Slashdot Mirror
Palm Sued Over Palm Pre GPL Violation
zaxl writes "Palm is being sued by Artifex Software over the PDF viewer in Palm's Pre smartphone, which may violate the GNU GPL. Artifex alleges that Palm has copied Artifex's PDF rendering engine, called muPDF, and integrated it into the Palm Pre's PDF viewer application without the proper licensing conditions. The entire application must be licensed under the GPL if muPDF is part of the application. It seems more and more cell phones are shipping with open source code, but in a closed manner."
Yes, those evil developers. Not wanting a company to just take their code, rename it, extend it and use it for free without contributing anything back.
That's why we're very careful that any libraries we use in distributed software are licensed under BSD or MIT style licenses.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Those patent trolls...
Since it doesn't say that, I'm sure you'll agree that this is a problem.
Like all licences, GPL constrains how you may used the licensed thing. All you have to do is satisfy those terms and conditions and you're fine.
If you don't like the GPL, don't use anything covered under it. Go away, nobody's stopping you.
The GPL is for open source software whose authors wish to encourage the development of open source software. If you're not writing open source software, you look for another solution or write it your damn self. If you ARE writing open source software, it's not a bullshit license.
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
You use GPL source, you agree to the GPL. You use GPL libs/external executable, you MAY, but only a small number of terms actually apply to you in those cases.
The GPL is a distribution license; you only need to actually agree to and follow it if you plan on distributing it or derivatives of it to others.
Other than BSD trolls, I don't see how anyone could find the above complicated. Would you rather take proprietary EULAs? Those DO govern what you can do with the software itself.
If you want to be able to use source without having to give back, there is PLENTY of it under more permissive licenses like the BSD/MIT. Use those, don't bitch about the GPL.
Great Intellect...
No, actually it only tells you what you are required to do if you distribute projects that contain it. You can use with out distribution however you want, no restrictions.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Hello,
As a consultant for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do
some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was
very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our
exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.
Although we met several technical challenges along the way
(specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we
were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process
went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were
considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.
So you can imagine our surprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It
was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license
states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money
we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would
now be available at no cost to our competitors.
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever
use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult
position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with
another solution. Although it was tough to do, there really was no
option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.
I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive
with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
guarantee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my
experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my
associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to
something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".
Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure
it remains only a bit player.
Thank you for your time.
Well, if the GPL wasn't a bullshit license which states that you're subject to the GPL if you even use GPL software in your project, this wouldn't be a problem.
Honestly, I have some issues with the LGPL, but they're a hell of a lot less because that aspect is gone. The "linking to my code counts as directly using my code" clause in the GPL is complete and utter bullshit.
Can you please point to that clause in the GPL? My google search for that clause isn't working very well.
Please refrain from using GPL licensed code in your projects, then. Now that we've solved the problem for you, let's fix your first statement with regard to Palm: "Well, if Palm hadn't decided to include code licensed under the GPL and subsequently ignore the requirements of the license, shipping shitloads of infringing units, this wouldn't be a problem."
I don't license my stuff under the GPL; I prefer BSD-style licensing. However, the copyright holder is free to choose how they want their stuff distributed. Palm should have secured a commercial use license from Artifex, failed to do so, and will now have to pony up a whole lot of "oopsie" money.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Some of us prefer to do both :P
What the hell is that thing supposed to be? I've seen it for years and want to know, since I can't find info on it anywhere and no-one seems to know.
Why the hell does it look like a dick with two red balls being stroked by a hand with a blue napkin?
...since Palm mentions muPDF in their documentation, and they don't have a commercial license for it. Anyone in the software industry, anyone using libraries they didn't write, should understand that there's a difference between "open source" and "public domain."
--I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
-- See?
I think what you're looking for is covered under this article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception
If you use someone else's (copyrighted) code you must abide by the license restriction. If it would be too costly to do so then you can't use the code.
Developers should fully understand whatever license they release under. If someone wants to restrict usage of their code to only open-source projects they are free to do so. If they want to release for the benefit of everyone they are free to do so. If they want to try to make some money off their efforts they are free to do so. The key is understanding what you're doing when you choose a license.
New GPL code is not a donation to the community. It is a payment to those who have written GPL code in the past, released on the understanding that others will pay for it by contributing further code. GPL carries restrictions, learn what they are before you use or write GPL code.
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
Bullshit license? Listen buddy, nobody is making you, Palm, or anyone else use it. I am sure if you used a proprietary company's source code you would be bound to worse restrictions. I honestly don't see what is with you anti-GPL trolls. Here's the deal with the GPL, I am offering you code to inspect, compile, and distribute to anyone on the planet. The only thing I require in return is that if you DISTRIBUTE changes to the code that you contribute with your changes. You may not like it but tough. You didn't write the software and you have no right to tell people how to license their code. You are free to use a competitor's product if they provide what you want.
On that note I have said it a million times before. If you really want to use a GPL'ed product under a new license where you don't have to distribute your changes, stop being cheap and cough up the money. You do have options. Allow me to recap
- Use it under the terms of the GPL and show your changes
- Use a competitors
- Contact the author(s) of the code and offer to purchase a special license for your product.
On the latter, the author has the power to do that since they are the copyright holder and I am sure many would be happy to offer you a proprietary license for your company for the right price. You anti-GPL trolls need to get over yourselves and you are the same guys who accuse GPL fans or being cheap and not wanting to pay for software, yet you scumbags turn around and cry because you can't turn around you use whatever code you want without abiding by the license. Companies have legal departments and if they are creative enough to write elaborate EULAs, I am more than confident these guys can read a relatively simple license and *gasp* weigh their options.
Some of us are CDDL trolls, you insensitive clod!
How hard is it to just release a totally OSS version of your OS with all applications and stuff there and let people modify it and put it on your phone? I really don't see the point of trying to complicate things by closing the OSS. Release everything for free and you can take a lot more free code and not having to worry about paying lots of money when you are caught.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Well, if the GPL wasn't a bullshit license which states that you're subject to the GPL if you even use GPL software in your project, this wouldn't be a problem.
If you don't want to comply with the GPL, write the f*cking code yourself and quit whining. The world doesn't owe you free source code.
[Citation Needed]
The industry is moving to BSD-style licenses because they're just now finding out that they can and will be sued if they blatantly violate the terms of the licenses on other persons' code? Is this seriously a revelation to anyone, and do you honestly believe that it's changing anything? I'd really like to see some backing to the statement "The GPL is dead," because last I checked there was a pretty immensely large body of GPL code still in use, and there's no indication of any significant portion of it fading into obscurity because ZOMG IT'S UNDER TEH EVIL GPL.
Oh, the industry is moving to BSD-style licenses? When? What industry? Did they actually use GPL-style licenses before? Got anything to back this up? This is one of the most opaque attempt at spreading FUD I've seen here on slashdot.
c++;
Yeah right, we live, free no conditions, every day.
I don't suppose someone here with a Pre would mind checking out that folder and seeing if the source for the PDF viewer is there?
Is Slashdot for or against copyrights this week? You know, since the GPL is a copyright license and relies on copyright law to have any power.
Oh, the industry is moving to BSD-style licenses? When? What industry?
FATI (Freeloaders And Takers International) made public anouncements that no longer will they stand by and take software that demands they do more than stand by and take software !
FATI have declared they will setup a protest webpage at becomeafati.com where freeloaders and takers from all over the globe can declare their intent to idly stand and waiting for other people to give them what they want when they want it.
LATE NEWS: FATI are demanding somebody else setup their webpage NOW and place it under an anything goes style license.
If you ARE writing open source software, it's not a bullshit license.
Unless you want to license your open source code as BSD/MIT...
