offer you, get the things you need for no price whatsoever.
You seem to still not understand that this is all about choices. If you make choices incompatible with the GPL then that is your problem, not that of the GPL.
Fine, but if you're dictating terms, stop claiming that you're providing me with freedom. I'm only "free" to do things your way.
You are free to do whatever you want, but if you are going to distribute what you built using a GPLed work then you have to comply with the GPL in many cases. You have a choice to use something else.
The GPL is about freedom, but not about the freedom to rip off someone elses work, but about preservation of the freedom to see and modify the source code of software you use. The restriction you have such an issue with guarantees that.
It is indeed not total and complete freedom, but it is a lot more freedom then most software licenses offer you.
It is exactly because of people who want the thing that you are asking for that the GPL contains this specific restriction.
Again, I don't like the GPL much, but I won't go whine about it, rather, I pick something more suitable, and with regards to the thing this discussion started with, Linux, there are very good alternatives that do not impose this kind of restriction..
Look for example at this operating system.
You still want to use Linux because it gets you a better marketing position_ then fucking pay the price and stop your whining.
I think I quite understand what it means, and you do not.
(think it is obvious yet?)
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
You're still confusing your rights and someone elses rights. You have all the right in the world to distribute your code. You do not have any rights to distribute someone elses code.
Quite. so when I add someone elses code, I no longer have the right to distribute my code, since by doing so I will distribute the other code.
Maybe one more analagy will make it clear. Lets say you have a bag of apples. If I ask you for an apple, you can give me an apple or not, as you desire. Now lets say you license a caramel-apple-maker from someone and he says you have to give him a quarter for each caramel apple you give away. If I ask you for an apple, you can still give me an apple. Those are your apples. But you can't give me a caramel apple, because the guy who owns the caramel wants his quarter. Thats his caramel. You can't give me his caramel without agreeing to his terms. Sure, you own the apple thats under the caramel - but you can't give it to me with the caramel on it, because you don't own the whole candy apple. You only own the plain apple part.
Yes. by agreeing to his terms, and covering an apple in caramel I lose the right to give you my apple.
Mind if I *borrow* your idea?
Ok, just be sure to return it tomorrow.
First off, it's the "GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE", not the "Gnu Protective License". This mistake casts doubt on your knowledge of the subjects which you are discussing.
D ecember/msg04120.html ) - which makes yours an understandable mistake, considering that you are used to working with a system as horribly untidy as Windows - there are indeed tools for doing just that ( http://e2fsprogs.sourceforge.net/ext2.html ).
Aside from the fact that ext2 doesn't need to be defragmented in the first place ( https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2003-
Second, you need only make code changes available if the binaries are distributed - your lawyers are obviously not doing their job properly. Perhaps you hired divorce lawyers instead of ones trained in IP law? ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt ) Aside from the fact that you don't have to in the first place, sharing your alterations with those who provided you the original source is still nothing more than a nice thing to do - If you put your changes in, and your competition does the same, then who comes out ahead?
If your lawyers were competent, they would realize that the GPL does not require that program output - such as a program compiled by GCC - be open sourced. ( http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt ) It would appear that you are getting your information on linux and open source from Microsoft's propaganda campaign. Do you feel stupid for expecting the truth about linux from a competing vendor?
Microsoft's "Shared Source" license is one of the most draconian pieces of trash I'ce ever seen, and the GPL is Linux's strength. As for your mistaken claim that no companies use linux, I would like to cite some examples:
IBM and their linux initiative
Sony chose linux as the OS of choice for the PS2 AND PS3
Pixar uses Linux for it's rendering clusters
Chrysler is using Linux to simulate vehicle crashs
Linksys routers run Linux
Should I continue to cite examples from the endless string of major companies that rely on linux for matters critical to their very survival?
You, my good man, are both misinformed and completely lacking in a desire to learn the truth.
Aargh. No. You're only losing the right to give me a caramel-covered apple. Which you aren't really losing, because you never had such a right. Your right to give me a plain old non-carmelized apple is intact. You can't lose a right unless you already had it. Since you never had a right to give me a caramel covered apple, you can't be losing anything. The problem here is your usage of the term "lose". You haven't lost anything.
