Slashdot Mirror
CBC News Interprets GPL - Poorly
frankShook writes "The Canadian news service CBC has up an article entitled 'Linux distributors scorn Microsoft partnership'. Primarily, it looks to describe the ongoing licensing saga between Microsoft and Linux distributors. It also includes a highly unique interpretation of the GPL: 'Open-source software such as Linux, on the other hand, encourages individuals to add to or modify software without fear of legal repercussions, so long as they abide by the conditions of the general public license, which stipulates that the program must remain open and sharable.'"
...but at least it's coverage. They say no publicity is bad publicity.
I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
"encourages individuals to add to or modify software without fear of legal repercussions, so long as they abide by the conditions of the general public license, which stipulates that the program must remain open and sharable" sounds like a pretty reasonable shortened form of the intent of the GPL for lay people. I'm not sure one should expect a news article in the mainstream press to contain the text of the license or an entire treatise on how it came about and how it is applied.
So they left off the "when you distribute it outside of your organization" part. For a random article on a news service, that's a pretty good interpretation of legalese as obscure as a software license.
The interpretation doesn't seem that "unique" to me. Isn't that essentially what Open Source means? You can edit it and add to it just so long as you distribute the source code as well?
A comparison between this and what it really is would make this post make a lot of sense to a lot of people who are sketchy on the details of the GPL themselves.
The called it the "general public license" instead of the "GNU Public License". And mixed open source, GNU, Linux, and Free Software all together. But as these types of articles go, it is better than average.
We're pretty good at ignoring trolls.
Watch as I demonstrate...
What's wrong with it? It glosses over a couple of things, but as a one-paragraph overview of the differences I'd say it's as close to perfect as you could get.
What it glosses over is that OSS is still protected by IP laws, but in a discussion like this it is the purpose of the license, not the machinery of it, that is going to get the attention. And it doesn't focus on distribution, but again, this is just an overview and distribution isn't a discussion that would mean much to their readers.
The article is hardly about interpreting the GPL as the title of this story claims. There was a one liner about an aspect of the GPL; no more.
Karma: Neutered
Linux is under the GPL, and that is an excellent high level interpretation of it. Yes, there are details- lots of open source software IS NOT under the GPL, for instance, and has different requirements- but it's reasonable, and the topic is Linux, not BSD.
What is so wrong, again? Why do we have editors?
Reason: You can type more than that for your comment.
Sounds like a good summary of the goals of the GPL to me. Why should the average person care exactly how it implements its goals?
frankShook and Zonk Interpret CBC News Piece - Poorly
See: the GPL homepage.
Actually, the only nit I could pick in calling it the "general public license" is the capitalization. If you go read the GNU page on the GPL, you'll find they call it the GNU General Public License.
Ian
The guy wasn't drafting a court opinion.
I'd say he got it pretty much right.
NB:A lot of Canadians can read and write english, some even know other languages.
# zfs create -V 10g tank/ufs /dev/zvol/tank/ufs /dev/zvol/tank/ufs /ufs
/dev/zvol/tank/ufs@20070406 /ufs20070406
/dev/zvol/tank/ufsok /dev/zvol/tank/ufsok /ufsok
# newfs
# mount
# zfs snapshot tank/ufs@20070406
# mount -r
# zfs clone tank/ufs@20070406 tank/ufsok
# fsck_ffs -p
# mount
ZFS is the future, and linux will become irrelevant if they can't quit pulling their pud.
Why is it "highly unique"? It sounds spot-on to me, as it captures the gist of it while being written in a lay language.
I think what they wrote is just fine. It was meant to be a simple explanation of the license, not a verbatim copy. Besides, if they could 100% accurately describe the whole license in one or two sentences, then the GPL would only be one or two sentences long to begin with.
Seems an odd bit to focus on, rather than the continued openness of the source code. Is that even true? I don't think anything in the license would give developers any reason not to fear legal repercussions if they might to begin with.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"general public license" is to "GNU General Public License"
as is
"linux" is to ???
I'd say the average punter would be better served without the GNU to confuse them. Remember the CBC audience is not the slashdot crowd.
Yes, I think what we have here is wank bait. But none are bitting.