Suppose you're writing an open source app (let's say 20k LOC) and wish to license it under MIT. Now, suppose you need a specific functionality that's already been implemented by another open source project under GPL (let's say the functionality is 1K LOC).
Now, you can either use that functionality, but would be forced to relicense your project as GPL (thereby giving up your freedom of being able to choose how you want to license the code you have written), or re-implement the same functionality yourself and license it as MIT (thereby duplicating effort).
As an open source software developer wishing to license my code liberally, I am forced to either give up my freedom of choosing the license for my code or re-implement functionality (thereby taking away my time from improving other parts of my open source app).
So, the GPL license IS a bullshit license even if you are writing open source software (in certain circumstances).
So today there's a news story about it being used without permission and suddenly it's dead? If it's good enough to make it into the end product of a company as well known as Palm obviously it's working and there will be more companies who decide to licence GPL code and have an end product out faster that was cheaper to code.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10410074-1.html
Hell, some snot-nosed terror banging away on a picture of his absentee mother is probably 10x smarter than most Twitterers. "Look at me! Look at me! I'm special! I feel so empty inside if I'm not prattling on about my inane life to other depressed losers!"
That is exactly the point. You have the freedom to use GPL code so long as you release any linked code as GPL as well, or you can rewrite it yourself or use an alternative. Everybody wins!
However, if you take GPL code, obfuscate it and try to pass it off as your own, everyone loses.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Your source for this fact?
It doesn't matter to me what "the industry" does. "The industry" can do whatever it wants, and it has no effect on my ability to run open-source software on my own machine.
Extra points for red-baiting.
Find free books.
+5 Insightful? FFS, can we please get something better than "randomly assign mod points to people who never contribute to the site" please? please?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Totally not seeing any way in which what you said could be read as disagreeing with what I wrote. Distribution is only one way to use software. It happens to be the one that Palm chose for this, so no other terms could apply.
Is anything that stands in the way of you getting whatever you want at zero cost "bullshit"?
The developer of the hypothetical 1kloc library is under no obligation whatsoever to licence his code in any particular way(unless you have him on contract or something).
Just another example of why the industry is moving to BSD-style licenses. Face it, the GPL is dead and Stallman's socialist dream along with it.
The LGPL, notice the L, will do just fine in those cases where software authors find that the GPL is too restrictive. And the GPL does a great job at protecting real people, if some corporation has a problem with releasing their code under GPL then that is their problem. The GPL says that you can not take free code and make it non-free, I do not see the lack of being able to take freedom away as a problem. But then again, I am not a evil corporation.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
This simply isn't true. The choices have been there for a long time. Palm could have used something else. They didn't. They could have also complied with the GPL license, and no sweat, no harm, no fowl. They didn't, it appears.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Your source for this fact?
I'm not sure what the OP's source is, but he's probably referring to how the GPL is often thought of as the holy grail or end-all-be-all free license, and how most companies releasing free code nowadays tend to stick with MIT and Apache2.0 among others. That, plus the GPL probably isn't as prevalent as many assume. Many small, inconsequential projects and doodads choose the GPL (hey, it's what people think of when they think open source), but beyond the obvious big projects Linux and MySQL, there are a lot of big projects who have chosen other, arguably freer licenses, including Postgresql, Apache, postfix, etc.
It doesn't matter to me what "the industry" does. "The industry" can do whatever it wants, and it has no effect on my ability to run open-source software on my own machine.
Which is why the common argument that the GPL magically protects users' interest more than other free software licenses is so silly. The GPL could cease to exist tomorrow and we would all still be running our free software irregardless of what other companies choose to do with or without the free code. User experience would probably improve because there would be a lot less "incompatible" code and presumably a lot less reinventing the wheel and therefore better software.
Anyway, concerning the story at hand, if Palm violated the GPL, they should settle. What else needs to be said about it? Yeah...
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
On the latter, the author has the power to do that since they are the copyright holder and I am sure many would be happy to offer you a proprietary license for your company for the right price.
Do I risk being labeled as an anti-GPL troll for saying that the people who aren't willing to offer one for any price are assholes?
That is one hell of a wild-assed assertion. GPL is far from dead. BSD licenses guarantee that business and industry will take what they want and give nothing in return. BSD licensed code begs to be abused and to be used as a means to abuse the very public it came from. One look at Mac OS or MS Windows should that much easily enough.
I can't say I fully agree with the whole GPL thing, but I get the general idea and I'm pretty okay with it. So it comes with strings attached -- strings that guarantee that it remains free. BSD is very idealistic and optimistic and I appreciate that it is. But it is clear that it can and will be abused and can and will be used against the public that created it. It is pretty immoral to take advantage of BSD licensed code in this way, but many people are simply not moral... or at least place profits above morals.
Palm actually uses a bunch of GPL'd code (the Pre is Linux based) and they do make the code available. In fact, I think some of it even comes on the device itself.
I'm sure this is just an oversight if the code really is GPL and isn't available.
Yeah the "industry" would love all open source code to be BSD so they can use it with impunity. Honestly let's stop this FUD. It's simply not true. Code under the GPL is no different from code under any other license. If you don't use it in compliance with the license then you are in a copyright violation situation, and the law allows financial remedies for such a case. The fact that it is GPL is irrelevant to this. Also the summary is incorrect. Palm is in a copyright violation now and have three choices: 1. remove the GPL code, 2. license the code under a different arrangement, and 3. License their derivative product as GPL.
Why are you upset when copyright holders exercise their rights under the law to prevent a company from knowingly or unknowingly rip them off? How would BSD help this situation? Because the GPL actually has teeth we're starting to see the tip of the ice berg as far as willful license violations go. It's impossible to judge how much code is being used illegally in proprietary products. We're not talking GPL either. Any license. Microsoft code, code from some other source.
Do liberty and capitalism allow one the right to violate copyrights? The GPL exists to protect the rights and freedoms of the developers and the end users while allowing free redistribution of code. I know of no other license that does this so effectively. In my opinion, if all open source code was BSD, there really would be no open source community or ecosystem. Like Adam Smith said, sometimes you have to balance self-interest with self-interest. The BSD doesn't do that really well. Certainly there is zero incentive for a company to release code under the BSD if it's just going to be used directly against them. The GPL allows companies to foster communities and promote development, while maintaining a level playing field for all the players.
Palm should have secured a commercial use license from Artifex, failed to do so, and will now have to pony up a whole lot of "oopsie" money.
I'd prefer them to just publish the viral parts of the app. These private entities should pay the real price for including GPL code with their own. By taking bribe money, the copyright owners only reinforce bad behavior, showing that instead of abiding by the terms, these devs can be bought.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
Consider that some people might not care if "business and industry" use their code, would be happy that someone found their work useful, and therefore would not consider this type of usage "abuse".
In fact, I would go as far to say that there is nothing immoral or unethical about using said permissively licensed code in the way in which the license permits.
If you ARE writing open source software, it's not a bullshit license.
As an open source software developer wishing to license my code liberally, I am forced to either give up my freedom of choosing the license for my code or re-implement functionality (thereby taking away my time from improving other parts of my open source app).
[Emphasis mine.]
You're forced? Is the GPL being implemented at gunpoint now? Nobody forced you to use GPL software. It's your choice if you want to avail yourself of the hard work of others or not. If you do, then the least you could do is to respect their wishes about how the fruits of their labour are used.
So, the GPL license IS a bullshit license even if you are writing open source software (in certain circumstances).
If by 'certain circumstances' you mean that the GPL is a bullshit license because you want to use it in ways that it wasn't intended to be used, well... you have less than my fullest sympathy.
Look, I respect software licenses - even the ones I don't agree with. I personally think that BSD is fine (though my preference is for GPL). And while I don't like a number of proprietary EULA's I've encountered over the years, I respect the right of the author to put conditions on how his work is used.