Hmm yes... that is why I can use a machine with nvidia video hardware, running Linux with a non GPLed nvidia kernel module for example.
Yes, but what's that got to do with anything? The reason they can do this is that Linus believes that this is not a part of the work. The existence of closed source modules have created controversy.
It's possible that we could link to a closed source library if we modify the open source application to accept loadable modules. Or perhaps not. Quite frankly we don't want to go anywhere near that minefield.
If you don't own the patent then well, that is not going to work, but in that case you may find that the GPL is not unique, it is a consequence of using a patented algorithm.
I don't know of any other licence that prevents us from using unrelated patented algorithms. Certainly none of the ones covering software we use.
You seem to still not understand that this is all about choices. If you make choices incompatible with the GPL then that is your problem, not that of the GPL.
But the GPL is especially written to force people to make this choice. Many other licences do not have this problem, except when it comes to the GPL. They are aware of other licences and philosophies. They accomodate them as much as possible. The GPL effectively says that if I want to use this code, it must be licenced under the GPL. The other licence does not say if I use GPLed code, it must be licenced under a different licence. It makes no demands of other code at all, apart from as a direct result of the licence of the other code.
You are free to do whatever you want, but if you are going to distribute what you built using a GPLed work then you have to comply with the GPL in many cases. You have a choice to use something else.
Yes. I have this choice with every licence. I don't see where I'm getting all this freedom you're providing me with. I already had the freedom before I touched the GPL code.
I know what we can and can't do with GPLed code. I have no issue with that. we simply don't use it. What I have an issue with is that it dictates what we must do with other code, and then its advocates (and the licence itself) claims to provide freedoms. As a source code licence, it's no more free than most other source code licences. In some ways it's less so.
I still have the right to give you an apple, but I no longer have the right to give you the specific apple I covered in caramel.
The problem here is your usage of the term "lose". You haven't lost anything.
Yes I have! I lost the right to give you the apple I just covered in caramel.
No you didn't, because you *never had the right* to give me an apple covered in caramel.
No but I had the right to give you the apple until I covered it in caramel.
I'm talking about this, sometimes it shows up, sometimes it doesn't
g
http://r.elmuerte.com/junk/slashdot-imagecheck.pn
Wow, you do spout the same stuff don't you?
however, we can't. The reason is that the GPL insists on inflicting its terms on everyone else's code
No, it does not. If you use some GPL stuff inside your product then just release the source code with all of the modifications you made and be done with it. That's it. Any other programs you can release as you please, just including the GPL software doesn't make the others GPL.
How is that a problem for you?
Perhaps what you would want to do is to take the GPL code and modify some bits and call it your own without releasing the source? That's bad.
Perhaps LGPL would be the license you could use.
Also, the point of GPL is not to act as a never-drying fountain for corporations and companies to exploit. You might say that it infringes on your freedom to take e.g. my code, package it with YourCorp brand and sell it. I get 0, you get everything. That might be a freedom from your point of view, but surely not mine, nor from the points of view of any man with common sense.
The point which you are arguing is to prevent thefts such as those which I just described. Therefore it is not correct for you to just take a GPL application and modify certain pieces of it and then call it your own. The GPL applies to derivative works. This I think is your biggest problem here.
If you wish to use a library in a GPLish way, find something with LGPL license.
Or write your own stuff with your own time and sweat and blood, and release it with a license which grants me the freedoms you want from GPL code.
I don't want you to start using GPL code if it doesn't suit you. But please stop pretending that you want something different, that the license is at fault, when there is nothing wrong with the license, you would just like to use it in a way against the very spirit and purpose of the license; you would like to be a vulture eating away the fruits of labor and contribute nothing - you would become a parasitic entity.
Good luck to you and your product.
You might say that it infringes on your freedom to take e.g. my code, package it with YourCorp brand and sell it. I get 0, you get everything.
We have that right. Red Hat makes a pretty succesful business from it. That's not the problem. It infringes on my right to use linbraries that are not GPL licenced.