Aww, not again. This is the same genius news source that posted the "SPEED OF LIGHT FINALLY EXCEEDED LOL" article a few months back. Old Slashdot Article.
They still don't seem very worried about their articles being accurate.
What is so wrong, again? Why do we have editors?
See subject....
I don't think I have seen the mainstream media do a better job of covering a topic in so few words. The fact that they even covered this topic, and it was on the main CBC page is AMAZING!
The Internet news service Slashdot has up an article entitled 'CBC News Interprets GPL - Poorly'. Primarily, it looks to describe the ongoing lack of capacity for Slashdot writers and editors to think outside of the IT world. It also includes a highly unique interpretation of summarization, and with great authority and sarcasm, classifies relatively succinct and accurate generalization as 'Unique'. ..which it seems to be, for the Slashdot crowd. :-p'
I am not an atomic playboy.
as if modifying software were somehow inherently illegal, immoral, wrong, dangerous, something our legal system must take an especial interest in... and so on.
How dare you question the Mother Corp! The CBC will now unleash Peter Mansbridge on all you!
GPL'd software comes with so many contractual terms that they bind the users into a knot of inability to make use of the software beyond any reason. No matter how you turn you're required to do this or that. That's not freedom, that's communism or legalise gone wild.
GPL'd software thus isn't free.
True free software is public domain which has zero restrictions.
When there are restrictions there isn't freedom; as more restrictions are added the greater the bondage. GPLv3 tightens the knot and stops the circulation, eliminating any sense in using GPL'd software.
As for "open", well, while you can look at the source code it's got so many legal restrictions upon the license it isn't open by any definitions except those that are Orwellian.
True open software is something like OpenBSD or FreeBSD or NetBSD or Apache.
Linux is caged by the GPL and is just as useless as Microsoft or any other commercial software.
Live free or die hard.
Just how is it inaccurate? The General Public License exists to protect the four freedoms of the software it covers. It can't shield a person from all legal liability, of course, but I don't see any major inaccuracy. Are people reading that to say that the GPL shields one from all liability? That would be a horrible misreading of the article, not an inaccuracy. The GPL most certainly does shield people from legal liability for copyright infringement when modifying the software. You know, that whole clause in the GPL that says "You are not required to agree to anything to merely use software which is licensed under the GPL. You only have obligations if you modify or distribute" and the fact that the GPL works because modification and distribution would be copyright infringement without the permission granted by the GPL?
That's right. The GPL shields you against copyright infringement claims by the GPL'd software's authors so long as you follow the rules of the GPL. It's the very source of the GPL's power; without it the GPL could not be enforced. Anyone who doesn't understand that that is how the GPL works doesn't know a damn thing about the GPL or copyright law. Which is probably why we're seeing this article here on Slashdot, huh?
Come on, you are complaining about how they left out all the exceptions and nuances of it? Do you seriously expect them to just regurgitate the entire thing? The basic spirit of it is captured pretty well in that one sentence which is far better than the summary I just read here on Slashdot. I cant even begin to count the number of times I have read a summary on here which was horribly misleading or flat out false. I think this is a pretty classis case of the pot implying that the kettle could be a little less black.
Open-source software such as Linux, on the other hand, encourages individuals to add to or modify the software without fear of legal repercussions, so long as they abide by the conditions of the general public licence, which stipulates that the program must remain open and sharable.
As in, "you can add or modify the software and we, the original authors of the software, are not going to sue your ass, if you keep it GPL."
It's a good summary, which doubtlessly Microsoft is going to quote out of context again and again.
"Microsoft has been actively pursuing deals with Linux distributors similar to the one it signed last November with Novell Inc., in which both companies agree not to sue each other for patent claims and to partner to make their operating systems more compatible."
Why would Microsoft seek protection from patent suits?
Is there open source code in Microsoft applications?
Or are they infringing on proprietary vendor code?
That's exactly why I called it a nit pick--my main point was that GPL stands for "General Public License" not "GNU Public License" and so TFA actually got it right. Although, to answer your question, I think the ??? might be something like "Free and Open Source Software", which is, again, something the "average punter" might be better served by leaving out.
Ian
That quote wasn't even in the article....
