Slashdot Mirror
DrDOS Inc Breaking GPL
Bob Dobbs writes "DR-DOS 8.1 (DrDOS Inc) came out at the begining of this month, however instead of an upgrade to DR-DOS 8.0 the new product is based on work available on the internet.
The work includes shareware utilities, a badly patched version of the kernel work by Udo Kuhnt, drivers (Samsung, ESS) and utilities from FreeDOS and others (e.g. pkzip). Full information on the FreeDOS site. (Cheers FreeDOS!)"
Huh huh... huh huh...
Yeah... hehe... hehe...
Because you can't spell "slaughter" without "laughter"
DR-DOS being the best DOS around in the time of PC-DOS and MS-DOS with their EMM386 (I even changed the DOS in Windows 95 once to get faster games)
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I mean, Caldera, err...SCO
The funny thing is DrDOS was Sued , pre Caldera, and won, then Sued MS once (or right before) Caldera Bought it, I think Caldera pulled something like 200 Mil if I remeber out of the suit against MS
Maybe we should have taken it as a sign of things to come
And wasn't DR DOS originally owned by Caldera...?
Which turned into...SCO!
Do people out there really use DOS? I can understand an old point of sale system that might still be running DOS 3.3 or 5.0, but why upgrade something that is still working fine. And if you do upgrade, why to DOS?
--
http://blogs.sun.com/javawithjiva
You cannot "break" the gpl. It is a license, not a contract. If you do not agree to it or violate it's terms, you have no license to use the software or make derivative works. If that occurs it is simple copyright infringement.
When its SCO Stealing and Violating the GPL, errr, Yeah its bad....
Not find a naked man running around your house with a butcher knife bad, but bad nonetheless.....
It's good to see someone being honest with themselves...
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
Actually, if you read the FreeDOS page, the FreeDOS author only requests that Dr. DOS Inc. do something about complying with the GPL. i.e. He's asking them to distribute a copy of the GNU General Public License with the software, and make an offer to provide the source code to anyone who asks, as per the GPL. So all that's really required (assuming they haven't changed the FreeDOS software) is that Caldera be ready to send people over to the FreeDOS site, and perhaps burn a CD or two for a fee.
The incredulous part of the whole thing is that the page makes it sound like a major step back for Dr. DOS. Instead of moving forward on the source base they have, they're moving backwards by kit-bashing a bunch of old OSS software and then trying to sell it. Or at least, that's what I got out of TFA.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The difference is that violating the GPL makes the information less Free, whereas violating most other copyrights and/or licenses makes the information more free.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Doesn't Dell sell some computers with DrDOS? You might try harrasing Dell's lawyers about it. You would probably get a much quicker response. I don't think Dell will be happy knowing that one of their vendors is giving them "pirated" software to install.
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
Why shouldn't it be? Licensing issues, "intellectual property" (no matter whether it's copyrights, patents, trademarks or whatever) stories and all that belong in here.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
no mod you somewhat oblivious.
sorry but you cant SELL the sourcecode under the GPL, you have to give it to me freely. and that webpage talks about pricing for access to the sourcecode. Most likely for their closed source items.
nowhere do they offer the sourcecode to the GPL products nor admit that any gpl items in DRDOS exist.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It's one thing to play a copy of a Michael Jackson CD and enjoy it. It's another to play that CD for a friend and tell them you just recorded it in the studio. In the first case, Mr. Jackson is getting credit for having produced the music, and may be indirectly gaining fans (and therefore potential revenue) as a result. In the second, the artist is getting no credit for having created the material. This comparison roughly applies to software copyrights, though attributing the use of libraries with software typically requires the company's legal team and often adding stuff to documentation that no one wants there. I've had to avoid the use of some very popular free software before simply because legal refused to put the required blurb where it needed to be.
What's the issue? Remember: GPL sez: "If I give you binaries, I have to give you code..."
And if you RTFA, you'll see that's PRECISELY the issue. Not only are they not releasing the source code with the FreeDOS binaries they've included, they're not even mentioning that they're GPLed.
My God.
And when I think they tried to get rid of Family Guy.
MOD PARENT UP!
Yes, the DRDOS guys are violating the GNU GPL, and all that's required here to make amends is to comply with the GNU GPL. Include a copy of the license, and (at least) make an offer to distribute source code upon written (email) request. If they even mentioned that users could download a copy of the same program + source that they used from the FreeDOS web site, but they would still make a copy for you if you wanted it, I think that would satisfy the GNU GPL (section 3).
Having looked at the DR-DOS pages, there's a link to "Source Code" (here).
"Email sales@drdos.com" regarding source code so the site says. However, if there's no GPL file included then it'd be a breach.
Additionally, from TFA, it'd be interesting to see whether the distribution breaks the terms of the two shareware products that have apparently been included. (Ranish Partition Manager 2.44 & PKZIP 2.04g by PKWARE)
The submitter neglected to explain what the supposed GPL violation might be, but it seems from R'ingTFA that the DR-DOS bundle includes GPL'd products without adequately crediting the authors or including license information.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
To be precise, violating the GPL makes the information more free but less Free, while violating most copyrights makes the infomation more free but equally Free.
It astonishes me that we're in the 21st century and people are still confused by this.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
The difference is that violating the GPL makes the information less Free, whereas violating most other copyrights and/or licenses makes the information more free.
The ultimate point of all this nonsense about information wanting to be free is that no one wants to pay anything for anything so ANY license makes the information less free because a license automatically signifies it is in some way tied to someone who owns it more than anyone else. Truly free information has no owners. We used to call that public domain. The GPL and so on is just a way for the cheapskates in amature socialist garb to have their cake and eat it too, but eventually the dogma generates the karma that runs it over.
Calling anything free with a license is just self-deception and there because those using it want to have the power of Intellectual Property OWNERSHIP and still look cool because they are LETTING people not pay money. It's not free as long as someone has to LET me use it.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Actually, the GPL does allow you to charge a fee to package and ship the source code. There is no requirement that it has to be freely available from a FTP site.
The site says "email for price quote". Have you asked what the price is? I don't know what the magical number is. $8 would be reasonable, $1000 would not.
Aside from that, yeah, you're right: the page for the source code says "Email sales@drdos.com for price quote" whereas the 8.1 binary page has "1 User License $45.00" and a pick that says "buy now" and has Visa and MasterCard logos. Obviously, that implies that the source code is
And that's the problem.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
EULAs restrict USE, and therefore violate the Doctrine of First Sale. The GPL only applies to DISTRIBUTION, and only removes some of the restrictions of copyright law.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Because the GPL isn't an EULA, troll-boy.
You can download and use GPL software without agreeing to any part of the GPL whatsoever.
The only time the GPL applies is if you wish to negotiate extra rights beyond those to download and use the software--specifically, the right to copy and re-distribute it yourself. In which case, the GPL is merely one possible set of terms for such redistribution; often the copyright owner has other terms available too.
The GPL is basically a convenience document saying "Hey, by the way, if you want to copy and distribute this, I'll tell you in advance that you're allowed to do so under these terms. No need to contact me and ask. If you want other terms, go ahead and ask. If you don't want to copy and distribute, ignore all this."
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I'm not sure if I understand correctly.
It sounds like DRDOS's latest version is just a bunch of software that can be downloaded free from the internet. A collection of GPL'd or other OSS licensed software. They are trying to charge $45 for what would otherwise be free.
But why would this be illegal? If they have not modified any of the software, how would this even violate the licenses?
I don't get it. Apologies in advance if I'm being dumb.
--Barry
Let me try to answer this. Other people may do a better job. The GPL and most commercial EULAs are not the same type of animal. EULAs seek to restrict the user's freedoms. "Open source fan boys" tend to object to the EULAs because of this, and even more so because many EULAs attempt to impose restrictions outside the immediate scope of the software to which they are attached (e.g., mandating spyware, no benchmarking, etc., there was a story here earlier). The GPL, on the other hand, places no restrictions on use: you can do whatever you damn well like to the software so long as you keep it free. This, I believe, is the crux. "Open source fan boys" don't like people taking GPL'd code, locking it up where others can't get to it, and worse still (in some cases) claiming ownership of it.
There is no hypocrisy in asking that the GPL (which in my opinion is very reasonable, and anyone who thinks otherwise is probably trying to build a baby mulching machine) be respected whilst denouncing these jackbooted EULAs.