It's clear that you don't agree with the GPL, but that doesn't mean you have to go casting aspersions on the license. The only argument you've made so far is that it sucks because it's not what you want. I sympathise, but the solution couldn't be clearer: Just use a different one, and stay away from GPL-licensed code in the future.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
You completely missed the "encourage the development of open source software" part of the grandparent post.
The GPL doesn't allow conversion to BSD/MIT because it would be way too easy to go GPL to BSD/MIT to Closed.
To reiterate, the GPL encourages the development of open source software. This is intentional and highly desired by software authors who use the license. If you don't like it, write your own code under your license of choice.
I can definitely see the value in your view. However, I'm not advocating them just having to pay the licensing fees they originally should have. I'd love to see them pay a nasty punitive damages fine (enough to really hurt both their cash reserves and their public image). Of course, if they were forced to disclose a bunch of source on top of that, all the better.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Or, we can distribute our code under the GPL, and thus avoid these situations.
Palm trees and 8
wow ... I'm flabergasted.
In other words, you would like the freedom to choose the Free Software license of your choice, but you don't think that the folks writing GPLed software should have the same freedom.
http://opensource.palm.com/1.3.1/index.html seems to have the source and patches. Is this the end of it or is something missing?
Use is normally associated with consumption, primary function, or leverage. In that sentence, it would be referring to usage in regard to primary function of the software.
You said "used" which I assumed was supposed to be "use". Use and distribution are two different things. Distribution is not a way to use software. Even if it was, the gpl is very explicit in its goal to only cover only distribution. Many people get confused over this point and think that they are not free to use GPL in a personal project that will never be distributed.That's why I responded: to clarify your statement in the general sense. Yes, in the case of palm they did distribute. But, I think its more important that people understand what the GPL says, then the specifics of any one case. This is why you will notice any actual reference to this case in my first post.
A great example of this is something like MySql. I can change the software to do what ever I want, and use it on my server to build a facebook killer, without being required to distribute the source code for it, even though its licensed under the GPL. Because, again the GPL only covers distribution, not use( or other uses if you insist on your ridiculous definition of use that includes distribution).
Also, you misspelled licenses. I'm usually the guy that people point out grammatical errors to, rather than visa versa. But, still, if you are going to offer advice about a subject, it helps your creditability to actually spell it correctly. Or at least use a web browser with integrated spell checking. Again, the point of posting was not nitpicking, but clarifying as posts similar to your last one have led to quite a bit of misinformation about the GPL license.
Once again:GPL covers distribution only, not use.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
http://opensource.palm.com/1.3.1/index.html
http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/mupdf-1.0.tar
http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/mupdf-1.0.tar-patches.tgz
(info from post #30349382)
On the phone is a PDF called "Open Source Information.pdf". In this document they list the projects they used for the phone:
libgpg-error (only certain files are licensed under GPL), linux-hotplug, libsamplerate0, fuse, freefont, vpnc, sysfsutils, iptables, dosfstools, alsa-plugins, busybox, ipkg, netbase, oprofile, pmeloop, alsa-utils, PPP (only certain files are licensed under GPL), readline, setserial, upstart-initscripts, e2fsprogs (only certain files are licensed under GPL), module-init-tools-cross, module-init-tool, base-passwd, iproute2, usbmon, mupdf, libpurple, makedevs, update- modules, netcat, gdbm, cifs, rsync, update-rc.d, upstart, wireless-tools, udev, bootchart, fbset, dnsmasq, binutils, libgcrypt (only certain files are licensed under GPL), libfuse, Sysvinit, Linux Kernel, pulseaudio, procps, psmisc, mtools, UN Batang Korean True Type Font, faad2, e2fsprogs-libs (portions are licensed under GPL, other portions are licensed under LGPL), sysstat, screen
I don't know why there's a suit unless someone requested the code and was denied, but Palm clearly advertise the fact that they use the app. The document is 37 pages long, but it's not hard to find references to the software they use.
I like music
Actually I never said I wish to restrict the freedom of others.
I follow the "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" school of thought.
Your freedom to write GPL'd code should not be restricted. My point was the license is not the golden chalice for any open source developer (which was the GP's point).
I meant "every developer" instead of "any developer" in the above post. Doh.
Did you miss the word either in the statement you emphasized?
What I said was fact. Given the premise that I want the above functionality in my app, I either have license my app as GPL or re-implement the functionality as MIT/BSD. This is obvious from the restrictions the GPL places on the software. I don't see the point of dispute in this statement.
isn't Artifix based on Ghostscript which is GPL, Artifix packages a version of ghoscript with support? Can anyone in the know clarify the situation with regards to ghostscript?
But you still have a choice in the end. If you don't like the license, then don't use the code.
Don't blame a programming paradigm for a work culture problem
I never implied the developer has an obligation to let me use his code. Neither does the closed source developer.
My point is by placing this restrictions, the GPL developer prevents not only closed source software using his code - but also certain class of open source software (BSD/MIT-style licensed).
This is obvious - but my in stating it, I was disputing the point of the grandparent who was implying that GPL is good for every open source developer - which is not the case for developers writing BSD-licensed software, as the GPL code cannot be used in their projects.
I don't win, as someone who writes software licensed under BSD/MIT.
I have to compromise.
Either license my code as GPL, which restricts who can use my code (I want my code to be used as widely as possible - I don't care if MS uses in their software - I give it away with the purpose of improving the quality of software people use - i.e. if Joe Windows User benefits from MS including my BSD licensed software or Bob Linux User benefits from GPL projects including my BSD licensed software - both make me happy).
Or, I re-implement the software as BSD licensed. Now, this is no worse off than if the GPL code had never been written in the first place, true, but it goes against the idea of everyone working towards a common goal (creating open source software for users) - since the result is waste of time duplicating code under different licenses.
Wow, that must have hurt.
If you don't like it, write your own code under your license of choice.
I like the goal of the GPL, just not the means. People should write open source software out of their own free fill (as I do), and not because they are forced to by a license.
You may argue that without the requirements the GPL places on people, there would hardly be any open source software. This is the assumption that most people are "bad" and would not share there code, but the GPL gives them no choice. I have more faith in the world and think that there are enough good-willing developers that would contribute code back anyway.
Also did you not read my original post - why are you telling me to use a different license - when it was clear from my original post that I already do (BSD/MIT variants)?
Apologies for the spelling/grammar mistakes, "fill" should be "will", "there" should be "their", etc... I am tired.
Your post has forced me to either respond or not respond. Damn you and your restrictive discourse.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Do I risk being labeled as an anti-GPL troll for saying that the people who aren't willing to offer one for any price are assholes?
You risk being labeled ignorant. A lot of GPL software has more than one contributor to the code base...
Ow, my eye! The doctor told me never to put roof in my eye.
Caveat Utilitor
Lol, so other than Linux, Apache, KDE and Gnome, the GPL isn't used by many projects.
Which brings up a question I have had on my mind for quite awhile now since all these companies started getting sued for GPL violations, that nobody has really been able to answer: What is wrong with BSD? Is it broken, code sucks, bloated beyond repair, what?
Because it seems like from a business standpoint, especially after RMS wrote the "TiVo clause" into GPL V3, that the business world would just avoid anything GPL altogether, and stick with BSD code that won't come back to bite them in the ass. After all it worked for Apple and MSFT, so what is wrong with BSD? There has to be SOME reason why these companies keep snatching GPL and dealing with possible lawsuits when you can do whatever you want with BSD and all is golden, so what is it?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Clearly you're not a typical grammar Nazi or you'd know that the phrase is "vice-versa" and that you used creditability when you mean credibility.
Now cue the next grammar asshole to pick my post apart...
You did fine. Some people might complain about your contraction, but I say fuck 'em.
Apache doesn't use the GPL... Apache uses the Apache license, which is much closer to the MIT license than anything else.