Wow! You can't get much more unique than that!
Everyone but you is telepathic.
Leela: "They say the Evil One eats babies!"
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Meh, that's close enough. It conveys the spirit of GPL, even if it confuses a couple of things. The GPL is generally a difficult thing to explain to others.
GPL'd software comes with so many contractual terms that they bind the users
So which is it, are you stupid or a liar? I suppose both is also possible.
The GPL isn't a contract -- nobody signs it -- it is a license.
It doesn't bind the user in any way at all. Anyone is free to use GPL'd software however they wish, within the limits of the laws of the society they live in.
It PERMITS copying and distribution where copyright law would not, if you agree to the license terms offered for such permission. Those terms are designed to ensure that whoever you provide copies to gets the same freedoms you were given when you received it.
-- Alastair
How dare they misrepresent linux and the FOSS movement? Everyone knows that linux and the GPL are a cancer!
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
If only there was a way to mod Zonks "article" -1 troll or - 1 flamebait...
*clicks the "flog Zonk" button*
Really, every time I want to complain about an article it turns out to written by or submitted under supervision of Zonk... (In case you're curious about what's wrong with it, read the rest of the posts.)
It seems accurate enough to me, although it perhaps is a bit incomplete and over generalized.
'Open-source software such as Linux, on the other hand, encourages individuals to add to or modify software without fear of legal repercussions, so long as they abide by the conditions of the general public license, which stipulates that the program must remain open and sharable.'"
I don't really see much wrong with this. The wording could be a little more clear but it's not completely wrong.
It is true that additions to GNU GPL code must remain sharable. The GNU GPL doesn't say you have to share them, but it does say that they must be sharable.
The reference to 'legal repercussions' could be a little more clear as it should only refer to copyright related legal repercussions and not patent related repercussions.
This was hardly worth putting up on slashdot.
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
The only thing out of whack is the remain sharable and the concept of shielding from liability. You don't have to share a program you changed as long as you don't distribute it.
but the liability part, it captures the essence of free software and the principle of the GPL as you say. I think the "without fear of legal repercussions" was along the lines of , you take this program, add to it or change it, and you don't have to worry about Ubuntu taking you to court. Of course it seems a little broad in it's wording but the essence is there without getting too technical. It doesn't name the author of the article, I'm wondering it they needed the press in order to further their career. I mean, hits on the site to about the article to show to the news agency they deserve a job. It wouldn't be the first time slashdot has been used for something like this. But I'm just speculating. I didn't find the article to be too misleading. Especially when the GPLv3 comes into play.
Are you sure the GNU hasn't become some sort of trademark. I mean, they try to insert it everywhere, GNU Linux and all.
Someone needs to get a life.
The real one? Or Robert Sawyer's fictional, deceased (I believe it was) Huntington's sufferer? (see FrameShift)
Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
He insists that the GPL be printed in its entirety whenever it is discussed, to remove any chance of confusion.
I'm waiting for your demonstration of ignoring the OP.
Oh.
nevermind.
Slashdot summary interprets CBC - Poorly
And keep generating more publicity for dubious deals struck by Microsoft with a few "Linux providers". The focal point of the news article was to report on the dubious naure of the deals, and the lukewarm reaction from a few 'respectable' distros and vendors. It was not intended to interpret the GPL at all.
Nothing else for us to see here; move along.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Well, that's because the "Linux" system owes a lot of things to GNU. Linux is just a kernel, to begin with. The reason why the whole system should be called GNU/Linux is because of the huge role Richard Stallman and the GNU played in the formation of the Free Software movement (with the development of tools the Linux kernel uses in order to put together an operative system) and the consequential Open Source movement.
It's just a way of paying a small tribute to the people that first idealized what Free and Open Source Software is all about.
Are people reading that to say that the GPL shields one from all liability?
That's how I read it at first. However...
That would be a horrible misreading of the article, not an inaccuracy.
You're right that it's not what the summary intended to say, and it shouldn't be read that way.
I read the article and can't see any glaringly obvious discrepancies with the basic nature of the gpl. I think the submitter read it wrong or something, and mr. zonk went along with it.
Mucho weirdness.