So Dr. Dos are not even depriving the original author of any potential income, they are just.... well, what exactly? Freeloading on his work? I thought that what the Creative Commons idea was all about...
Just playing the Devil's advocate here.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I disagree. For example, in this case the GPL violation makes the information less free, because they're charging for the source code (the page says "Email sales@drdos.com for price quote"). Also, violating copyright doesn't make the information any more Free, because it doesn't cease to apply just because you broke it.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I haven't had my coffee yet, so I may be wrong; but here's what I understand of the issue:
1)OpenDOS is released circa 1996 by Caldera, with source code for the kernel included. Not sure under what license, but I don't think it was GNU/GPL (correct me if I'm wrong).
2)Someone starts independent work on the OpenDOS source code and creates several revisions.
But relicenses under the GPL
3)A company named Device Logics comes along, buys the rights to DR-DOS from Lineo (who was split off from Caldera a couple of years before they became SCO) and releases a new version (8)
4)THe guy independently working on the kernel releases Fat32 inhancements, which are snatched (against the terms of teh GPL) by DR-DOS nee' Device Logics
5)According to the letter by Jim Hall ITFA they also distribute two FreeDOS programs without providing source (this is cut and dried; the maintainers of those programs clearly have a case there; but I'm mentioning this for completeness).
SOooooooo, what I wonder is this: if the Original IP belonged to Caldera (and now, through aquisition, DR-DOS inc) aren't they free to do with it -and with derived products as
they see fit?
If TFA is true, I don't have a really high opinion of these guys (charging $45 for a couple of 3rd-party kernel inhancements and distributing GNU software illictly -without source); but look back at the original license for the kernel source and I bet you ten to one that there is a clause in there which allows this behavior by the owner of the DR DOS code base.
perhaps b/c certain (portions of) certain eula's have been found unenforceable, but the gpl has never been found unenforceable?
search "Eben Moglen" for more...
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
It works both ways for DrDOS inc. too. If they can violate other people's copyrights (which is what you do when you break the GPL terms, it's not like some bullshit EULA) then they shouldn't care about me violating theirs. In which case, anyone got a download link?
I am trolling
Because, in most instances, you have to break the seal on a CD or some other sort of media before you can even get to the EULA on a commercial package. Once you break that seal, you usually cannot return the software for any sort of refund or even store credit. This means that you have no opportunity to effectively read a common commercial EULA to decide whether or not you want to use a package covered by that EULA unless you commit to purchasing that package anyway.
However, anyone can go here and read the GPL in all its glory before deciding whether or not they wish to use a particular package.
Simple enough?
Karma: Chameleon - mostly influenced by bad '80s New Wave music
No, stuff licensed under the GPL IS Free. It's just a different kind of freedom, or freedom from a different perspective. It's merely a different balance of where my freedom ends, and yours begins.
In the case of public domain, a person using the code is Free because they can do anything they want to it, including restricting others from Freely using their changes.
In the case of the GPL, the code itself is Free, because all parts of it are Freely available.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Precisely explained apparently does not mean clearly explained. Perhaps this is why people are still confused. How about instead of precision we aim for clarity? The purpose of the GPL is to make information more free. Violations of it, therefore, actually make information less free. The purpose of most copyrights is to make information less free, so violations of them make the information more free.
Finding other idiots on
I find that the situation is compounded by an extrememly judicious choice of words by RMS. The above statement, "To be precise, violating the GPL makes the information more free but less Free, while violating most copyrights makes the infomation more free but equally Free," is understandably confusing. However, "To be precise, violating the GPL makes the information more free but less Liberated, while violating most copyrights makes the infomation more free but equally Liberated" is clearer, but also makes RMS sound more like the crazy and cunning coot he is.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
He's asking them to distribute a copy of the GNU General Public License with the software
This is one of three things that they can do to be compliant. There are two others, which given their commercial nature they may decide to undertake:
1 - stop distribution, remove all GPL code from their application immediately and rewrite those parts before distributing again
2 - negotiate an alternative (commercial?) license with the copyright holders of the GPL portions of code. This can be problematic when there's a lot of authors, but it can be done.
Generally if a company effed up in (mis)using GPL code they should be given the opportunity to fix their mistakes. If this is an intentional misuse and they do not intend to correct things they may open themselves up to a lawsuit.
Any way you slice it, of course, the GPL software is still copyrighted. Without the GPL it doesn't become public domain. Eliminating the GPL means that you don't have *any* permission to use the code.
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
IANAL (BIWIW)...
Illegal means that a law has been broken, and implies a violation of criminal law.
AFAIK, violating a license is not illegal. A license is essentially an agreement between two parties (a form of a contract?). Violating the terms is allowed under the law, however there may be specific consequences of violating terms.
Am I being too picky? Anybody out there that IAL want to correct my ignorance?
--Barry
Read my previous comment more carefully, and you'll notice that I never actually advocated violating copyright.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
- If I give you binaries, I have to give you code.
- If I give you code, I can't stop you from giving other people the code.
- I can modify the code I give you, but I must display prominent notices for each file in the code I change that I changed it, I must offer the code to you under the terms of the GPL, and most importantly, my program must display an appropriate copyright notice and a notification that the program is available under the terms of the GPL.
From TFA:Furthermore, the offer for the source code needs to be available to any third party (you need not have purchased DR-DOS to get it), plus they can charge for no more than their cost of physically distributing the source (i.e., $1-2 for burning a CD-ROM and $1-2 or so to mail it). The offer they have seems to imply that you need to get a price quote -- I'm guess a they're not gonna quote you $4-5 for the cost of the open source utilities.
My blog
To use the words of the Information-wants-to-be-free movement: "It's not stolen! Mr. Kuhnt is not deprived of his work! It is Copyright infringement, not piracy or theft!"
That's the funny thing about arguing based on a double standard. Maybe the Dr. Dos guys (I can't read the article because it's slash-Dos-ed) were using the words of the anti-GPL folk by calling it "stolen".
GPL guy: "By your own words, these guys stole my code!"
anti-GPL guy: "By your own words, it's just a minor copyright violation."
It's sort of like one of those dumb sentences like "This sentence is false." It doesn't matter what side of the argument you're on: you're wrong.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
And you snip the important part of his comment, that complying with the GPL only involves them distributing things they already have and can reproduce at no cost to their customers.
Perhaps it's only ok to demand compliance when the license is GPL?
There are some things which are acceptable to demand and some which aren't. Most people break some laws but would still insist you follow the law on things like murder.
I am trolling
DOS is still used on most diagnostic boot disks for the major hard disk makers, many BIOS upgrades, numerous low-level diagnostics. While almost everyone has access to MS-DOS 7.10 (Win9x DOS Final) it cannot be freely distributed. I'd be happy if Microsoft released it as a free release, but that's unlikely at this point. Most freely released diagnostics use Caldera's DR-DOS.
Scott Cooper
http://www.ultimatebootcd.com/
While DrDOS does look to be breaking the GPL (they need to provide the relevant sourcecode WITHOUT charging for it), this is the type of situation that scares companies away from working with GPL software. The link says they sent an email on 10/20/2005 and that they haven't received a response yet.
So they gave a company 4 days to respond to something having to do with a legal license? So they were given 4 days to talk to read the email (I've taken 2 days off in a row before), talk to their lawyers (or FIND a lawyer if they didn't have one already), come up with a solution, and respond to the email? Seems like someone jumped the gun on this one.
Many companies don't really understand the GPL, but will follow its guidelines if they're explained to them. But companies WON'T use GPL software if they see OSS bulldogs going after a company publicly when that company hasn't had a sufficient amount of time to respond.
At least give them 10 days or so to get their stuff in order, THEN post about how they're screwing stuff up.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
They're depriving their customers of the ability to see their changed code and improve and learn from it, and share it with their friends. The GPL's a bit unusual in that the payment the author asks for in return for being allowed to redistribute his work goes not to the author himself but to the people the work is redistributed to, but you could see it as similar to the case where an author declares that the royalties from their book should go to a charity.
I am trolling
If you, an insignificant individual, do those things, at least you're behaving consistently (if not necessarilly legally).