After all, I am strangely colored.
Anyone else notice this? -> Mikael Ricknäs (IDG News Service) 07/12/2009 07:53:00
Once again: either find another solution, or write it your damn self. If I've chosen to release my widget under the GPL, it's because I don't want you to use it in your BSD/MIT project. My code, my choice, take it or leave it - and if you leave it, I don't have a problem with that. Heck, if you can make a better widget, maybe I'll drop mine and start using yours instead.
Then maybe I'll make some improvements to yours, and release my improvements under the GPL. Don't like that idea? Then pick a license that doesn't let me.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I don't know why, but I read the story title as "Palin Sued Over Palm Pre GPL Violation".
Like Microsoft and other for-profit software companies, the GPL gang uses government-based aggression in order to enforce its so-called "intellectual property rights", but what makes it worse is that using the latest crack from The Pirate Bay nor any amount of money would fix your GPL-related legal problem. Microsoft is able to invest billions into R&D to protect its market share by actually delivering value and innovation to its customers (not all of whom are software geeks), which is why it has been able to retain its market position for all this time. Restrictive licenses like GPL discourage free market competition! The software authors, acting in the context of the competitive environment, should get to decide what they can do with their source code, like include it in a proprietary project some time in the future.
Just look at how much good the small amount of permissively licensed software (ex. BSD, X, Apache, Xiph codecs, SQLite, PostgreSQL, Lua, etc) have done - pieces of that code are included in feature-competitive commercial products used by millions (or maybe already billions) of people all over the world! GPL, on the other hand, continues to be a black hole that companies like IBM and Oracle (both, interestingly enough, a part of the Military-Industrial Complex) continue to pour billions into, presumably in an ill-devised effort to hurt Microsoft, but in reality having a crummy-but-free desktop competitor only solidifies Microsoft's market dominance by crippling any serious proprietary competitors before they get a chance to get off the ground.
BSD is free software, GPL isn't!
(I know saying this will further push my karma toward negative infinity, but it is nonetheless true.)
Falling prices and eventual open-sourcing of software should come as the result of free market competition, not government force!
Actually, it's irrelevant as to how many contributors there are for that - the ones who are blocking the idea for whatever reason are still assholes. (If the contributors collectively just can't decide on an amount and therefore say "you know, since we can't come up with a fair amount, you're out of luck"... well, that's not assholery, that's more of a "if you're this indecisive about something that should be beneficial, I'd hate to see how you guys react to a disaster" situation.)
In an ideal world, you should be able to buy a non-GPL license from any GPL project that you don't want to contribute your additions to for whatever reason. (The project's team should be able to ask what this reason is and charge accordingly.) This right should not allow you to then proceed to cockblock the project in any way - just let you distribute the program without providing your changes in source form. (If the original team manages to figure out how you wrote your additions and adds them, the license in question should provide them with immunity from a lawsuit from you.) This provides a simple means for injecting capital into GPL projects.
The problems are two-fold: 1) people are assholes; and 2) the mass delusion that once a project has been released under the GPL, it can not be released under another license without violating the GPL (...which I think may actually be true for second-generation GPL projects - the second-gen group would have to get a relicensing from the first-gen group in order to relicense it, right?).
My ZVUE player crashed once, and I swear I saw a Linux console before the screen went blank. I want the firmware code!
Yep. You should be fucking grateful that they've allowed you to use their code in the first place, under any terms.
Giving them money to do so doesn't count as gratitude?
Or, of course, you can just ask politely!
They are perfectly within their right to say no, but for a 1000 lines there's a good chance the author will relicense that bit.
Linux and other GPL-licensed software are familiar and comfortable.
There's certainly a lot of good reasons for businesses to prefer BSD licensed code. There are just as many good reasons for developers (or businesses actually writing said code) to prefer the GPL.
If you release code under the BSD license, you'll never see a dime for it that isn't charity. If you release code under the GPL, you get all the warm fuzzies of giving it to everyone and the ability to tell corporate users to pay up for closed source use.
I don't know if there's a decent BSD licensed PDF library. I don't think so.
...citation?
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
The only way the GPL can come back and bite anyone in the ass is the exact same way you distributing pirated software can come back and bite you in the ass. The license exists, it explicitly states that if you want to distribute the software you must make the source code available. There is no mystery to it. The only way you can get sued for using GPLed software is if you intentionally and willingly want to violate the copyright license.
"I see your post attempting to be succinct and insightful, and I raise you an unqualified insult"
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Good point.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
The problems are two-fold: 1) people are assholes; and 2) the mass delusion that once a project has been released under the GPL, it can not be released under another license without violating the GPL (...which I think may actually be true for second-generation GPL projects - the second-gen group would have to get a relicensing from the first-gen group in order to relicense it, right?).
The second-gen group could also replace all of the derived code with own-copyright code, but in general, yes, they would need the agreement of the applicable license holders, and couldn't speak for them. (Otherwise anybody wanting to use GPL code just has to fork it, and could then license it for commercial use with impunity.)
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
A fair point to make, that. Very few successful commercial enterprises have ever used a GPL license for their software. For the few that did, their GPL software ended up acting as loss-leaders for other technologies or for generating support contracts.
Speaking subjectively, I can't imagine why a commercial company would want GPL software anyway. BSD license code attracts older, more accomplished and experienced developers with a work ethic they've acquired from working in a professional environment. GPL code attracts young cowboys and ideological zealots -- teenagers and students who don't have bills to pay, or a family to support, and have not had to develop those professional skills.
I doubt many companies themselves did, but, most software developers and development managers in those companies would have been exposed to the GPL at various times in their lives -- particularly back when they themselves were students, living cheaply at home.
You seem to be a bit confused. You are only forced to "relicense" your project as GPL if you willingly try to build your own project from a fork from a GPL project or if you intend to cut and paste source code from a GPL project. To put it in other words, if you wish to use the work of another author you must obey the conditions he places in order to use it.
If your phone can screw up the towers, then there's something wrong with the towers.
Yes. Now, why are you assuming nothing is wrong with the towers?
Remember, the phone infrastructure is designed by people who think designing their own crypto (without review from crypto experts) is a good idea.
Be aware that if you're roaming, the phone company you're guesting can pretend to your phone service provider to be your phone (i.e. they can place calls in your name, intercept your calls, etc.).
(At least that's how I remember that lecture.)
I wouldn't trust these people to not trust the client. I wouldn't trust these people to not trust in law-based security (i.e. deterring people by threatening to find and punish them after the fact).
Why do you trust these people to make good security decisions?
Shouldn't that be
Some people might complain about your contraction, but I say "fuck 'em."
Or
Some people might complain about your contraction, but I say that they should be fucked.
Now, this is no worse off than if the GPL code had never been written in the first place, true, but it goes against the idea of everyone working towards a common goal (creating open source software for users) - since the result is waste of time duplicating code under different licenses.
That's because everyone isn't working towards a common goal. Open source is a means to an end, but that end is different for different people.
Some people just have the goal of creating software that others can freely incorporate into their own projects (providing freedom for developers and quality software for end users). BSD is fine for them.
Other people have the goal of creating software that will always be free for its end users to examine and modify (providing freedom for developers, quality software for end users, and freedom for end users). BSD is no good for them, they need the GPL.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
These private entities should pay the real price for including GPL code with their own. By taking bribe money, the copyright owners only reinforce bad behavior, showing that instead of abiding by the terms, these devs can be bought.
I am learning to write code. When I have enough skill to write something worth using it will probably be released as GPL. However, just as my skills at things other than coding are available in return for payment, so too will my skill as a programmer. If someone wishes to pay money for my code to be licensed under different terms I do not consider that to be bad behaviour, nor do I consider my willingness to sell the product of my labour to be an indication of any moral deficiency on my part.