The point which you are arguing is to prevent thefts such as those which I just described. Therefore it is not correct for you to just take a GPL application and modify certain pieces of it and then call it your own. The GPL applies to derivative works. This I think is your biggest problem here.
We don't want to do this. Nothing of the sort. We want to take a GPL application and incorporate it into a much larger application. An application that we are perfectly happy to open source, but it links to closed source libraries which we do not have the right to distribute the source for.
Or write your own stuff with your own time and sweat and blood, and release it with a license which grants me the freedoms you want from GPL code.
You can get whatever freedoms you ask for with our software if you buy our hardware. This is limitted to our own software, and does not include third party libraries that are included.
I don't want you to start using GPL code if it doesn't suit you. But please stop pretending that you want something different, that the license is at fault, when there is nothing wrong with the license, you would just like to use it in a way against the very spirit and purpose of the license; you would like to be a vulture eating away the fruits of labor and contribute nothing - you would become a parasitic entity.
The licences demands that unrelated libraries are also tied into the obligations. The nature of the licence is that I am barred from using other third party code. I believe this is deliberate. I consider this to show the GPL authors overvalue their creations. The price is too high. I often complain about high prices. Sometimes people listen and lower them.
I don't think this is a flaw in the licence, since this appears to be the purpose. I disagree with the philosophy behind it.
The price is too high. I often complain about high prices. Sometimes people listen and lower them.
Then don't pay the price and get something more suitable.
You seem to really have trouble with that eh?
wrt the kernel modules, nvidia is one exanple. Go look at what Linksysdoes with their routers and the modules for the broadcom ethernet switch and wireless hardware, there are many more examples.
Then don't pay the price and get something more suitable.
Yes. That's what we do. I merely point out that people could choose another licence that allows the use of third party code under a different licence. The ramifications of using the GPL means that you create potential conflicts.
You seem to really have trouble with that eh?
No. You seem to be missing the point. In this case, my point is that the GPL terms bar the use of unrelated libraries.
wrt the kernel modules, nvidia is one exanple. Go look at what Linksysdoes with their routers and the modules for the broadcom ethernet switch and wireless hardware, there are many more examples.
What do they do? Looks like they use some software under the GPL. So what's the point? More kernel modules under Linux? Fair enough. If we ever want to release a closed source driver for Linux then we'll keep that in mind.
Well, know I know. Cheers.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I know of another example: http://www.ed.csm.com.au/edmail.html This is a commercial product used by the South Australian Education System, the company who `created` the product is actually using a reskinned SquirrelMail, talk about being unethical and untruthful to your customers (especially >$2mAU contracts.....), may the slashdot effect can rustle some feathers........
Due to funds shortage, no sigs will be issued today. Thankyou.
Yes. That's what we do. I merely point out that people could choose another licence that allows the use of third party code under a different licence. The ramifications of using the GPL means that you create potential conflicts.
Potential conflicts with a situation that those who thought up the GPL are extremely well aware off, and those who use it generally don't care about. This is YOUR and not their problem really.
They use the GPL because it offers them something that no other license offers, exactly because of that one restriction that you take such an issue with.
What this means my friend is that your argument is technically correct but is not being heard because it is simply of no relevance whatsoever to virtually anyone who uses the GPL, it only is relevant for people like you.
No. You seem to be missing the point. In this case, my point is that the GPL terms bar the use of unrelated libraries.
I was not missing that point at all, but for the authors of most GPL software that is a completely irrelevant argument, a point which you seem to be missing. lets put it simple, and sorry for shouting, but you really seem to want to ignore this: THEY KNOW AND THEY DO NOT CARE.
Now for something else, if you are talking about libraries, those are often written by a small number of people, who may even be organiyed in a company or other organisation. You may find that in many cases you can get this exact same library with a different license from that group, just that you will have to pay a price still.
Go look at what for example a company like troltech does. Ever looked at MySQL?