If a commercial software vendor does those things, while at the same time demanding that people pay for *their* goods and abide by *their* licenses, then they are being big hypocrites.
Information may want to be free, but authors want to eat.
Then stop charging $20/cd and $30/dvd, so those who want to enjoy your content can still afford to eat, too.
If it is as you describe, yes, they are failing to comply with the GPL and are therefore violating copyright. The fact that it's an embedded device is irrelevant -- they must comply with the GPL even if there is no way for the user to load code into the device himself.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
to their defense SCO has said they think the GPL is invalid (well, at least I read it on slashdot, didn't RTFA) and thus gives SCO another chance to challange the GPL, and get some publicity at the same time.
I mean, by looking at the addresses DrDSO is at least two doors down from SCO...
DRDOS
379 South 520 West
Lindon, UT 84042
The SCO Group Corporate Headquarters
355 South 520 West
Suite 100
Lindon, UT 84042-1911
Lasers Controlled Games!
The hacked GPL code must be avalible to anyone they sell the device to, and a copy of the GPL (stating what componets it applies to) needs to be in the documentation shipped with the product.
The custom code can probably stay closed source, depending on exactly how closely it is integrated with GPL code.
Note that nothing need be downloadable. If they ship the device with a documentation CD that includes the source code for the GPL'd tools and the licence terms, they are fine.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Two things... first of all, it's perfectly legal to sell the source code to GPL'ed software, just like it's legal to sell the software itself (which actually may be distributed in source code form). What you can't do is charge someone *extra* for the source code who *already* got the software from you.
In particular, this also means that you (or me, or anyone) is not automatically entitled to receiving the source code; if the source code or a written offer to send it, as well as the text of the GPL license, accompanies the product, that's enough to be in compliance with the GPL. You do not have to make the source code available to random third parties who did not receive the product from you.
Of course, once someone has the source code, they are free to put it up on their own web page for all the world to download, for example. But if noone does that, then you cannot go to the company who sells the product and demand the source code unless you have bought the product yourself.
HTH. And JBTW, IANAL, of course.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Apparently there is a lack of humor virus going around slashdot today.
I for one laughed at your post.
what?
I am not a lawyer, but I think you're violating the GPL. Under the current GPL I think this assumes you're actually SELLING the custom devices - not, for instance, renting them out.
Please note that you don't have to let your entire application be available for download, just the modified GPL parts. Most of the good bits of Linux Tivo don't have available source code, and that's ok.
Also, it doesn't specifically have to be download or totally free - offering to mail CDs for a small fee is acceptable. But if they're expensive _enough_ someone will buy one copy of the source and then offer copies - of those free parts - themselves, and that's legal.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
I just use it as a way to distinguish between the two meanings of the word. (Capital F) Free means "unrestricted", and (lowercase f) free means "zero cost."
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
If you want to know the difference between Free and free, just look them up in a thesaurus
By the way by thesaurus, I mean dictionary and vice versa.
Hmm, all this reminds me of Alice in Wonderland
'To be sure I was!' Humpty Dumpty said gaily, as she turned it round for him. 'I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that SEEMS to be done right -- though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now -- and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents -- '
'Certainly,' said Alice.
'And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'
'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - - that's all.'
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Tehre is no double standard - just a poorly worded standard that was put to words by the mediocre not the experts. "Software wants to be free" doesn't mean "software doesn't want it's author to be credited with it's production", and it doesn't mean "software wants it's licensing agreements violated". More like software "wants it to be licensed on a free-basis". You give away the software, and sell the support. That's more-or-less what the company I work at does. We're a state contractor (that's our exclusive thing) - we write all the apps for free, and many of them don't generate revenue. We get our revenue from transaction fees on some of on the software.
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
If I want someone to fix my roof or give me a new car, chances are they will demand money in return. Is that "acceptable"?
The songs and movies this guy is downloading from Russian piracy sites didn't just appear from thin air. Real people had to go to work every day to produce them. These people put a lot of work into making music and video products which the original poster desires; why shouldn't they get payed for their work?
This is Slashdot, the jokes have to come from a template. I forgot. And I jacked up the formatting badly.
In Soviet Russia, posts laugh at YOU!
It's a perfect time for being wasted.
A perfect time to watch the stars.
- Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
That's the point that many are missing. It doesn't matter if you consider the GPL invalid. If you consider the GPL invalid, that simply means nothing gives you the right to distribute that code without explicit permission of the author. The GPL works because it gives you privileges that would not have existed otherwise. Remove the GPL and you remove all permissions to distribute derived works, except those derived under the principle of fair use.
Co-opting a short function or a couple lines of code--especially generic code--might constitute fair use. Annexing entire programs does not.
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
And YAWTPTG (Yet another way to phrase the GPL): it perpetuates freedom as well
Do I smell the old "I have a right to be entertained on my terms" justification poking its rotting flesh out of the ground?
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Just because some people here happily violate copyright, and some people here defend the GPL, doesn't mean that any double-standards are happening. There is undoubtedly some overlap between those groups, but don't go tarring us all with the same brush.
The problem (assuming it's a problem and not a deliberate choice) is the insistence of Stallman and the FSF on redefining existing words for their own purposes and then insisting that everyone else is misusing them.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
We don't complain about people violating the GPL in ways that make things more free. Do you have an example of it actually happening?
Truly free information has no owners. We used to call that public domain. The GPL and so on is just a way for the cheapskates in amature socialist garb to have their cake and eat it too, but eventually the dogma generates the karma that runs it over.
The GPL increases the amount of information at what many view as an acceptable level of freedom more than making the GPL software entirely free would do. Yes, it's a tradeoff - we lose some freedom by making software GPL/LGPL rather than revised BSD or public domain (yes the revised BSD license still has restrictions, but they don't affect how free the information is, I don't think even the most rabid "information wants to be free" zealot would deny authors the right to have their works attributed to them) - but the idea is that that's outweighed by the greater freedom of information that comes from things which would have otherwise been proprietary being GPL. So far it seems to be working. You have to choose what you see as the level of freedom which matters to you, be it free-as-in-beer, DFSG, RMS' 4 freedoms, pure public domain, or whatever. To most people there is a scale, and something being DFSG-free, although not as free as public domain, is a worthwhile improvement over it being proprietary. By all means, go try and make an OS out of purely public domain software, writing what you need with the help of anyone willing to contribute. I don't think most people would see it as being worthwhile - if it ever became successful there would be a proprietary derivative that had more features, more people would use this because they don't care about freedom, it would have better hardware drivers because it was more popular, etc. The end result would be less freedom, not more.
Calling anything free with a license is just self-deception and there because those using it want to have the power of Intellectual Property OWNERSHIP and still look cool because they are LETTING people not pay money. It's not free as long as someone has to LET me use it.
That's something to take up with your lawmakers. Everything needs a license - many countries won't even let you put something into the public domain other than by waiting x years until the copyright expires.
I am trolling
Please expound how information has become less Free?
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
Oops, sorry if I over-reacted, I didn't realise you were making a specific point about an earlier post.
EOF is ^Z, your version won't work.
:p
so
The Digital Rebel certainly runs DOS
Yes, it's true, you cannot sell the source code. But you can "charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution".
3b is just one choice among others. If you distribute source code from the start, you can ask whatever price you want. The 3a option has no price limit whatsoever. There might be practical issues if you just take some GPLed and try to resell it, but if you add significant value, you can be sure that people are willing to pay prices which are obscene. Incidentally, this also discourages them from sharing with others who haven't paid anything, even though the GPL grants them that right.
Acutally as I understand it, if they sell you a CD with binaries on it they don't have to make the source available until you request the source. Once you request the source since you recived a CD they can choose to give you another CD with means they can charge you for the cost of burning the CD and shipping & handleing.
If they put the binaries out for download the source has to be available for download, upon request. Basically the source has to be available in the same manner that the binaries were available. Thus if they charge you for the basic delivery of the binaries, they can charge you for the delivery of the source.
This is to the best of my understanding and I'm sure I'll hear about it if I am wrong.
If the code really was released under GPL and the FreeDOS people used only GPL code, there was no such clause. The GPL has no such clause.
w ww.drdos.net/faq/license.txt
If the code was released under another license and re-released under the GPL by the author of the derived work, and the original license was incompatible with some term of the GPL, then the author of the derived work exceeded his rights in re-releasing it under the GPL.