To the contrary, Apple uses quite a bit of GPL'd code in OS X, including gcc. It's true that they prefer to license stuff under their modified BSD license but they have no problem working with GPL'd stuff.
http://www.opensource.apple.com/release/mac-os-x-1062/
Give it up. You're argument is circular. Just rewrite the functionality yourself then others can use your BSD licensed version. Respect the choices of others and the license "they" chose to support just as you want others to support "your" choice of license in the software you write.
I'm fairly confident you will find a vast amount more GPL software than BSD software.
The thing is the GPL isn't the "golden chalice" even for the FSF. That's why they have the LGPL. And nobody (that I've ever heard of, anyway) is going to criticize anybody for choosing another free license (like BSD) either. Choosing the correct license is a very important thing and every developer should think very carefully about it before they release. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard developers complain about being "ripped off" because somebody used their code in a "commercial product" without their consent -- only to find out that they had a BSD license. Or that they complain about being "ripped off" because someone charged money for their application without their consent -- only to find out that they had a GPL license.
People need to think about what they want to accomplish with their license. Sometimes something like BSD is the best. The advantages are wide adoptability. People can join your project easily. But someone may just stick your code in their own product. You'll be competing against yourself, but at a disadvantage since they can use your code and you can't use theirs. For a lot of stuff you don't care and BSD is great.
Maybe you care about end users being able to use the latest version of your code, but you don't care about unfair competition. In this case the LGPL is a great license. Anybody can use the code any way they want, but your users can fix bugs in your code or add new functionality, etc.
Maybe you care about making sure nobody can use your code to leverage an unfair advantage against others. Everyone who adopts the code in their program must agree to a common set of principles. This way nobody is at a disadvantage. The GPL is great for that. But remember that the more restrictive your licensing is, the less potential users you will have. And there is no question that the GPL is more restrictive than the BSD license. However, for the reasons above (and many others) a very large number of people think it strikes a very good balance.
Personally, I don't like licenses that are more restrictive than GPL. As a user as well as a programmer "free" (as in software) is extremely important to me. It's worth more than money to me. I regularly fix bugs and add features to code I use. And I value the ability to ask my friends to help me out when I can't fix it myself. When I have had to use proprietary software (both as a user and programmer) I have almost always been very frustrated with the lack of ability to fix my own problems. I've decided never to write software that is more restrictive than GPL and I wish others would do so as well.
Agree, but a better move would be to simply contact the developers of the GPL:ed software and ask for a commercial license instead. The GPL lets you try the software, lets you create other software around it, but if you would like to distribute your application as closed source, you may have to pay for some other form of license.
I find it hard to understand why someone would start crying for not being allowed just take take several years worth of development effort, thinly repackage it and then claim that no one else is allowed to touch "their" software without paying for it.
Open source your software or pay the original developers for a commercial license.
She made the willows dance
then write it yourself. I realize that implementing anything significant hurts a product's tight schedule, but if you can't open source most of your product then you'll just have to suffer and do it the hard way like everyone else in the business.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Perhaps he lives in a country where they spell 'licence' correctly instead of the US?
> Also, you misspelled licenses.
The people who invented English would probably disagree with you there.
You can win by relicensing as GPL. If you insist on being stubborn you can't take a free ride on other people's work.
People who license their work as GPL obviously want everyone who uses their code to do the same. They believe that they can be exploited otherwise by commercial interests. You should respect that.
http://opensource.palm.com/1.3.1/index.html
http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/mupdf-1.0.tar
http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/mupdf-1.0.tar-patches.tgz
That's a major diversion of the discussion..
Your said the GPL is a bullshit license. The response was directed to your argument
While yes, including distribution as a 'use' of software is quite a stretch...
The parent was spot-on in his use of licences, I am assuming you were educated in the states, most likely in public school. In US, people (aka teachers) have a terrible time with English homophones. They can keep track of the difference between advice[N] and advise[V], yet not for example practice[N] and practise[V]. Look again at the line of his you quoted, he is using *both* the noun and the verb form, absolutely correctly. Whilst attempting an arrogant ad hominem on his use of language, ultimately you only made yourself look the fool.
I hope this can be a learning experience for you.
Do developers of proprietary apps offer distribution licenses to anyone? I don't think so.
A great example of this is something like MySql. I can change the software to do what ever I want,
Since you opened the door to being technical, that isn't "use", either. That's modification.
"Use" is reading the code or running the program/calling the library. If you are going to call modification a "use", then you must concede a broader definition including all six of the exclusive rights inherent in copyright. But I suspect you won't do that, because it means that the other poster's sentence you took exception to would become correct.
Regardless, the GPL is an instrument of use, because before you can use a copyrighted work, you must come into lawful possession of it. Therein lies the basis for all licensing, software and otherwise. A wants to do X with something owned by B. B says, "I promise not to sue you for doing X if you promise to Y." That's a license. Y can be "pay $50", "show me all your code changes", "use it only from 4pm to 6pm", or just about anything.
The GPL imposes no limitations on use per se, but that is not the same thing as not "covering" it as you suggest. It is covered, and it begins in the preamble: "To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights." (GPLv3) If the GPL did not address use, it would have no way of protecting your rights in that regard. The GPL gives you lawful possession; lawful possession is required before you can use something without being sued. The GPL also protects you from individuals limiting your rights to use the software by way of a secondary license.
Once again:GPL covers distribution only, not use.
No. I see this repeated all over the place. It is not true. The GPL restricts distribution only, not reproduction, modification, or other forms of usage.
In order to receive a copy to use, you must take part in a distribution of the software. There are restrictions in place on that software from the very beginning--there must be. A license must have a scope; if there were no restrictions at all on your use of the software, that would be called "public domain". Whether those restrictions affect you or your intended use is a separate question, but they're undeniably there and in effect.
That initial distribution unto you gives you all of the privileges and responsibilities incumbent in the license: full, unhindered personal use; full, unhindered rights to prepare a derivative work; and explicit permission to redistribute in accordance with particular limitations, namely, making source code available.
What you mean to say is that the GPL does not impose conditions on simple use or modification as a prerequisite to acquiring a copy. But the provisions of the GPL are binding in their entirety immediately upon receipt of the copy--it's what you agreed to in order to be given the copy.
You're implying a gap where none exists. The GPL always applies in its entirety when you use GPL software. What it does not do is impose restrictions on your non-distributing use. It is not the case that you receive the software with no license and then magically one day a license comes into existence. It is there from the beginning, as all of your rights and responsibilities must engage with the conveyance itself. It says in the preamble (v3), "By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users." If the GPL did not "cover" use of the copyrighted work, it would not be able to achieve this goal.
I agree with your argument on the GPL, but:
1. Spelling is not grammar.
2. We English spell "licence" like that. I suspect that your forefathers did too. We can't help it if you colonials go and mess up our language, but please don't then try and retro-correct us.
3. Correcting a one letter difference in spelling adds nothing to your argument but, rather, distracts from it.
I very much doubt that the "Industry" is moving to BSD licenses however if the the Industry want's to produce packages for Linux and there is huge money to be made doing this then they are going to have to get use to working with the GPL otherwise they may as well produce packages for MS Windows and all that can entail.
From Fedora 12
Total packages on my system:
# rpm -qa |wc -l
1687
Total packages under the BSD license:
# rpm -qa --queryformat %{License}"\n"|sort|grep BSD|wc -l
169
I think the following shows how BSD licenses are moving to the GPL:
# rpm -qa --queryformat %{License}"\n"|sort|grep BSD|grep -v GPL|wc -l
121
Total packages under the GPL (note LGPL is included under this as well):
# rpm -qa --queryformat %{License}"\n"|sort|grep GPL|wc -l
1108
You can get more creative and get further statistics such as GPL3:
# rpm -qa --queryformat %{License}"\n"|sort|grep GPLv3|wc -l
99
Also I did not take into account mixed licenses and other licenses such as Samba and MySQL, with the above commands you can get some interesting results.