Again, you are not informed well (besides seemingly unable to grasp that the people who believe strongly in the GPL do not even want to solve your problem, it is YOUR problem, not theirs)
What do they do? Looks like they use some software under the GPL. So what's the point? More kernel modules under Linux? Fair enough. If we ever want to release a closed source driver for Linux then we'll keep that in mind.
The point is that it is quite possible to integrate a binary only component in an otherwise GPLed system, unlike what you have been claiming so far. There are companies doing exactly that, and they are under close scruteny, it is not just a small incident that is staying under the radar or anything like that.
Again, you are not informed well (besides seemingly unable to grasp that the people who believe strongly in the GPL do not even want to solve your problem, it is YOUR problem, not theirs)
It's a problem they deliberately created. Thanks guys. Why did they create this problem? To prevent me from using non GPLed code? If so then any claims that it doesn't take away freedoms are untrue.
Now for something else, if you are talking about libraries, those are often written by a small number of people, who may even be organiyed in a company or other organisation. You may find that in many cases you can get this exact same library with a different license from that group, just that you will have to pay a price still.
Yes. If you take the other licence, they're not under the GPL anymore are they?
The point is that it is quite possible to integrate a binary only component in an otherwise GPLed system, unlike what you have been claiming so far.
It's possible to incorporate a non-GPLed module in Linux, because Linus says it is. The GPL is not clear on this matter. Neither is copyright law.
It's a problem they deliberately created. Thanks guys. Why did they create this problem? To prevent me from using non GPLed code? If so then any claims that it doesn't take away freedoms are untrue.
So what freedom does it take away?
You realize that something you do not have to begin with cannot be taken away?
If you are trying to say that the GPL does not give absolute freedom you are right (and I already agreed to that a few times in this discussion, pointing you explicitly at alternatives). I do not believe that those who created the GPL ever claimed it would give such absolute freedom. That there are some uninformed adolecents running around claiming something else is pretty irrelevant. WHat people like the FSF and GNU have to say is relevant, and I didn't hear them claim that it grants absolute freedom at all, rather, that it imposes a specific restriction in order to preserve a specific kind of freedom. PRESERVING that freedom is why the restriction is there, and yes, that clearly means you cannot use it in every possible way.
Are you really only able to think black/white? that is only excusable if you are some unexperienced clueless adolecent (and many of those do a better job at seeing shades then you seem capable of still), seeing your claims of working for some company doing software development, I would expect you to be a bit older then that and actually have grasped a bit more about life.
It's possible to incorporate a non-GPLed module in Linux, because Linus says it is. The GPL is not clear on this matter. Neither is copyright law.
And your argument started out with wanting to use Linux but having found out that you can't because of the GPL, well, it seems pretty clear that your argument is not one that has anything to do with a real situation that you encountered, and everything with an anti GPL agenda.
Again, if you don't like it, don't use it. There is NO need whatsoever to try to make the GPL people aware of your issue, they are aware of it, and it exists on purpose. In those cases where it is relevant to the authors of GPLed software to solve the issue, they already did, and the rest simply does not care for your problem whatsoever. Go invest money in making your own solutions, pick one that has a more liberal license, or whatever, become a shoemaker or such. You have no right whatsoever to proffit from someone elses work, stop acting like you do.
So what freedom does it take away?
The freedom to use third party libraries with my code!
And your argument started out with wanting to use Linux but having found out that you can't because of the GPL, well, it seems pretty clear that your argument is not one that has anything to do with a real situation that you encountered, and everything with an anti GPL agenda.
No it didn't. It started off by pointing out that the GPL is less free than many source licences, and is unusual in that it is deliberately incompatible.
Again, if you don't like it, don't use it. There is NO need whatsoever to try to make the GPL people aware of your issue, they are aware of it, and it exists on purpose.
Yes. They deliberately created licencing incompatibilities. This is why we don't use it. I'm just pointing out that if they really want their code to be used then they'll use a different licence. This they have an agenda to push, we'll simply ignore them.
Why do you kjeep parrotting the "if you don't like it don't use it" mantra? We don't like it, so we don't use it.
No it didn't. It started off by pointing out that the GPL is less free than many source licences, and is unusual in that it is deliberately incompatible.