What is the license they started with? All I've found is this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20021022095633/http://
This doesn't seem to be compatible with the GPL. Source code distributed under this license could only be released under the GPL if the copyright holder did so.
Wrong. They distributed a binary, so they have to make source code available to any third party that asks for it. This is covered under 3.b:
Well distribute a copy of the GPL, and provide any third party who asks for it the source code. Those two, together, would be one way. Another would be to distribute the source (and a copy of the GPL) initially.
It's not theft, but it's not okay (there are lot of things that aren't theft that are still both illlegal and wrong), and they should comply with the GPL, and people shouldn't download stuff illegally from P2P applications.
Note that none of that means that the music industry isn't stupid for understanding the competition they face from illegal downloads and addressing it reasonably (you can be within your legal rights but still be stupid), or that it's not legitimate to legally buy your music from overseas where it's cheaper.
As far as I know, no part of the GPL has been found UNenforceable, either, while many parts of many EULA's have. ...and the lack of precident doesn't mean it is not enforceable, it just means that there hasn't been a pair of deep-pocket litigants on opposite sides that both see a benefit in continuing to the end, where the dispute is about license terms rather than ownership.
Are you selling those copied pieces of music and claiming you wrote and performed them?
insistence of Stallman and the FSF on redefining existing words for their own purposes and then insisting that everyone else is misusing them
Gotta call bullshit here.
free
Seems like the first 6 definitions are in the Stallman sense, and only definition 7 is what you want to replace the first 6 with in order to pretend the problem is with those of us who speak correctly. If a word has an unobvious meaning, then using it in an unobvious way could be done in such a way that it is decietful. Using a word in its most likely and proper sense is hardly that.
The problem (assuming it's a problem and not a deliberate choice) is the insistence of Stallman and the FSF on redefining existing words for their own purposes and then insisting that everyone else is misusing them.
This is a clear example of the tactic of "Embrace and Extend"
Presuming that by "russian piracy sites" you mean sites that offer downloads legal in Russia, then there is nothing illegal about that. It's like claiming that it should be illegal for a company to pay it's workers in China less than the US minimum wage, or for a US company with a factory in Indonesia to not maintain US environmental and work hazard standards.
In terms of the Linux Kernel, the question would be does MS then GPL everthing that links with the Kernel?
Not at all. It is more along the lines of not being forced to pay what one is "not willing and able" to pay. Except for taxes on recording material, which can't be helped, as taxes are like death.
^C is "Break." It should end up saying 0 file(s) copied.
Program Intellivision!
You may be lucky enough not to have to care about money. Most of us aren't. GPL compliance not only costs you nothing, but only requires things that you should be doing anyway.
Well unless you're a pretty hard-code Socialist, demanding money in exchange for goods and services is "acceptable".
Where's the goods or services in giving me a copy of their software/movie/whatever? The cost of their media/bandwidth, but that's what I'm paying the russian site for.
If I want someone to fix my roof or give me a new car, chances are they will demand money in return. Is that "acceptable"?
Yes. And if I were to commission you to make a film, you would quite rightly expect money in return. But if I buy a film from you and then make a copy and give it to my friend, what service are you providing in the second instance?
The songs and movies this guy is downloading from Russian piracy sites didn't just appear from thin air. Real people had to go to work every day to produce them. These people put a lot of work into making music and video products which the original poster desires; why shouldn't they get payed for their work?
If I spend a month digging holes in the ground and then filling them in again, do I deserve to get paid? Just because you worked doesn't mean other people have to pay you.
I'm not saying I agree with the information-wants-to-be-free position, but it is consistent and defensible.
I am trolling
Ah, you're forced to be entertained. On someone else's terms, no less. What a diabolical scheme!
Here's some resources:
Desire
Necessity
Enjoy!
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
You can charge whatever you want for GPL binaries, or even GPL binaries+source.
Hell, you could even legally charge them 10 dollars for the binary, and 3010 dollars for the binary plus source. How you package and price things is not covered under the GPL.
However, if someone who has a binary then asks for code, however, you have to give it to them for a reasonable amount, unless you already gave it to them. You can't say 'You had the option to purchase the code for $3000 when you bought the binary, so I don't have to give it to you.' under any interpetation of 3a.
All you can do is refuse to sell the the code for the price of the medium if they did get the code on their CD. If they didn't, you must give it to them for a trivial amount.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
DECworks found to be infringing OS/2... film at .... Zzzzzzzzz.....
Edith Keeler Must Die
Hey! I'm posting from Utah! Am I trying to scam you?
Lasers Controlled Games!
It's not free as long as someone has to LET me use it.
It's not free to who? The person who gets to use it, or the person who has to let the other person use it? Every freedom is a tradeoff... swinging fists and noses and all that jazz. I bet the slaveowners were upset about their lost freedom when their ex-slaves found theirs.
"Information wants to be free" means "no one wants to pay anything for anything" as much as "lets start a company" means "I want to embezzle millions". Sure, some people who say one thing mean the other, but that doesn't define either movement.
Isn't it funny that you call the people using the GPL license as "cheapskates" when the only real cheapskate here is the people who took code other people wrote and called it their own product instead of investing their own time and money to develop a product that was truly theirs?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Woah, 219 comments and no-one's made a humorous remark about Udo Kuhnt's name?!
Yes. And if I were to commission you to make a film, you would quite rightly expect money in return. But if I buy a film from you and then make a copy and give it to my friend, what service are you providing in the second instance?
The work has been timeshifted and subdivided. Sure, creative work is unique in that it can be timeshifted, moved, and subdivided, but that's why there is a legal framework in place to compensate for this. If this weren't the case, the only lucrative art would be patronized, which I'm certain would be comparitively rather dull, at best.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Actually, it means you don't have any permission to distribute the code. You don't have to agree to the GPL in order to use GPL code, only if you intend to distribute it (or modifications to it) to others.
Actually the hacked GPL code that they distribute has to be made available to "any third party", not just anyone they sell the device to.
Never start vast projects with half-vast ideas.
I've never heard that "the source has to be available in the same manner that the binaries were available", just that it has to be distributed at no more charge than the cost of distribution. After rereading the GPL yet again, I can't find anything to even remotely support this suggestion. Please clarify.
So long as you aren't talking about the personal freedom of the license holder, who can be sued over what was acceptible behavior before the license. The nullification of property rights is contrary to traditional conceptions of freedom such as the American Declaration of Independance or the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. The FSF's idea that intangibles aren't subject to ownership isn't a universally held position, which is why the GPL exists in the first place.
Note that I didn't say that the GPL is a bad thing, and I agree that in many (most?) cases a GPL'd project will result in fewer problems for end users than a public domain one, especially once there is more than one author associated with the project.
Go read the GPL again. It says one only has to privide sourcecode to those to whom you distribute your (GPL'd) product. If the product isn't free (ie, is commercial), then you are only obligated to provide source to your paying customers.
If you politely explain your situation to Clear Channel, I'm sure they'd be happy to open a Station For 20-Year Coma Victims in your area.
Alternatively, you may wish to consider exploring parts of your the spectrum not allocated to NPR. One or two new artists have come along since Mr. Jackson's fall from the musical spotlight of two decades ago.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
You only need to do this if you don't provide source with the binaries. That's one method of compliance, but not the only method. It's legal (though probably not shrewd from a business standpoint) to charge $10,000 for the binary and source package.
Art doesn't need to be lucrative to be done. True artists aren't in it for the money. There would still be enough money around to make a decent living, which is all anyone really deserves.
I am trolling
Hey! I'm posting from Utah! Am I trying to scam you?
Yes, your sig advertises pac-man with random mazes, but I would bet that they are acutally pseudo-random mazes. Case closed.
music lover since 1969
It's not free to who? The person who gets to use it, or the person who has to let the other person use it?
The person who gets to use it has artificial restrictions placed on them by the license by the original author. The person who has to let the other person use it has identical artificial restrictions placed on them by the license by the original author. His point was that by definition a license restricts personal choice. The software is freely available, but those who use it must agree to rules specified by the original author or face a possible trip to court.
Every freedom is a tradeoff... swinging fists and noses and all that jazz. I bet the slaveowners were upset about their lost freedom when their ex-slaves found theirs.