This is typical for cult-like psychology. You want to convince everyone that your technology/company/whatever is the best thing since sliced bread, eat you (consciously or not) attack any attempt from "the rest of the world" to adopt said technology.
A big part of the value of being in a cult is that it's exclusive. We're the smart guys, the "guys who get it". The rest of the world doesn't get it, and their attempts to "get it" are laughable and worthy of mocking at.
Except of course, the biggest fanatics usually know less on the matter than people with more objective opinions.
They mentioned the requirement that the program remain "open". They just didn't go into detail about precisely what "open" means in this context, or how that openness is maintained. Considering the scope of the article, I'd say that was about right.
How true. I mean if you've been caught on CC-TV robbing a series of liquor stores at gunpoint, GPL compliance probably isn't going to be much help when you find yourself in court. On the other hand, if you're merely reluctant to distribute a specific application Linux live CD or virtual appliance, then I can imagine this being considerable reassurance to a newcomer to open software.
You have to consider that most people when they think "software licence" think "Microsoft EULA"; it's possible that a lot of those folks think that any redistribution of software carries legal penalties. Explaining that this isn't the case with the GPL might be the missing datum some people need in order to understand what makes free software different.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
I remember a while back that they had tested and recommended mplayer for some of their streaming. Of course they still use Real in places too, but at least there is a Linux client for Real. And I've never had problems with their site in any browser, so I have to think they are making sure it is cross platform.
I'm not sure it was very helpful to have some random contributor bash their explanation of the GPL, especially considering it wasn't all that bad of an explanation considering the intended audience. The fact that CBC is even reporting on the Linux distros that are resisting the shady MS patent deals is a pleasant surprise.
So how about "Thank You CBC" instead of "lets publish an "article" which nitpicks and pokes fun of CBC".
Hey, just kidding. I read your original post and I can't see what is getting people so excited.
Take off every 'sig' !!
I PAPER, you LOSER!
If I were to write a summary of GPL for the general public, I would write something very similar to that.
The Slashdot summary, however, seems like a flame bait to me.
Yeah, great job there, dipshit.
At this point, KDE, gnome, Apache.org, and a bunch of others have done at least as much for Linux (as a trademark) (per SLOC) as GNU. A solid compiler tool chain is nice, but so is a nice GUI. And server software. And databases.
So I'm off to download a copy of KDE/Apache/Samba/mysql/(k)ubunto/GNU/Linux.
After all, I am strangely colored.
If the 100,000 workers are genuine employees, and Ford is considered a single organisation, then that isn't distribution. If some of them are contractors, or Ford want to be seen as a number of distinct legal entities (for some reason), then it probably counts as distributing it.
But that's fine: they can also make the source available internally, if they want to. It doesn't mean any of the employees would bother to grab a copy or make it available externally (as they'd be within their rights to do).
Clearly an intern provided a summary of the GPL to the story writer.
:)
I can't wait until Hillary brings us a Canadian-like health care system, so I have to fly to Mexico for quality healthcare in a timely fashion.
I'm amazed at how many people in the high tech fields confuse compassion with what is right and best for all. Competition between providers of any product or service is the best way to have improvements. Heck, my job is being outsourced in a month or so and I still believe this is the best method. I'd become lazy, non-competitive. This will force me to re-tool and lower my contract rates.
However, I will be looking for a position with a company who understands the GPL/LGPL and honors it.
I find it useful to think of the GPL as neither a contract nor a license, but as a promise not to sue.
I.e. I promise not to sue you for redistribution and making derivative works as long as you do the same.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
"Of course it seems a little broad in it's wording..."
That's summaries for you.
Well, I've certainly heard worse interpretations.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I've struggled mightily in the past to come up with adequate one-sentence summaries of the true nature of open source software. Believe it or not, there are actually plenty of otherwise well-informed people out there who don't have a clue. So, while I think that this offering from the CBC is certainly incomplete, or perhaps doesn't emphasize one's own particular favorite aspect of F/LOSS, I just can't see how it deserves the label "inaccurate". Maybe it's because I'm Canadian, and they're writing in my dialect?