There are a few that give more freedom, there are quite a few that contain similar or more restrictive conditions (ie, the ones from Sun and Apple)
Yes. They deliberately created licencing incompatibilities. This is why we don't use it. I'm just pointing out that if they really want their code to be used then they'll use a different licence. This they have an agenda to push, we'll simply ignore them.
Yes, they have an agenda, that is pretty clear from the documentation from GNU for example. That agenda is not to get everyone to use their code but to create a situation where code sharing is the norm. Seeing the succes of the GPL as a source license I would argue that they are doing quite well there also.
If the goal would be to get as many people as possible to use their code, they#d have chosen a more appropriate license.
Do I agree with their agenda? yes. Do I agree with their means? no.
That said, the GPL was simply created for a purpose, and the people who created it indeed have an agenda, just like you do (yours seems to involve making as much money of someone elses work as you can without having to make choices). What is the problem with that? You disagree with their agenda? fine. They are likely to disagree with yours.
Why do you kjeep parrotting the "if you don't like it don't use it" mantra? We don't like it, so we don't use it.
So what is your problem then? I keep repeating it because it seems you don't want to take the consequences of the choices you made.
Oh, and for that matter, this is how this discussion started so it did start about wanting to use Linux and finding out about the restrictions of the GPL.
And in my previous post I also forgot to address this:
The freedom to use third party libraries with my code!
It does not take away that freedom at all, you can do that.
What you cannot do is mix GPL licensed code with code that uses a license that contains restrictions other then those of the GPL. Such licenses often put similar or bigger restrictions on your "use" anyway.
Note that the GPL explicitly states it contains restrictions, so maybe just burry your argument about this claim of absolute freedom, the GPL is very explicit about containing restrictions. Those who argue otherwise are clueless as to what the GPL means or never read it.
There are a few that give more freedom, there are quite a few that contain similar or more restrictive conditions (ie, the ones from Sun and Apple)
As far as I understand the Apple one, it only applies to the code and modifications made to the code. It does not apply to larger works that merely contain the code as a small portion.
So what is your problem then? I keep repeating it because it seems you don't want to take the consequences of the choices you made
1. That the GPL advocates are mistaken when they claim that the GPL offers freedoms that other licences don't.
2. That the GPL covers unrelated code. While I accept that authors have the legal right to do this if they choose, it strikes me as bad form to actively restrict use of other libraries.
Whether we use the code or not, these issues will still be there.
1. That the GPL advocates are mistaken when they claim that the GPL offers freedoms that other licences don't.
I gues that is why they also acknoledge the effords of someone like Theo de Raadt (OpenBSD) for 'freedom', while he publishes his work using a 2 clause BSD license.
I guess that is why they also agree that the BSD license offers the same and possibly more freedom.
No, the PL does not offer absolute freedom, it does not offer freedom that no other license offers, but what it does is offering preservation of that freedom.
2. That the GPL covers unrelated code. While I accept that authors have the legal right to do this if they choose, it strikes me as bad form to actively restrict use of other libraries.
The GPL covers unrelated code only for as far as copyright considers it a derived work. Your issue there is with copyright, not with the GPL.
Whether we use the code or not, these issues will still be there
It is not an issue for those who use the GPL, you don't use the GPL so it cannot possibly be a real issue for you. Please explain yourself how this is more then a theoretical issue that you are pursuing due to an anti GPL agenda.
No, the PL does not offer absolute freedom, it does not offer freedom that no other license offers, but what it does is offering preservation of that freedom.
A freedom that other similar licences preserve without removing the freedom to link to non-GPL code.
The GPL covers unrelated code only for as far as copyright considers it a derived work.
No it doesn't. Other libraries that we link to are not derived in any way from the GPL source.
It is not an issue for those who use the GPL, you don't use the GPL so it cannot possibly be a real issue for you.
It is an issue for me. And I don't use the GPL. There are a lot of political viewpoints and actions that I will argue against that do not affect me.
A freedom that other similar licences preserve without removing the freedom to link to non-GPL code.
Name any.