I am quite sure that if you look at Debian distributions you are going to see similar results although you will have to use the Debian package manager to do this.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
People willing to share their code have no problems with the GPL. Those who don't want to contribute back are free to not use GPLed code. Nothing is forcing you to do anything just because a GPL software exists.
Btw, following your reasoning logic, I have several GPLed projects... oh, too bad, now that I told you, you are obliged to rewrite them!
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
... you must be new here? Or you're technologically impaired and know not a thing about Palm.
This is not the place for you - go back to Digg/Wikipedia where you belong. This is a place for people with EXPERIENCE AND FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE to discuss things, not provide bullshit citations from some wiki that any moron can edit, for morons with the weakest google-fu on the fucking planet or just plain lazy fools without a clue.
IOW - Sit down little one, adults are talking. Speak only when spoken to.
...stunned silence.... ... wow. What the hell ?
You are the official elitist-asshole-of-the-day.
thank you. spot on target.
Hold my beer and watch this!
No?
Who is going to troubleshoot your software?
Who is going to fix it?
How are you going to gain technical credibility if nobody know it is your company who is doing that great software?
That is why companies are using GPL. At the very least bugs are easier to find and if your product is any good your own users become your best QA team.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Whining about how other people decide to license their own hard work.
You have no shame.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Which is the frigging point.
You don't like it? Fine.
But there is no reason why other people should submit to your wishes.
If replication of effort is needed it is because you are not willing to share all your code, that being the case I don't see why people that actually want to make sure all code remains open to all is to blame.
Your choice, their choice, you should respect the freedom of others about how their work is used, in accordance to their wishes.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Really, how many times are you going to use that word and its derivatives?
Nobody is forcing you to do anything.
Your arguments are baseless, the work of others is not for you to take as you please, it is so tremendously simple that I just don't understand why somebody just can't get it.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Do I risk being labeled as an anti-GPL troll for saying that the people who aren't willing to offer one for any price are assholes?
There is already a price tag on it: "open your changes or additions". If this is too expensive for you, you have to buy elsewhere - it's the same as if the prise tag would be in €.
Licence is the more common spelling in the UK. License is the spelling used in the US, and is an alternative spelling in the UK.
Note I haven't spelled grey wrong.
.
I am anything but a GNU diehard (a True GNU(tm) will insist that you don't use Acrobat Reader or NVidia's drivers for Linux, for example; I use both). But I understand the license and the purpose behind it.
I create a piece of software. I own it. It is MINE. There's a ton of work put into that software. So ... it's time to release it. For whatever reason, I choose the GPL.
If it helps your thinking, look at it this way. You could pay me for the right to use that software. But in a sense, I have said: "you can use this software, and may redistribute it to your heart's content, subject to this one restriction: if you make changes, you must include the source code for those changes with the distribution." That's what I am "charging" you, as the owner of that code, for distribution. Pay up, or shut up.
(Yes, that's a simplification, but it makes the point.)
This is WHY there can be dual-license schemes -- GPL for the masses, paid-and-closed for those who prefer. If you don't pay me, then I expect you to abide by the GPL.
While this, too, is inaccurate, it's another way to look at it: suppose someone donates property for a hospital or civic center. It's THEIR property. They own it. They have a right to dispose of it as they wish. They have chosen to donate it, WITH a stipulation: it must be used for the intended purpose. If the ones receiving the property attempt to sell it for mere gain, or do something else with it, there will probably be a lawsuit (happens all the time).
Likewise, that software is MINE. I OWN it (this is one reason why the FSF frowns on public-domain release; read the Richard Stallman's admittedly-long-winded mainfestos about this). The only way to guarantee *freedom* for that software once it leaves your hard drive is to (a), retain ownership, but (b), insist that AS A COST of distributing that software, you agree to the terms of the GPL.
If you don't like it, don't use the GPL. Use BSD or public-domain software. No one is forcing you.
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
Good point. It has made me see the GPL in a whole new light. It is a pyramid scheme, and a cunning one at that.
Define "distribute". Does it have to be on removable media, or disseminated on a network? Does putting software on a piece of hardware (e.g. phone) that is, um, distributed widely to hundreds of thousands of people qualify?
I don't get it. The guys peddling GPL software are doing voluntary co-operation to provide goods free of charge for anyone to use. Why is there such a hate campaign going on against them? What's it to you what other people are doing with their time and money?
You say, "there should not be a law...". Well, if there were no law, then the copyright holder would have no protections whatsoever. Absent a law, you have no ability or right to stop me from doing anything I want with respect to copying of a copyable work. Only the law grants you a limited monopoly. In exchange for that limited monopoly (benefitting, you, the copyright holder) there is supposed to be a benefit to society as a whole. Lose site of that, and there is no reason to have copyright. So, now that we agree that there should be a law, let's debate the nature of the law. So, explain to me why there *should not* be a law to force certain exemptions. What is a logical reason that such a prohibition should exist. I'm sorry, but, there isn't one.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Nice clarification. There is one exception to the use/distribution dichotomy you talk about though - the GNU Affero GPL. Most versions of the GPL, as you say, concern themselves primarily with distribution. You can use GPL'd software however you like, as long as you respect the distribution terms. The Affero GPL also limits use: if the software is a network application, you must provide users of that application access to the underlying source code.
The old style free software licenses don't really address the case of people hoarding knowledge behind software-as-a-service business models; they were predicated on the notion that programs were distributed in binary form to end users. I'm more than a little worried that if current trends continue, we'll end up in the same bad place we were before the GPL/BSD/etc licenses really gained traction; a place where details about the way things work is held and controlled by a very few.
Broad exposure to the working details of our technological infrastructure has fueled an enormously productive and creative period of technological growth. If we lose broad access to knowledge, we are denying ourselves the opportunity to continue building on this edifice. That would be a sad debacle indeed.
The second option is expensive and the third option will probably push the price of the device up (you need either more RAM or to pay ARM for the Jazelle extensions in the CPU core). The GPL'd option looks the least expensive. It's worth noting that iRex follows the GPL path and includes a GPL'd PDF reader on their devices. This has been forked by the community, and the community version is much nicer than the one that they supply. The rest of their software stack sucks (although the hardware is nice).
A lot of companies choose BSD licensed alternatives when they exist, but they are not always available. A lot of companies that choose BSD licensed alternatives contribute code upstream, because it's cheaper for them to do this than maintain their own fork. A lot of companies that use GPL'd code either spend time and effort isolating the GPL'd component so that they can avoid releasing their code, or just ignore the GPL and hope that they won't get caught. The latter option is quite common, but it's starting to become a lot less safe, so hopefully that will push more companies to seriously evaluate other options.
By the way, I recently interviewed the creators of a Linux-based handheld and asked them why they picked Linux over a BSD variant. Their answer had nothing to do with the relative technical merits of the platforms; they said it was simply to do with brand recognitions. If you say 'Linux based' then geeks buy it and non-geeks have probably heard something positive about Linux, even if they can't tell you what it is. If you say 'BSD-based' then a few geeks buy it and no one else knows what it means, so you don't get any marketing advantage.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
You can win by relicensing as GPL.