What... no Nazi references? If you're going to ridiculously vilify someone who disagrees with you, you could at least call them fascist--even if it's 180 degrees from what they are saying like in this case, it's an Internet tradition.
"Information wants to be free" means "no one wants to pay anything for anything" as much as "lets start a company" means "I want to embezzle millions". Sure, some people who say one thing mean the other, but that doesn't define either movement.
I agree 100% with this bit.
Isn't it funny that you call the people using the GPL license as "cheapskates" when the only real cheapskate here is the people who took code other people wrote and called it their own product instead of investing their own time and money to develop a product that was truly theirs?
I think he was going for "control freaks" more than "cheapskates"--his final complaint is the exercise of control by the original author over users and the declaration of ownership that implies, not anything related to money.
Russia is a signatory to both the Berne and Geneva Copyright Convetions, and will soon join the WTO (which will mandate life+70 copyright protections).
Getting the Russian authorities to actually do something about illegal download sites, however... Well, that's a different matter. In any case, if you're in the United States whilst downloading your movies and songs from Russia, then you are subject to US law.
This is possibly the first post I read where someone approaches all the issues.
I don't get it.
Or even freely available source code, but it does mean source code for everyone who gets a copy of the product. The product is DR DOS the only legal way to get a copy is to buy a copy. Once you do buy a copy then you will be entitled to the source code.
Why do people think GPL=Free??
Get a free ipod.
It's not necessary for anyone to base their living on copyright, they just desire to live of work they did 30 years ago (or that their ancestors did!) instead of working like everyone else does.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
I don't know exactly where you got sidetracked in this, but the debate was over providing source code. Under no circumstances can you charge whatever you want for source code.
Uh-oh, read again. There is no clause in the GPL that forbids this in general. Only if I do not give you the source code immediately, I cannot charge you for it later (apart from distribution costs). No other restrictions on the cost of source code exists in the GPL.
Some comments are saying that they are breaking the GPL by doing these two things and that is not the case. There are limitations though, the binary-only distribution still must contain a copy of the GPL and instructions on how to get the source code. A reasonable fee can be assessed for sending the source code as well, to pay for the physical act of sending it.
It appears from the email on the FreeDOS site that DrDos does not include a copy of the GPL or instructions on how to get the source code. This would be a violation. If they charge an unreasonable fee for distributing the source code, that would also be a violation. However, once one person gets that source code, they can post it or distribute it however and to whomever they wish. Thus if DrDos had some enhancements to the GPL programs, they could be incorporated into the existing programs under the GPL. That is what the GPL is about, having people modify your programs and being able to incorporate those modifications into your own programs. It is about Free as in Freedom more than it is about Free as in beer.
Wrong. If you distribute GPLed software in binary only form, you are required to make the source code available to any third party for no more than your cost of distributing it. You are obligated under copyright, via the GPL, to make the source available to Tom, Dick, and Harry, regardless of whether they were paying customers.
Nothing like getting pedantic over a 15 year old OS :)
They didn't use SHELL=, they used COMSPEC=!
There, technically right, ahhhh I feel better already....
Eben Moglen has apparently offered many people/orgs the opportunity to try it in court:
[all emphasis mine]imho, a perfect system would never get tried ... the reason even truly guilty people take a shot at court is b/c the law is not perfect, and sometimes they can get away with something. If everyone knew that there was no possible positive personal outcome, why would anyone bother?
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
You are Hemos!
emt 377 emt 4
Movie studios are willing to sell you one copy of a film which cost them $100 million to make for just $10 or $15 -- provided you agree not to make more copies, because the studio needs to sell a lot of copies to recoup their production costs.
When you buy a Hollywood movie for $10, you make a legally binding promise not to copy and distribute that movie. You can't claim ignorance of that fact -- there's an obtrusive copyright notice printed on the outside of the package, not to mention the annoying 15-second FBI copyright warning within the movie itself. If you don't like that restriciton, you're under no obligation to purchase the film in the first place. Having purchased the film, you cannot simply turn around and say "ok, I don't like the restrictions it came with, I think I'll ignore them."
If it were ok for you to make copies of the Dimension Films movie Scream, then what's to stop Dimension's competitor, Paramount Pictures, from buying one copy and selling (or even giving) away millions of duplicates?
Please no responses about how Titanic or Star Wars: Episode III wouldn't be missed. If you don't like big budget movies, then you certainly won't be put out by not being able to download them.
If you did it because someone promised to pay you for it, then yes, you deserve to get paid. If I tell you I'll pay $50 for each hole you dig and fill in, then after you do all the work I decide that a filled-in hole is worthless and refuse to pay you, I am in breach of our agreement. I can't just walk away from my obligations after you've met your obligations.Similarly, if you buy a copy of The Matrix for $13.99 at Wal-Mart and agree not to make copies of it, you can't simply walk away from the agreement and fire up the DVD burner or BitTorrent.
It's consistent. It would lead to a world where only the super-rich had easy access to high quality entertainment, but it's consistent.What's not consistent is downloading your movies and songs for free (screw licenses, dammit!!), then turning around and complaining about DrDOS violating the GPL (obey licenses, dammit!!).
If you're speaking of sites like allofmp3.com, please specify your sources or at least link to some evidence that the operation is anything but legal. It is my understanding that monetary compensation is given to the respective author for each download under the copyright laws currently in effect in that country.
In any case, if you're in the United States whilst downloading your movies and songs from Russia, then you are subject to US law.
Then start paying 5 times more then you did for that computer of yours. I'm fairly certain that some of the parts were manufactured by organizations paying their employees much less then your legal minimum wage.
But doesn't SCO own the GPL? I thought they claimed that people stole it from them? Darl McFries sued IBM over it didn't he?
I don't rationalize anything, unlike grandparent who rationalizes restricting the genreal public for the gain of copyright holders. But seeing how you don't even name the "invalid debate technique" you claim I'm using I doubt you'll really care.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
AllofMP3.com has songs which have never been authorized for internet distribution by any site -- for example, The Beatles have never signed on with iTunes, Napster, or any other online service. The copyright holders are still waiting to see how things play out. But their entire song catalog is available at allofmp3.com.
Even the Russian cops admit this place is illegal.
Ouch! Too right, but Stallman may appear and smite you...
Speaking of the GPL with embedded devices here is a the lowdown on BSD vs GPL licensing for embedded products.
:-)
Yes Wasabi systems makes netbsd products for embedded devices so they are biased, but most of what is said here is true.
If you work for this mysterious company you might want to let someone know. Offering the modified tools online and bundled with the cd is a good idea. If not then you may want to use some posix equilivants and BSD licensed material to avoid putting your employer under liability.
The GPL is not perfect which is why I am a bsd bigot.
However linksys and netgear come with moddified linux and no source code in clear violation of the GPL. The FSF doesn't have the budget to sue so they keep intentionally violating the GPL. What are they going to do?
http://saveie6.com/
I think that's a FINE way to distribute GPL based customized software -- charge for the customization, provide source, and let the customer DECIDE on her own whether to redistribute.
If your customer wants in on the software game, she can go ahead and try. On the other hand, this stuff isn't easy. So far, it hasn't been an issue. The customer feels a need to keep the customizations off the market; to exploit the business advantage.
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Then, if that is indeed the case and they are indeed violating the law, I stand corrected on the legality of allofmp3's operation. But the argument on (you need to follow US law if you download from Russian legal sites), still has holes in it.
Just go look at the drdos web site. At least one typo per page. Contentless if not meaningless pages. I wouldnt buy a used toothpick from those folks.
"When you buy a Hollywood movie for $10, you make a legally binding promise not to copy and distribute that movie. You can't claim ignorance of that fact -- there's an obtrusive copyright notice printed on the outside of the package, not to mention the annoying 15-second FBI copyright warning within the movie itself."
I call BS. The warning says: don't make illegal copies.
Now if a copy is illegal is totally dependend on applicable copyrightlaw.
For me that means:
I can make copies for personal use.
Exceptions:
-for computersoftware use and copying a license is needed
-I may not break any copyprotection scheme
So to het back to the start of the thread:
It's legal for someone in the Netherlands to download/view e.g. movies (from anywhere), it's illegal to download/use any computersoftware without license and it's illegal to do actions prohibited by that license.