The 2 clause BSD license and all variations on it do not preserve this freedom for the simple reason that they allow creation of derived works that are no longer as free as the original.
No it doesn't. Other libraries that we link to are not derived in any way from the GPL source.
Yes it does. The GPL is a copyright based license, and cannot extend beyond what copyright allows for.
The resulting work is a derived work and as a simple result covered by copyright.
You cannot create a derived work without permission of the author of the work you are deriving from. Whatever components you mix for creating the derived work is irrelevant, you need permission from the authors of all the original work that you use for it.
It is an issue for me. And I don't use the GPL. There are a lot of political viewpoints and actions that I will argue against that do not affect me.
Please explain WHY it is an issue for you, you have been pretty clear that you consider it an issue (or love wasting your time discussing non-issues, which I find somewhat hard to believe), no WHY is it an issue?
I have provided you with an argument as to why it is at most a theoretical issue, maybe you could actually provide an argument to counter it instead of just stating that it is an issue.
Name any.
The apple licence you mentioned. The Mozilla Public Licence.
The resulting work is a derived work and as a simple result covered by copyright.
Yes, but the third party library isn't a derived work. The new product is a derived work of the GPL source, the third party library and other code.
You cannot create a derived work without permission of the author of the work you are deriving from. Whatever components you mix for creating the derived work is irrelevant, you need permission from the authors of all the original work that you use for it.
Yes, I know.
Please explain WHY it is an issue for you, you have been pretty clear that you consider it an issue (or love wasting your time discussing non-issues, which I find somewhat hard to believe), no WHY is it an issue?
Because I consider it wrong to pursue an agenda in this manner, and I consider it important that people realise that the GPL is a lot less free when compared with other source licences rather than EULAs.
The apple licence you mentioned. The Mozilla Public Licence.
Does the Apple license have a provision for creating derived works? how about the Mozilla license?
I did not look into the Apple license much but I am sure the Mozilla license does.
Quoting from their license:
3.1. Application of License.
The Modifications which You create or to which You contribute are governed by the terms of this License, including without limitation Section 2.2. The Source Code version of Covered Code may be distributed only under the terms of this License or a future version of this License released under Section 6.1, and You must include a copy of this License with every copy of the Source Code You distribute. You may not offer or impose any terms on any Source Code version that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License or the recipients' rights hereunder. However, You may include an additional document offering the additional rights described in Section 3.5.
3.2. Availability of Source Code.
Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an Executable version available; and if made available via Electronic Distribution Mechanism, must remain available for at least twelve (12) months after the date it initially became available, or at least six (6) months after a subsequent version of that particular Modification has been made available to such recipients. You are responsible for ensuring that the Source Code version remains available even if the Electronic Distribution Mechanism is maintained by a third party.
3.3. Description of Modifications.
You must cause all Covered Code to which You contribute to contain a file documenting the changes You made to create that Covered Code and the date of any change. You must include a prominent statement that the Modification is derived, directly or indirectly, from Original Code provided by the Initial Developer and including the name of the Initial Developer in (a) the Source Code, and (b) in any notice in an Executable version or related documentation in which You describe the origin or ownership of the Covered Code.
To provide for the abbility to derive from this while not having the Mozilla license extend to your derived work, the Mozilla foundation offers a choice of licenses, just like quite a few authors of GPL licensed software do.
The license itself however seems to extend to derived works in a way pretty similar to the GPL.
Yes, but the third party library isn't a derived work. The new product is a derived work of the GPL source, the third party library and other code.
>es, and the GPL only covers the GPLed original and the derived work. The conditions it puts on the derived work do indeed mean that you cannot have additional restrctions, and that is the only reason why it affects other (non GPL) components of the derived work.
It says nothign whatsoever about the original non GPL works, so it does not force any kind of license on them either.
Because I consider it wrong to pursue an agenda in this manner, and I consider it important that people realise that the GPL is a lot less free when compared with other source licences rather than EULAs.
It is a lot more free then what standard copyright provides for. That is the freedom it grants. That is indeed less then the 2 clause BSD license gives you.