Not always possible. I've released BSD-licensed programs that depend on Apache-licensed libraries. The GPL is not compatible with the Apache license, so I can't change the license of my code to the GPL, even if I want to. I could ask the upstream author of the Apache licensed library to make it GPL'd, but why would they? They don't want people to integrate their code with less permissively licensed code.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
To reiterate, the GPL encourages the development of open source software
This is not true. The BSD and MIT licenses encourage the development of Free and Open Source software, and as a side effect make developing proprietary software easier. The GPL discourages the development of proprietary software and as a side effect make developing GPL-compatible Free and Open Source software easier.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
> U.S. copyright law, 17 USC 117(a)(1), specifically states that the owner of a program has the right to copy it, as an essential step in utilizing it:
Yeah, but courts have already ruled that you're still bound by EULAs and they've done some crazy work-around to make sure that this law doesn't mean what it says any more. In particular, they've ruled that any copy made from an unauthorized copy is illegal. So even if you would fall under the 17 USC 117(a) protections, if you don't accept the EULA for the copy on the CD, it "contaminates" all copies made from it, even if they would otherwise be lawful.
Now, I think that's absurd, and the GPL guys seem to agree (because they've made sure to clarify that you do *not* have to accept; something the EULA people never will), but I just wanted to point that out, because the fact that 17 USC 117 has been neutered like that really confuses a lot of people.
The idea that external function calls need to be license-compatible has always struck me as a bit obscene. There's a clear delineation between your work and theirs, so the suggestion that the combination is a derivative work is questionable in my mind (but settled as far as the law is concerned, if I understand correctly). Especially when so many *other* mechanisms for using someone else's work *don't* result in a derivative work: communication via dbus, pipes, files, and sockets. Libraries should be LGPLed, the case for GPL libraries is almost entirely political, has almost nothing to do with wanting to keep their own code open (LGPL does that fine).
But if what you're talking about is lifting innards from someone else's complex project, using their actual code in your code, I think it's fair to accept their licensing restrictions, I don't think the GPL is necessarily BS there. You have an opportunity here to provide a service, to realize that this functionality is something many people may find useful, and to write it yourself in a clean, simple library rather than as part of an end-project, and release it with a liberal license.
'Like Microsoft and other for-profit software companies, the GPL gang uses government-based aggression in order to enforce its so-called "intellectual property rights"'
What is the name(s) of this government-based, agreesive GPL gang, and did you type this BS yourself ?
This code is under the same licensing scheme as Ghostscript. AFPL and one year or major release later GPL. Because there have been no major releases yet; AFPL it is.
If there were copyright notices in the source files, they've been stripped off.
Of course not. Why the hell would you ever think that?
Given Palm's recent thumbing their nose at Apple and iTunes, all I can say is, "ha ha".
On the contrary, this is a place for "Nerds" to discuss things, including things they don't have previous knowledge of.
An Anonymous Coward (possibly even you) posted something about how Palm makes the code available without any evidence to back it up. This is the key issue of this lawsuit, and one assumes the company suing has already researched this and found that the source code is not actually available. Thus, the rest of us are not going to take such a claim on faith.
As I pointed out to someone else, "As the person making an argument, it's your responsibility to provide evidence to back up your claims, not mine."
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
(Man, I wish /. had an edit button. . .)
legislature -> legislator
On the flip side, if you use the GPL, don't whine because other people write code under licenses that aren't GPL compatible.
In other words, that door swings both ways.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
You are aware that quotes are use for paraphrases as well as exact quotes...?
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
"Give it up. You're argument is circular. Just rewrite the functionality yourself then others can use your BSD licensed version. Respect the choices of others and the license "they" chose to support just as you want others to support "your" choice of license in the software you write."
Wow, I sure wish the majority of slashdotters would come to this conclusion when software, movie, and music piracy is discussed.
This is why I don't feel sorry when the GPL is violated.
As someone who writes software under BSD licence, you're bending over begging for someone to fuck you in the ass. Get used to it.
"Palm should have secured a commercial use license from Artifex, failed to do so, and will now have to pony up a whole lot of "oopsie" money."
Or, they will say "Oops", rev the software to eliminate the code, and push the update. Now they aren't distributing anymore. Pay a nominal settlement to cover court costs, and life goes on.
Or, they buy the commercial license at VERY attractive rates, considering the other option is for Artifex is $0 licensing revenue.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
"In other words, you would like the freedom to choose the Free Software license of your choice, but you don't think that the folks writing GPLed software should have the same freedom."
It's the same argument for software, music, and movie piracy.
"If you don't want to comply with the GPL, write the f*cking code yourself and quit whining. The world doesn't owe you free source code."
It's a little ironic to see post after post like this here when it comes to GPL violations. Whenever the subject of piracy comes up, the majority of posts talk about how the industry is changing and they need to find a new business plan.
Couldn't the same thing be happening to GNU software? Developers need to find a new way of distributing their software because companies are just going to use it for free without re-destributing their changes.
ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED
Insert witty comment here
Okay, this is digging far too deep. The point is that you should view using licensed code for your project as a privilege.
Not all circumstances can be considered in the license, so you are welcome to negotiate a deal with the copyright holders, as you would with any non-free code.
BTW, GPL3 is compatible with Apache.
And nobody (that I've ever heard of, anyway) is going to criticize anybody for choosing another free license (like BSD) either.
Well, it happens around here a lot, for exactly the reasons you provide. Some of the GPL-only crowd simply cannot understand why one would choose the BSD style license.
There has to be SOME reason why these companies keep snatching GPL and dealing with possible lawsuits when you can do whatever you want with BSD and all is golden, so what is it?
The simplest answer is usually the correct one. In this case, it's likely that one of their developers (that doesn't pay much attention to software licenses) found some cool PDF library that they thought was completely free to use because it was posted on the Internet. This is why it's a good idea for companies to conduct yearly meetings with their development teams regarding software licenses and what is ok and not ok to include in company projects.
You are free to release all YOUR source code under any licence you want, including multiple licences at the same time. That means you can release it under GPL and BSD simultaneously. But in the situation you describe, that isn't even necessary, since BSD and GPL are compatible. Anybody is free to use just your code under BSD, or the whole project as GPL. The fact that your code is useless without the extra GPL code is not a failing of the GPL.
I avoid the use of BSD licensed software because I run the risk of learning to use something in which future versions are locked behind a proprietary wall. That negatively impacts the usefulness of the software for me.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Wow, I sure wish the majority of slashdotters would come to this conclusion when software, movie, and music piracy is discussed.
The obvious difference is that GPL violations lead to less sharing, while piracy leads to more sharing.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Does anybody have a link to the complaint? I didn't see it on pacer, which is odd for a suit filed over a week ago. Thanks.
I've released BSD-licensed programs that depend on Apache-licensed libraries. The GPL is not compatible with the Apache license, so I can't change the license of my code to the GPL, even if I want to.
The APLv2 is compatible with the GPLv3. The CDDL would be a better example (e.g., BSD with ZFS).
MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
If you don't like the license, then don't use the product that is published under that license. Write it yourself, find a competitive product, or STFU and accept the terms.
This goes for any software license agreement, btw.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I avoid the use of BSD licensed software because I run the risk of learning to use something in which future versions are locked behind a proprietary wall.
I may stub my toe, but I still walk. The risk to stubbing my toe is greater than software under a BSD license switching to a proprietary license. A fork can be made proprietary, still subject to the BSD license, yet it is very rare to see a project using the BSD license to make it proprietary itself.
Future versions of GPL software can also be "locked behind a proprietary wall" assuming a single entity controls the code base. Of course, the project can be forked for either license. Speaking specifically about the BSD license, have you ever used OpenSSH?
Commenting on your signature: you should stop using Python since it is under an MIT license and future versions may be released under a proprietary wall. ;)
And recall the phones that they already shipped illegally?
The problem is Palm is abiding completely by the terms of the GPL. Source for the package (and their modifications to it) are freely available: http://opensource.palm.com/1.3.1/index.html and have been for every released iteration of WebOS: http://opensource.palm.com/packages.html.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong. If I completely write an OS, and for the release of that OS I use an open source pdf viewer. That does not mean the OS has to be open source also. It seems to me that the pdf viewer would remain open source, and I would have to contribute any code changes I made to the pdf viewer to the project. But my OS can remain private. Also, does open source say anything about having the ability to update or install under a private OS. I would image just because the code is open source, the OS provider doesn't have to provide a way for the community to change or update the code under the OS. Just provide the source to the code.