Their banner image was ripped from http://www.digitalblasphemy.com/; the picture is titled "Latticework".
> If it's okay for me to download music from russian sites at a nickel a track or watch movies from bit torrent trackers (and I do both of these readily and happily), who am I (and most of us) to criticise a little GPL violation here and there?
:-)
Did you find GPL'd music on russian sites?? That's really interesting
There are several ways to get the Linksys modified sources. They are bacically device dependant.
unslung.org has the nslu2 sources and even more enhancements.
Lots of places have the Linksys router stuff, but Sveasoft is even making money enhancing the Linksys enhancements. Now that's good stuff, regardless of my personal feelings on the matter. And I can even recommend the Sveasoft products. It boggles the mind what you can do in 8 or 16 MB! (DNS, SSH, HTTP, NFS, etc etc)
I have never tried asking Linksys directly for sources. I also do not see any documentation in the packages I have for how to get sources.
GPL is not about defending copyright.
It's about fighting copyright, fighting fire with fire.
The GPL does not use copyright law on a _moral_ or _ethical_ basis, it just uses it as a tool.
The whole idea of the GPL is keeping free stuff free. When someone want to keep free software from being free, you can use copyright law, as a tool against them.
Of course, the GPL would be useless in a world without copyright, but of course, it wouldn't be necessary, because that's the kinds of world the creators of the GPL want.
The GPL does contain EULA-like provisions. Happily, it limits them to "The act of running the Program is not restricted".
It *is* mostly a developer license, but it contains an End-User License Agreement as a subset of that.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
"It's not free as long as someone has to LET me use it."
The GPL is an attack against copyright and it will work in the long term. It builds an effective wall between full copyright and the GPL commons.
The price paid for the long term combat against full copyright is essentially one thing in the short run: you must give your users the same rights you do when you distribute GPL code. If you want to have the freedom to take away the freedoms of others then you'll have to wait until copyright acts are repealed (so you can do what you want with public domain code).
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
This is with the implied arguement that the manner I distribute the binary in is "a medium customarily used for software interchange". The person distributing has other choices to satsify the requirement but if I download a binary from the internet and they are only willing to sell me a CD with attached shipping and handling, I could plausably argue that a shipped CD is not "a medium customarily used for software interchange".
It's not a perfect fit and I probably should have stated similar manner instead of the same manner but my claim is that if I charge an expensive amount to burn and ship a CD of binaries then I can charge the same expensive amount again to ship a CD of the source. In my understanding that means someone can charge twice as much for getting the binaries and source instead of just getting the binaries, with the claim that this is what it costs to have someone available to burn CD's. This becomes even more cut and dry in my opinion if the source is on the same medium. Once someone has distributed a copy there is nothing to stop others from redistributing it for free.
IANAL and I am in no way able to give a real opinion but this is how I read the GPL.
Nice post, but I think everyone took my post WAY too seriously.
I was talking about a more general practice in argument where person A uses person B's words against him. That practice, of course, leads person B to use A's words against them. That can lead to some funny, futile arguments if you're a bystander.
It seemed like that's what was happening in the post I replied to. I have no idea what the article was saying, because at the time I posted the servers weren't responding (I tried to make a stupid joke about that, also).
I need to work on turning my jokes into print, apparently.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
To be precise, violating the GPL makes the information more free but less Free, while violating most copyrights makes the infomation more free but equally Free. It astonishes me that we're in the 21st century and people are still confused by this.
I guess a lot of brains out there aren't formatted with a case-sensitive memory system!
i am a soviet space shuttle
That's what he said, I was trying to point out that there are desires on both ends of copyright so you have to look elsewhere for reasons why it's a good thing.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Sigh, ok, you asked for it: (notice the "no" part)P LRequireAvailabilityToPublic:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheG
If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.
A good explanation of why the GPL is a license and not a contract was posted at Groklaw a while back. It includes some quotes from Eben Moglen, who is quite familiar with the subject.
..wayne..
In particular, putting something in the public domain currently fails because somebody else can make a trivial change - or a compendium with other material - and that changed version or collection is once again copyrighted, to the other person. Then the original authors can't make the equivalent change themselves, and end up locked out of their own code (for instance, if the change is a necessary bug fix).
To avoid this, GPL authors do not release in the public domain. Instead they keep the copyright and allow copying under a public license requiring continued similar licensing for derivative works.
If copyright on software is ever removed from the legal system the GPL stops working - but simultaneously is no longer needed. B-)
Between that and the "if you break the license you lose all right to use the code at all". It's one of the best hacks to come around.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The GPL and so on is just a way for the cheapskates in amature socialist garb to have their cake and eat it too
How is it being a cheapskate to release software I've spend hours and hours writing under the GPL? The people pushing the movement are volunteering their time to increase the amount of readily available and accessible software. You are a fool if you think without the GPL all this software would be public domain instead.
The cheapskates are not those who promote the GPL via action, but those who whine that more software needs to be GPL/LGPL/BSD/public domain. e.g. the ones whose argument runs along the lines of how they can use it, rather than how they want to let people benefit from their own effort.
It's not free to who? The person who gets to use it, or the person who has to let the other person use it?
The person who gets to use it has artificial restrictions placed on them by the license by the original author.
These artificial restrictions are placed on them by copyright law, not the GPL. The GPL releases you from these restrictions if and only if you do so for others. It does not add any restrictions that were not there without it.
I think he was going for "control freaks" more than "cheapskates"--his final complaint is the exercise of control by the original author over users and the declaration of ownership that implies, not anything related to money.
Actually I think his final complaint was related to himself being a cheapskate and a control freak. The only real restriction of the GPL is using it and not giving anything (e.g. code) back to the work you build on top off. Unless he wants to benefit and not give back, unless he wants more control over those he writes software for than those whose software he uses, then he isn't restricted at all.
Show me a freedom thats restricted that isn't first restricted by copyright law and isn't their to protect others free use of software as much as your own, and then you might have a leg to stand on.
Here's a hypothetical scenario and honest question for you.
Say some development group is offering their open-source product for free download, both the source and compiled binaries, but the two as separate downloads (i.e. one zip file full of source files, one zip with just a binary in it).
Say you download just the binary, and put that together in some zip file with some other files for free download on your site. Say the program is a game engine and you made some data files to run in that engine, a mod, and you don't want your users to have to download the engine separate from your data files, for their convenience. You haven't touched, seen or even downloaded the source.
Can you then redistribute that package, and if anybody asks for the source, point them to the developers' site? Or must you also host/distribute the source? Also, what of superficial modifications to the binary, like changing the name of the executable to the name of your mod project, or changing the icon to match the icons of all your data files? Not claiming the engine as your own or anything; you leave in all the original credits, just change the appearance of the executable file in the user's Finder/Explorer window.
Basically, how far can a content creator who's never seen a line of code in his life use the binary from an open source project in a free (as in beer and as in speech) project of his own, without violating the GPL?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
As someone famous once said:
Truth comes from the barrel of a gun.
At least, that is what appears to be the case with copyright law.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
More likely they'd become commissioned works like symphonies in older times. Produced at the whim of some rich patron, but then distributed freely to everyone after that.
Please no responses about how Titanic or Star Wars: Episode III wouldn't be missed. If you don't like big budget movies, then you certainly won't be put out by not being able to download them.
Personally, I don't and I'm not. I could never get bittorrent to work anyway.
What's not consistent is downloading your movies and songs for free (screw licenses, dammit!!), then turning around and complaining about DrDOS violating the GPL (obey licenses, dammit!!).
It is consistent. Ignore the question of whether or not it's legal or violating the license, and concentrate on the effects. The position is "distribute stuff for free, dammit!!".
I am trolling
"I thought information wanted to be free."
;-)
;-).
Or it wants to be speech AND beer.
Anyway, I'm sure the illegal downloading of music would go down considerably if it was licenced under the same principles of the GPL (for instance, that it can be used and distributed freely
The difference in perception is this: take a hypothetical situation where someone is stealing something from a shop. That is theft, yes, and illegal, and should be dealt with. In principle, it would ALL be considered theft, regardles of the actual material that was stolen, and the law often sees it that way. On a humane/moral level, however, I (and I imagine many people) would not regard the theft of a bread by a kid so he doesn't have to starve to death as being of the same 'wrongfulness' as a rich dude stealing a TV. In fact, I would have no problem with it, in that circumstance. That's not the law, granted, that's my own moral judgement on the matter.