But well, you confirmed what I was saying already a few times, you are opposing the GPL (or have an anti GPL agenda). That is fine, just stop trying to talk around it.
I am anti GPL.
The GPL covers all associated works, not just modifications of the code and extends this requirement to the entirity of Larger works that contains in whole or in part the code.
Most commerical licences don't do this.
Many open source licences (including the MPL) require modifications to the code to be published but don't extend this requirement to the entirity of Larger works that contains in whole or in part the code.
This prevents use of other libraries.
This is the intent.
I think this causes unfair limitations. We don't accept them so don't use GPL code.
Ok, now we are talking.
,licenses for their code, not because of the MPL.
The GPL covers all associated works, not just modifications of the code and extends this requirement to the entirity of Larger works that contains in whole or in part the code.
Lets see.
I have library A, covered by the GPL.
I also have library B, covered by say the original XFree86 license.
I have my own code C, license still to be determined.
I combine those into product D.
As per the terms of the GPL, D in its entirity is indeed covered by the GPL.
This does not mean that B ad C are automatically covered by the GPL except for when they are part of D.
If I replace GPL with MPL in the above statement, nothing changes except that everywhere where it says GPL now, it will say MPL.
So, the GPL does indeed force itself onto D, but not ontop B and C. It does however require that B and C do not impose restrictions on D that are not covered by the GPL.
The FSF is very clear about that you can do this, even when releasing C with a completely incompatible license, provided that you explicitly permit linking to GPLed code in your license, read this
This is sligtly more restrictive then the MPL in wording, but not in practical effect. Since the MPL extends to a derived work, it simply causes the same effect here.
Most commerical licences don't do this.
No, they usually have entirely different restrictions, such as restrictions on distribution, restriuctions on providing 3rd parties with source code etc etc.
Many open source licences (including the MPL) require modifications to the code to be published but don't extend this requirement to the entirity of Larger works that contains in whole or in part the code.
For all I can see, the MPL does this as well. You can still use code from the Mozilla project without complying with this requirement but only because of their multiple
This prevents use of other libraries.
Only when that use imposes new restrictions on the work derived from such a library, otherwise they don't, see above.
This is the intent.
Yes, it is the intent to extend the 'freedom' to access and modify the software to a derived work. This is freedom for the USER, not the developer.
I think this causes unfair limitations. We don't accept them so don't use GPL code
I don't see why those limitations are unfair, I can quite see why they are undesirable.
Because they are in quite a few cases undesirable, I don't use the GPL for my own work when I can avoid it, but I really fail to see why it is unfair for anyone to put specific conditions on the use of the work they create.
You can (and probably do) disagree with the goal that the GPL tries to achieve, and again, that is perfectly fine with me, I happen to agree with their goal but not their methods (just like you as per your own words) but I fail to see why it is unfair for someone to put some conditions on the use of their work.
What is more, I do think there are some valid arguments to make against the GPL in specific cases. They have little to do with fairness and everything with what situation is desirable.
For example, I believe it is a very bad idea to release sample implementations of a protocol as GPL code, instead, a 2 clause BSD style license should be used. This is because it encourages use of such sample code by everyone and does not put any limitations on the derived product.
Using the GPL for such code would only result in development of comparable but possibly incompatible implementations.
bleh, missing a close italics tag there somewhere.
If I replace GPL with MPL in the above statement, nothing changes except that everywhere where it says GPL now, it will say MPL.
The MPL only covers modifications to MPL code. Not a complete work. Under the GPL, I must supply source for B and C, whereas under the MPL, I do not.
Hmm, at least from what I read, the FSF seems to disagree with you on that one. (see the page I pointed you to, they explain the difference with the NPL there)
You may still be allowed to do this with code from the Mozilla foundation but that is because of multiple licensing, not because the MPL allows it for as far as I can see.
and to add to that, see paragraph 3.3 of the MPL, to me it reads like the MPL making no distinction at all between modification and deriving from, both seem to be covered by the exact same restrictions.
I think it's fairly obvious since you had to have the last word. Better luck next time. ;)