It's hard to explain the GPL (which necessarily contains some overtly political language, because it is a political statement; and many words only used by lawyers, because it may have to be relied upon in a court of law one day) to people who -- sadly, but this is a separate issue -- have more or less been brought up to believe that there is something intrinsically wrong with copying and modifying software.
In the light of which, I think they've done a great job summarising it. Yes, the GPL has various subtleties (like, you can sometimes modify software and keep it all to yourself) but they don't apply most of the time. And the GPL isn't the only Free Software / Open Source licence (the terms are about as interchangeable as "Alsatian" and "German Shepherd Dog"; can you point out something that is one but not the other? Thought not) but it's one of the best-known.
The point of a simplification is for it to be true most of the time. And I think they have succeeded.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Put all of the GNU software on a disk, and toss Linux under it. You've got a usable OS. Now, take Linux out and throw a FreeBSD kernel (with Linux ABI support compiled in), or an OpenSolaris kernel in. You've got a useable OS that is indistinguishable from the original. Now, remind me why you call it 'Linux?'
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You know you can remove him from your authors list in your preferences, right?
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
The CBC (which, as we Canucks know, stands for Communism By Canadians) is notorious for slanting stories and poor news reporting in general.
I know you're just trolling, but I'm nevertheless going to point out that the GPL doesn't make any requirements of the user at all.
It does place some conditions on the distribution of the software, but that's a different case from simply making use of the software. The distinction is important.
Hmm... I expect you, like most of us, live in a country where the government places restrictions on activities such as theft and murder. If freedom is not freedom except in the complete absence of restriction, those laws would make you a slave.
Alternatively, perhaps you might concede that freedom is most usefully considered as an analogue value. Thus you may enjoy a great many freedoms while still being restrained from certain anti-social acts.
Similarly, the GPL grants its users a great many freedoms that would not be theirs under copyright law, and more again than those granted by many industry EULA which tend to impose additional conditions upon any use of the software.
Useless to whom? Useless for what purpose? I've found it very useful for wide range of tasks. So it seems have many others.
Die Laughing, is more like it.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
When I read the title of the article before I read anything, I was expecting to something like "The GPL's primary purpose is to authorize people to eat pie while coding." Guess not.
You know, that is a common oversight or misconception. You only have to make the source available to those you have distributed to.
And another thing, if they distribute it to some legal entity they control, like "Ford Mexico" production lines, they aren't really distributing it to anyone outside their control. Ford owns the computers running it, made sure it was being installed and maintained. I wonder how the employee's rights in something like this transposes from the GPL. Clearly it wouldn't be a flat out violation of the GPL yet I don't see it as on the same level of Tivoisation were it would be some technicality defeating the purpose of the GPL because everyone legally getting the distribution (different divisions of ford) are getting the ability to get the source. It is just that no real "different" people or entities are getting it.
The "or" should have been "and" IMHO, and the last sentence of your first para. reflects this.
C|N>K
Now, remind me why you call it 'Linux?'
Because "linux" is a cooler sounding name, and everybody else calls it linux. While it may be true that you can swap kernels and get an indistinguishable OS, what is not true is that everyone running linux is exclusively running GNU software. There are a lot of pieces of software that don't fall under the GNU umbrella. Firefox and Apache come to mind. I think that the folks at GNU are just jealous that linux took off, and GNU didn't despite all the free software GNU supplied to linux.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Calling me "stupid or a liar" indicates that you're using Ad Hominem personal attacks and that's one of the lowest forms of discussion; hey if you can't come up with valid points then attack the person. Also, to call the original posting flame bait simply means that you have limited ability to hear opinions that are different than yours; it's a similar form of attack to the Ad Hominem person attack.
GPL is a contract; the license terms are contractually agreed to upon your either opening, installing or using the software.
Oh and by the way, using the software by modifying it's instructions makes you a user of it whether or not you actually run the program. Thus programmers who modify the program are users of the program. That's a pretty basic point.
With GPL'd software I'm not allowed to use the software as I wish. I can't modify it and distribute that modified version without revealing my modifications to everyone. I can't keep my changes secret and distribute the program widely. That's a real limitation that doesn't exist with BSD or Apache based licenses - thus BSD or Apache based licenses are way more free.