One can lament this or not, but just as in your example of (breaking the) copy-licencing by the *IAA, which tries to limit ones' freedom (of use), or one of the GPL, which tries to safeguard your freedom, people do not morally measure this in the same way. This may seem inconsistent if you only take the law as the absolute and sole measurement (just as in the case of the theft), and not your own individual morals.
I, however, am rather of the opinion that the morality of what is right and wrong, and what the laws say, often contradicts eachother, and that in that case, your individual morality and ethics is more important then whatever law has been passed. My moral judgement has no problems if someone 'steals' a bread for survival, nor does it have any problems when someone is downloading and copying music for non-commercial use.
In general, I would claim the answer to your question about why people regard one thing as ok, and another thing not, is because people think it's ok to act (even if that action is that of a rebel, dissident or illegal) for more freedom, while they think it sucks when freedom is being limited. And thus, while in the two instances, it's both about licenses, one is limiting your freedom in use and distribution, and the other tries to safeguard that freedom; thus, infringement on the one is deemed not very objectionable (in a personal moral), while the other is.
I hope this answered your question.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
if i had my way, x86 would still be at, like, old-school fixed 386 for a bit, with good cheap and fast facilities, segmented addresses and all. of course, if i had my way, i'd grow the silicon for that in my own vat, but then, putting DOS on it may not be considered as 'hard' as i'm feeling ..
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Both parties are behaving immorally (and probably illegally). The simple fact of being an individual, not a commercial software vendor, makes no difference to either the moral or the legal argument.
Illegally copying music (or any other copyrighted work) and breaking the GPL are equally abhorrent. Sorry to break the /. line here, but I'm coming at this from a moral perspective, not a legal or "what works for me" perspective.
Think about it.
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
It does not add any restrictions that were not there without it.
IANAL, but I have yet to see a source distribution requirement in any form in any copyright law.
Show me a freedom thats restricted that isn't first restricted by copyright law and isn't their to protect others free use of software as much as your own, and then you might have a leg to stand on.
You set up a straw man and knocked it down nicely with the middle of that sentence. Any limitation with good reason is still a limitation, so my original point stands--your qualification illutrates that you know why the GPL restricts the behavior of people who agree to it outside of normal copyright law, therefore you also know those restrictions exist in the first place. I never said "has artificial restrictions placed on them by the license in a way that doesn't protect public access"--apparently you decided to insert that qualifier as a value judgement on top of my comments and want me to defend it instead of what I actually typed.
I posted the GPL was good for end users (something I truely believe) to preemt any sort of reactionary zealotry stemming from my comment that it does limit personal choice... apparently that wasn't blunt enough. It's a simple fact that the GPL was designed to force publication of modified code, which is an artificial limitation on the personal freedom of authors in exchange for public accessibility. It's an equally simple fact that this limitation is intended to foster access to source code and nurture a highly open culture that should benefit everyone. Both statements can be true at the same time.
If you really want to know where I stand on source publication, you could google to find out that I've always republished my open source modifications, even with the license didn't demand it. My past actions speak clearly on whether I believe people should contribute back to the source code community.
I use a DOS boot disk every single time I prep a new hard disk or new system (which in my role as hardware guru for the local user group, is often). I run the partitioner from DOS and do the initial setup in DOS. Thus I not only have more direct control, I also discover sooner when something isn't working. And the whole process is a matter of a few minutes, with no large OS to install and no drivers to locate and/or fight with.
With a seriously screwed-up machine, it's often much faster to fix Windows from a DOS boot disk than it would be to reinstall Windows, hunt down obscure or nameless drivers, and do battle with OEM "tech support".
So, while average users nowadays have little need for DOS, we folk who get our hands dirty certainly still use it, and are glad to have it.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Way to post an out of date article as part of your argument. A quick look at the wikipedia entry for allofmp3.com shows that at least in Russia there is nothing wrong with allofmp3.com's legality.
a quote from wikipedia:
The legality of AllofMP3 continues to be argued in Russia. According to a report in The Register, a preliminary Moscow City Police investigation resulted in a February 8, 2005 recommendation that AllofMP3 be prosecuted. The IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry) also filed a formal complaint on February 8. However, IFPI's Russian legal advisor, Vladimir Dragunov, admitted in an interview with The Register that because of the structure of Russian copyright law, successful litigation against AllofMP3 appears unlikely.
In March 2005 the Moscow City Prosecutor's office decided that Russian copyright laws do not cover online distribution of creative works, and refused to bring a criminal suit against AllofMP3 because of the lack of corpus delicti. The copyright holders can still file a civil suit, though.
A quick search of the back articles on slashdot brings up the following article as well.
Sufficiently good that you'd choose it over trying to find a job doing something else.
I am trolling
> I would very much like to see copyright go
It was the lack of copyright that got us into this mess in the first place! Up until the mid seventies or early eighties, software was not copyrightable! And so companies "protected" their software with trade-secret law and contract law. Which was even worse! If software had been copyrightable from the start, AT&T would have never offered the ambiguous license terms that SCO is attempting to misinterpret in their suit against IBM. This is also the reason behind the still-widespread theory that you're not buying a copy of the software, you're buying a license to use a single copy of the software under greatly restricted terms, which forms the basis for so many horrid EULAs even today.
(On the other hand, if software had been copyrightable from the start, AT&T would not have been able to accidentally lose their ability to copyright so much of UNIX -- but it's tricky to rely on companies making as big a mistake as AT&T did when they overly freely distributed UNIX tapes to universities.)
"It's a simple fact that the GPL was designed to force publication of modified code, which is an artificial limitation on the personal freedom of authors in exchange for public accessibility."
Yeah, but I think the point of the other poster was that it is actually a restriction of the copyright itself (as a system), not that of the GPL. The rationale for this reasoning is that, if there were NO copyright-protections whatsoever (for instance, if *everything* ever written automatically became public property), there would be no need for the GPL.
In essence, the GPL puts a restriction on a restriction (namely that of classical copyrights), which - with reason - could be seen as being more free. Because, if there was no restriction on that already-globally-in-place restriction, the freedom to use it would be less. I agree that, at first view, one could see that as an additional restriction, but the fact is, if one does not restrict the (copyright)restrictions, you become more restricted, not less.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
No, rather, you just choose to do without those forms of entertainment (commercial CDs) that have priced themselves out of the market.
Ahhh...."on a medium customarily used for software interchange"....ha! Yes, I can see now what you were looking at. As IANAL, and don't pretend to be, even on TV, take me with a grain of salt. I interpret "cutomarily used" as any standard media or channel, so CD, DVD, or ftp would all be ok...but today reel-to-reel tape not so ok.
Art doesn't need to be lucrative to be done.
True. Point to be made, though: It doesn't need to be impoverishing to be done, either.
True artists aren't in it for the money.
Nor are true landlords, automotive assembly-line workers, and grocers. What a sad world we live in, though, where a "true" artist can't find fellow pure brethren to provide him food, housing, and transport without that awful reliance on the monetary system.
Honestly, this argument is meaningless and destructive. I'd put more initial weight in the "truth" of a career artist who is able make a living from their work, than one who claims to live poor or work a side job as a testament to their "truth". For one, it's a clear testament that they are talented and savvy enough to command a premium for their work. For another, it shows they're dedicated enough to make their trade front-and-center in their life, not just a side job. As for poverty, any old twit can go out on the street, be broke, and call themselves a "true artist". I'll grant that some choose it, but for many more, it chooses them.
This "starving artist" idea, upon examination, either makes artists look like little more than easily-manipulated suckers, or devalues art as little more than play, without any value in and of itself. It's just another more fuel for laughing at the blustery, over-principled/underactive art-wankers, and that just people making real effective communicative art look laughable by association.
There would still be enough money around to make a decent living, which is all anyone really deserves.
There would still be enough money around... in other people's wallets. How, exactly, do you propose that this money magically get to the artist's wallet? Don't forget, as well, the high prices you'll often see on artistic supplies, in any medium, from the fact that pro-level artistic endeavors are a fringe activity.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
It doesn't matter whether your landlord or grocer is just doing it for the pay, they can still do just as good a job. Art is different.