While a couple of the GPL contractual terms may permit somethings by far it imposes too many restrictions upon users, developers, groups, individuals.
Also, the "cult" of GPL is very similar to "communistic" thinking. It's very interesting that the Apache web server has been so successful with a three paragraph minimal contract without the need to resort to placing all kinds of restrictions upon the users (that includes programmers who modify Apache) that a GPL'd version of Apache would have done. The Apache success demonstrates that the free market principles of the BSD software license contract work extremely well; there is simply no need to apply the contractual restrictions of the GPL cult-ture upon software and tie it up just as effectively as Microsoft does.
Free your software by placing it in the public domain, or at least under the BSD license so that people aren't contractually tied to the communism of GPL.
You can of course think however you want. However, it's generally accepted as a license with which you are contractually and legally bound to obey assuming you use or modify the software; and likely even when you install it or download it.
BSD has a promise to not sue and that's one of the three main paragraphs limiting the liability to the original or prior authors.
Isn't something either unique or not? I seem to remember being told that since unique means one of a kind that there are no degrees of uniqueness. Irregardless, it is highly ironical that there submission too slashdot is inaccurate to.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Nope. GPL only comes into play when you modify and distribute, with the exception of the "NO WARRANTY" clause which is also in every other license worth the name FOSS, including the BSD.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
I think it's perfect. They summarized the GPL into a single sentence. Anyone who is going to use / distribute GPL software will run into the GPL in more detail. What's more annoying is that it's actually a decent article discussing Microsoft / Linux patent deals and somehow everyone is blathering on about how unhappy they are with a single sentence halfway through the article instead of perhaps... discussing the article itself.
The CBC is disucssing Microsoft and Linux in the same page and they sound like equals. This should be a Good Thing.
If you start complaining about the CBC text, you apparently have very little left to complain about!!!
I'd say CBC does a pretty decent job in summarizing the GPL for those not in the open source world already.
Bart van Deenen
The only thing out of whack is the remain sharable and the concept of shielding from liability. You don't have to share a program you changed as long as you don't distribute it.
... encourages individuals to add to or modify the software without fear of legal repercussions [from the original authors or their successors],"
It doesn't force you to distribute. But one of the core points of the GPL is to head off a pitfall of releasing to the public domain: The ability of someone making a modified version to use his IP claim on the modification to lock others (including the original author(s)) out of making the same mod.
As to "shielding from liability", I think they meant:
"Open-source software
rather than a total shield against liability to all outside parties.
The GPL is a large legal document. The infrastructure and thinking around it is even larger, and enforcement activities based on it can be initiated by a large number of people, some of whom have different interpretations of what it means. Packing all of that into a one-sentence summary for the layman is bound to have inaccuracies, if only from omission and sumarization.
Seems to me they did a damend fine job of getting the core of it right and comprehensible.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
First it was BayStar and The Royal Canadian Bank which helped Microsoft fund SCO in their anti-Linux attack and now we have another Canadian company doing a great job at helping Microsoft attack Linux and OSS. Is this a case of these Canadian companies just being really ignorant of the facts or is Microsoft finding more gullible friends in Canada? That bit about creating and modifying GPL'ed software "without fear of legal repercussions" shows they are either REALLY ignorant on the subject or have malicious intent. IMO.
FYI, I'm not serious about Canadians being more willing to help Microsoft. Microsoft is an equal opportunity FUDster and looks for gullible partners around the world.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
It also swallows up billions of taxpayer dollars. And many of those taxpayers, including me, never use it.
> as if modifying software were somehow inherently illegal, immoral, wrong, dangerous, something our legal system must take an especial interest in... and so on.
:(
Unfortunately, copyright law does exactly that
You can't do any of those things without permission from the copyright holder because our laws consider it wrong. It shouldn't be, I think, but it is that way under law.
Thankfully, the GPL gives that permission and thereby shields those who modify GPL software from liability so long as they follow the rules.
...maybe the esteemed geekery of SD would elucidate on where they went wrong.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Perhaps the fact that the GPL is so inherently complicated that news agencies can never seem to get it right, is itself pointing to a problem somewhere? Hmm.