For one, it's a clear testament that they are talented and savvy enough to command a premium for their work.
Unfortunately it seems to be more reflective of the latter than the former.
For another, it shows they're dedicated enough to make their trade front-and-center in their life, not just a side job.
Professional artists don't seem to be any more devoted than others. Quite often the more successful they are the less of their time they devote to their art.
There would still be enough money around... in other people's wallets. How, exactly, do you propose that this money magically get to the artist's wallet? Don't forget, as well, the high prices you'll often see on artistic supplies, in any medium, from the fact that pro-level artistic endeavors are a fringe activity.
I'd suggest people spend the money currently spent on copies of works by a few big successful artists on commissioned stuff by smaller artists (well, whichever artists fit how much money they have). It would mean no more millionaires through their art, but might actually mean more for the median artist.
I am trolling
No, that's still not correct. The person/company that distributes the binary only has an obligation to provide the source to people that it has given the binary to. There is absolutely nothing that says "any third party" has to be able to get the source code, because the person/company has no relationship to random third parties, only those that it has given a copy of the binary. You may have thought this was the case because *most* GPL software is given out freely, but it doesn't have to be so. Go read the GPL faq again.
Example 1: I write a GPL program, and I give a single copy of the binary to my friend Bob and no one else. The only person I am obligated to give the source code to is Bob. Anyone else that asks me for it, I can tell to go to hell. However, Bob can of course turn around and give out the binary and source to anyone and everyone. But that's no longer my responsibility any more, because I've already met all my obligations by giving the source to Bob.
Example 2: A company has a commercial product based on GPL source code. It charges $300 for this product. If you pay them $300, you get a copy of the binary, as well as a password to a protected area of the web site to download the source if you want it. This company is under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to give the source code to anyone but those people who have paid $300 and gotten a copy of the binaries. However, any one of those people that have paid the $300 can turn around and give the binary and source to anyone and everyone at no charge. But again, that has nothing to do with the obligations of the Company, which are met by offering the source to the customers that have received the binaries.
On the DR-DOS website, on this page : http://www.drdos.com/products/drdos81.htm
w ww.drdos.com/products/drdos80.htm+&hl=en&lr=&strip =0
Compare this page to the Google cached version:
http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:7Tlnhc5cJbEJ:
The difference is that now it says:
Portions are licensed under GPL (SYS v2.6 and FDXXMS v.92) or other licenses.
My little Linux and tech blog
It depends if you regard freedom as..
bool Freedom;
or
float Freedom;
Freedom isn't black and white or you could argue that it's unattainable. There are degrees of freedom and something can be more free or less free. More free isn't the same as free: more free != free. It's just closer than less free.
But that doesn't matter. "the dogma generates the karma that runs it over"? Get over yourself.
Even freedom isn't free.
I've been arguing this point with a friend. Everyone knows the GPL and that if you change it you're supposed to release the source code including your changes.
However, who is going to do anything about it if a company is in violation of the GPL?
Is an anonymous group of part-time coders going to send a cease and desist letter?
So far, the GPL has not been challenged in court. Most legal experts are of the opinion that the GPL is indefensable anyway. Or at least that it would be very difficult to defend.
Until a high profile GPL case precedent is set somewhere, GPL software is fair game!
Don't get me wrong, I'm all about OSS and GPL works. But really, a GPL isn't worth anything until a court precedent is established.
(Yeah, go down Peachtree Street and turn right at Peachtree Court, then turn left at Ponce deLeon (pronounced "Ponce dee-LEE-on", or, frequently, just "Ponce"), go down to Peachtree Circle, make a jog onto Peachtree Lane, then turn left on Peachtree Industrial Boulevard for about three miles, then right onto Jimmy Carter Boulevard for about five miles, then right again onto Peachtree Circle (no, that's a different Peachtree Circle than the other Peachtree Circle), then right again onto Peachtree Road, then turn right yet again after about two miles to stay on Peachtree Road (because if you go straight, it turns into Peachtree Avenue), and after a mile or so, Peachtree Plaza should be on your left.
OK, that's an exaggeration, but only just.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
It's true that no GPL violation has ever gone to court. But it's not because no one has ever pushed the issue, quite the contrary: it's because the general assumption is that it will hold up in court, and no company really wants to risk it.
Check this out for a start: FSF Compliance Lab.
Cheers.
1. It's not true that the GPL has not been tested in court. See http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200407231 5554313
2. Breaking news: DR-DOS no longer exists! DRDOS Inc. have removed it from their site and now sell only the old version 7.03!
If I obtain a GPL program binary from you, and do not have the source, I can obtain the source for a nominal amount or free, no matter what is going on. (Well, within three years.)
That's all anyone is saying, and you also seem to agree with this, you're just refusing to state it in a sane way.
I can also, if I am stupid, pay a large amount of money for the source at certain times, like if I buy it at the same time as the binary.
However, that does not hinder my right to get it for the cost of shipping if I don't have it, no matter what was offered at what point.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
"I write a GPL program, and I give a single copy of the binary to my friend Bob and no one else. The only person I am obligated to give the source code to" is anybody who requests it. The use of "third party" was intentionally to eliminate a burden to prove you had purchased the software. The clearest way to do this was to make it available to anyone who asked, which also gives you incentive to give "Bob" the source code to begin with. Now you might ask, "how would anyone know that I gave this to Bob, so how could they know they could ask." And there you are right! So long as Bob doesn't brag, how would anyone know? But in terms of the license, when you gave Bob the binary only copy you gave "every third party" the legal right to your source code. That they don't know the source code exists is your only protection.
Example 2 is exactly the same. They have the right to modify and distribute their code so long as they abide by the GPL. If they refuse "any third party" the source code for distribution costs, they have, at that point, forfieted their rights under the GPL to distriubte. It would be very stupid, and I hope anyone considering doing such would talk to a lawyer first.
That is not true if you have modified and distriubuted code that was already GPLed. If you have any code that you have right to because of the GPL, then the only way you can distriubte is if you place the work as a whole under the GPL. At which point "Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange"
It also looks like the license says so even if you are the sole source, since if you distriubte it under the GPL you must, according to the GPL, include a copy of the GPL, which says at the very beginning: So if you want to distribute under the GPL, you have to include the GPL with what you distriubte. The license says it applies to any program so distributed by the copyright holder. You are the sole source, you are the copyright holder. If you want to use the GPL, then you have to be bound by the GPL. When you formed the relationship with the person you distributed your source code to under the GPL, as per the GPL, it had to either be GPLed or not. If it was distributed appropriately under the GPL, then in Binary form you should have given the written notice offer, too. Otherwise you aren't distributing as per the GPL's requirements.
Now what gets interesting is what sort of relief would their be? Usually, in GPL violations, it is the person who owns the rights to a work that was modified via the GPL that has action. But consider this. Did you proport the work to be under the GPL? Can it be if you aren't following the license? Is that fraud? Seems like only the person you sold the binary to could claim damages, though...
So, in conclusion, if there is modification of GPLed code, or distribution of GPLed code, then you have to make the source code available. If you give someone a binary without the GPL attached, or without a written offer, you are not distributing the binary as per the GPL. Either you need to give them what is missing, and be GPLed, or it isn't GPLed. However, if it is GPLed, in all cases, you have to give "every third party" source code, who asks.
If I give one person one binary copy accompanied by one source copy, then I have fulfulled my obligations under 3.a) completely and 3.b) is entirely irrelevent. I have no further requirements to give anyone anything. Now, the person that I gave that binary and source to is free to give it to anyone he chooses, but that has nothing to do with what is required of me.
If I instead choose to use 3.b) and include a written offer rather than including the source with the binary, then that offer must be redeemable by any third party and so I must give anyone who asks a copy of the source. But again, this is an option that I can choose.
The GPL FAQ is very clear that the GPL cannot force a party to redistribute anything that they don't want to. In other words, if I choose to give you a binary then I must also include the text of the GPL and the source with it (or a means of getting the source.) However if I do not wish to give you a copy of the binary, then I have no obligation to you at all, provided I have not chosen 3.b).
From the GPL faq:
If I want to hear new artists or non 20 year old mainstream artists, my local NPR affiliated station is the place to listen to. WCBE in Columbus has some of the best locally produced shows I have heard on commercial or public radio.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.