The only thing I saw that the article got very wrong was :
"But sharing knowledge brings up the sticky question of who owns that knowledge"
Obviously, no one can own knowledge, Intellectual Property laws notwithstanding.
Even the IP laws recognize this: You can keep a trade secret, but the second it's not secret, the knowledge is free; you can own and license the right to copying something, but that only pertains to the particular form of expression, not the knowledge itself; you can have a patent, but that only applies to the physical implementation of a process, material, or invention, not the knowledge itself - in fact patents were meant to encourage dissemination of knowledge (as opposed to trade secrets)
'You don't have to share a program you changed as long as you don't distribute it.'
Yup, the net result being that the program remains sharable while maintaining sanity.
'I mean, hits on the site to about the article to show to the news agency they deserve a job'
Don't be silly, nobody on Slashdot reads the article.
If everyone did that, all comments to Zonk's articles would consist of "Fist!1".
My brain is having a severe attack of Cognitive Dissonance Disorder trying to comprehend the concept "Obviously new here, with a 6-digit user number". Let's face it - if the editors aren't *already* clicking on the links in the article, to make sure they work and that the summary matches the article, *that* is your root cause, and that's what needs fixing.
The GPL itself says "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it." It's not a contract. You can install and run the software without agreeing to be bound by the terms of the GPL, and that's perfectly legal. You are welcome to run any GPL software you like, without agreeing to do anything.
It's just that if you distribute GPL'd code other than in accordance with the license you have been given, you can be sued for violating copyright. Note that you can't be sued for breach of contract, because it's not a contract.
Since you have started from the utterly false premise that the GPL is a contract - which it isn't - it is hard to take the rest of your reasoning seriously. Go away and learn how licenses and contracts work, please, before you try to explain things to other people, because as it is you're spreading FUD, and that's not an ad-hominem attack, it's a straightforward statement of truth.
By the way, you are trolling. You are making statements which you know are provocative, and you are making them in a way that appears deliberately designed to maximize their provocativeness, using emotive terminology, and so forth. That is trolling, by definition. And that's not an ad-hominem attack, it's a straightforward statement of truth.
Do the mods have no humor?
However, it's generally accepted as a license with which you are contractually and legally bound to obey assuming you use or modify the software;
Nope. Nix. False. Most copyright legislations give you the right to install, run and (in some countries) even modify for your own personal use as long as you've lawfully acquired a copy. No license, EULA or otherwise required - although the software industry would like you to think otherwise.
GPL comes into play when redistributing or distributing modifications, not before.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
I reread the summary twice and still couldn't find a massive inaccuracy or uniqueness in the statement.
Off topic:
Yesterday I read PC Magazine because it was lying around, and the first paragraph of an article on internet bandwidth stated that a gigabit is 100 times faster than a megabit and 1000 times faster than a kilobit. The same article claims that Verizon FIOS gives you the best speeds... at 300 kilobits per second. I suppose the author and editor that couldn't grasp the SI prefixes also have no concept of the difference between a bit and a byte, but even that doesn't explain those low speeds. Maybe their bandwidth testing server was running off someone's home DSL.
In a world where this kind of crap is acceptable in print publications, I don't understand how this perceived fault in a description of the GPL is remotely news. Or are Internet sources held to higher standards?
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
I.e. unlike Microsoft's software which has EULAs that ban you from figuring out why it's broken, GPL software goes so far as to even encourage you to not only figure out what's wrong with it, but even download the source code, fix it and distribute the fixes you made.
I clearly read the "without fear of legal repercussions" to apply to threats from the originators of the GPL code, not some magical protection from being charged with murder because you used some GPL robotics code to make your robot kill your ex.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Too bad for you that you don't like the hard cutting facts of legal realities.
[GPL] PERMITS copying and distribution where copyright law would not
BSD accomplishes the same without the complexities or the cult. The BSD license provides real freedom with three simple legally binding contractual terms.
The BSD license is just as successful. There are thriving open source projects. I already mentioned a number of them that prove the point: apache, freebsd, openbsd, netbsd. These projects prove that you don't need to lock down software as GPL does to have a thriving community of open source.
Yes, public domain is better; I already stated that.
Calling the "community" who buy into the GPL communistic isn't an ad hominem attack, it's simply stating that there are many characteristics of the notion of a commune and the GPL cult-ure - with emphasis on cult. For example, if you wish to use a GPL'd software as the basis for another piece of software or as a major component you MUST share it with the group; that's giving up ones "authoriship" rights to the collective. Yes, you can choose to not enter into this arrangement but once you do you're committed irrevocably with any software you release under GPL. The problem that I and other have with the GPL is that it does it's "sharing" and it's "freedom" by restricting the rights of the softwares authors to favor others.
Please feel free to make your intellectual property the property of the collective, by all means if that's what you want to do. But please don't be intellectually dishonest to not thing that your collective GPL commune isn't attaining it's goals by draconian legally binding contractual terms implemented in the license.
To say that the GPL is about freedom is simply silly. Yes, a program once released with the GPL has a good chance of staying open, but at what cost? The cost of the developers who made it. If they choose that cost that's fine. But be honest about it, the GPL requires authors to give up their rights by a legally binding licensing contract to the collective, to the commune. That's simply what it is and no fancy words you write will shake that basic fact of how it works.
Some of us perfer more flexibility. That's where the public domain comes in. That's where the BSD license comes in. They are about true freedom. You can't get any more free than the public domain. The BSD license is simple; here is one version in it's full glory.
* Copyright (c) ,
* All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* * Neither the name of the nor the
* names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
* derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY ``AS IS'' AND ANY
* EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
* WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
* DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ANY
* DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
* (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
* LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
* ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
* (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
* SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
That's it. Not complex at all.
Compare that wit
What do you mean by "legal realities" in that sentence, I wonder. If you think I'm ignoring a point of law, feel free to point it out, but so far it's been your claims about the GPL that don't match with reality.
You did. And I asked you to clarify what you meant by that. Better for whom? Better for what purpose? Better by what criteria? Perhaps this time, I'll get an answer.
I disagree: "communist" is a very loaded term, especially in the US. "Cult" is needlessly pejorative. You're simply loading description of the GPL with negative associations to try and make your point seem better - textbook ad hominem.
Overly broad. If you take a GPL licenced library and link it into your code then yes, you cannot legally distribute that software unless you licence it also under the GPL. That doesn't apply if you keep the software for your personal use however, and it doesn't apply for libraries licenced under the LGPL, which was created to address this very problem.
On the other hand, taking the software as a "basis" could refer to a lot of other scenarios where the GPL would have no effect at all. I could use Bash as the basis for an application framework, and I could keep my scripts as closed as I liked. The GPL specifically allows for that, too. So for most scenarios, you're way off the mark.
Not so fast with the "but". You can choose not to enter into the agreement. No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to modify or distribute GPL software. Your freedoms are not infringed; but if you want to use it, you have to abide by the licence.
If you don't like that - hard lines. The licence was chosen by the people who did the work. They get to decide what the licence should be. You can't come along after the fact and tell what terms and conditions they can impose.
If you don't think that's fair, go and tell Microsoft they have to release the code to MS Office under a BSD licence. If you really think you have the right to tell people what licences they can and cannot use, then you might as well start at the top. While you're at it, see about getting Apple to re-licence OS/X back as BSD while you're at it. Once you've got them to agree, getting the GPL dismantled should be a doddle.
No. No, you're not. If you choose a GPL licence for your project, you retain the copyright, and you can close future releases at any time you choose. If you use a GPL library, you can release a version that uses non GPL libraries and close that. And if you start a new project, you can choose any licence you like. Let's try and keep a sense of perspective here.
And the problem I have with your problem is that when you talk about "authors" the guys who wrote the software originally don't appear to get a vote. The original author is the one who gets to choose the licence. But you'r
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
the CBC are a bunch of morons on the best of days. They can't even read the 'hits per day' properly at DistroWatch.com. It's (the CBC) a cheesy government funded waste of taxpayer dollars, always trying desperately to know what they are talking about. Oh, and the so-called 'Canadian Heritage programming (made by tax dollars) they spew at us is sooooooooooo stupid, it's unbelievable and sappy at the best of times. They are a joke, pay no heed. >:-/
Will Linux ever mature? I hope so because I really don't want a Mac. =l