Well, if the GPL wasn't a bullshit license which states that you're subject to the GPL if you even use GPL software in your project, this wouldn't be a problem.
Based on the factual errors in just the above, first, sentence of your post, I must inform you that the problem you're perceiving isn't the GPL, but you. Frankly, you appear to be an idiot. Perhaps you should try to work on that part before attempting critique towards things you quite obviously do not comprehend?
So why doesn't one of those companies make a BSD version? Make one, release it as BSD and then let someone look after it.
Or are they waiting for someone *else* to do that?
If you say 'Linux based' then geeks buy it and non-geeks have probably heard something positive about Linux, even if they can't tell you what it is.
So non-geeks are actually connecting stuff running "Linux" with a positive image, and geeks are happy to buy stuff that runs a Linux kernel. Sweet!
Any way you slice that, I'd call that progress.
I'm just hopeful that a lot of the people in the 'geek' category are buying the device because it runs a FaiF software stack, not just because they're all Ohhhhh, it runs Linux, Squeeeeee!.
coding is life
Now I see! that's why they call it viral!
Yes, the latest version of the GPL (GPLv3) is compatible. You can now easily GPL your programs and then rock out, or whatever you want to do.
coding is life
The BSD license encourages the development of software derived from the code. The GPL disallows the development of less restrictive open source software and the development of closed source software derived from the code.
"People willing to share their code have no problems with the GPL."
That's an obviously incorrect statement.
It's as clear as copyright law: if copyright law calls it a derived work, then it's unlicensed. If that isn't clear, then fix your laws.
But even if you're LGPL'd, if you statically link, you're making a derived work, just as if I copied three chapters from Harry Potter and The Chamber of Secrets into the middle of my 12 chapter opus. I can *refer* to HPaTCoS, but I can't include large sections.
And that's what static linking does.
Man, realize what you're asking. You're asking *anyone* who just wants to get together with some folks and hack out code in their spare time to basically form a business partnership with all their contributors. Then, they won't be able to take patches from random contributors (because they'd have to get a dual-licensed patch and form a financial relationship with the contributor), or link to any other GPL software (because of same)... at that point they might as well forget the GPL entirely.
Or maybe you think the licensor should do the legwork -- you'd rather try to track down the >1000 contributors to the Linux kernel and cut each one of them a cheque yourself next time you want a closed-source Linux license? Good luck!
Plus, you must be pretty naive to think that money won't ruin relationships between developers. How many partnerships have you been in? People really are assholes. Why poison something fun you do in your spare time with the stress of having to disburse licensing fees, including tax paperwork and documentation to convince your co-contributors that you're not shafting them?
Still, if we as a society decide we want to have compulsory software licenses, I'm sure there's a way we can make it work. We could form an administrative body to handle fees, and make it an offense to distribute binaries without registering the source -- and make it go both ways, make commercial developers offer source licenses to anything they distribute, too. There'd have to be a stock, say, per-non-comment-line rate... of course, I'm in Canada and you're probably not, so there'd have to be an international treaty... ...hopefully you're getting the point by now. You're not actually asking for a simple thing, at all. Calling people assholes for not going out of their way to give you what you want kind of makes you an asshole.
(Incidentally, Stallman would love the idea of compulsory source licensing. That's EXACTLY why he created the GPL -- if we had compulsory source licensing for commercial software, it would be entirely obsolete.)
http://opensource.palm.com/packages.html
And you can root your webOS device trivially easy. And develop on it for free. AND they are/are planning to waive their fee for open-source apps in their app store.
> Or, we can distribute our code under the GPL, and thus avoid these situations.
Maybe some people like to unconditionally share stuff.
Maybe some people are still nice that way.
+----------------- | What is the question!
http://opensource.palm.com/packages.html
This is not rocket science to find, VG. Upon hearing of an accusation, you really should not take it with face value until you examine it directly. Even if said accusation was wrapped in a lawsuit from a prissy developer.
muPDF is available from Palm's site, both as original and as their patches. Here are URL's for each:
http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/mupdf-1.0.tar
http://palm.cdnetworks.net/opensource/1.3.1/mupdf-1.0.tar-patches.tgz
This news made the rounds last week, and it's entirely possible that those are recent additions. Unless you think that either (1) there are more modifications not listed, or (2) that the court should impose punative damages on what was almost certainly an oversight, this matter is settled.
Give it up. [Your] argument is circular. Just rewrite the functionality yourself then others can use your BSD licensed version.
And when he does that, the author of the GPL'd version will sue him for unlawful copyright infringement, and try and get the whole thing forced into the GPL.
This is the so-called "cancer" in GPL'd (or any sticky copyleft) software. If you so much as LOOK at a piece of code, you are unable to write code under any other license that does the same thing without exposing yourself to legal jeopardy. This is in contrast to pre-GPL, non-copyleft source code, where a good assumption was that if you could see the source code, you could do whatever you wanted with it.
On the other hand, the "cancer" really comes from software-as-copyright, when by all rights software should be covered either by design patents or by a fourth category of IP.
Palm actually uses a bunch of GPL'd code (the Pre is Linux based) and they do make the code available. In fact, I think some of it even comes on the device itself.
...citation?
Search engines are your friends:
http://opensource.palm.com/packages.html.
Now, is this actually compliant with the GPL? I'm not sure.
I would like to think that the muPDF people are not sue-happy, so maybe Palm is supposed to release some other code that's not on that page.
If you can't mod them join them.
Yeah, I'm disappointed in Python and OpenSSH for that reason. It's a balance between how good something is, what alternatives exist and risk. I guess it would be more accurate to say I prefer.
I worked on a proprietary version of OpenSSH at my last job. I thought the companies who bought our product were insane. Not because they had a free as in beer alternative, but because I would never for the life of me rely on a non-Open Source cryptography product, especially one that's used for so many sensitive things. And I got the impression from the kinds of questions their engineers asked of us that they felt the same way. It seemed very much like them trying to find sound technical reasons to reject our product in favor of OpenSSH.
I think we would've better served ourselves and our customers by being Open Source. I wish that we hadn't had the choice not to be and management had been forced into the decision to start down that path.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Perhaps things aren't quite as clear as you seem to presume.
Given the presented information, one would assume that Artiflex would have an open and shut case against Palm. In such case it wouldn't even have gone to court. Not unless someone is really incompetent. So there's probably something going on that we don't understand. Just what is too large an area, so I can't even guess what it is.
FWIW, it looks to me as if the posters suppositioning that the original problem was caused by an innocent mistake are correct. The problem, then, would seem to lie in "how to resolve the mistake".
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Saying "we have sooper sekret technology" to investors can often be worth more than the costs of constantly backporting things. Even if it's really nothing. That's just the way the world works.
As for the case in TFA, is there a decent PDF library released under the BSD license? I don't think there is, and that will often be the case because the GPL is just better for the developer, if not always the user. (Though it is for the end user.)
In my opinion, if all open source code was BSD, there really would be no open source community or ecosystem.
/usr/ports disagrees with you.
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
What? If you're too lazy to do the research yourself, this is not the site for you. Digg and Reddit are for those that demand everything spoon-fed to them.
Here on slashdot, the subject we discuss tend to be a major part of our lives, as usually it's our JOB. WE KNOW THIS BECAUSE WE'RE PAID TO KNOW THIS.
Elitist? No, I'm sick and tired of you too-lazy-to-work/study-for-yourself gimme-everything because I'm too stupid to look for myself people. If you can't do your own research and either confirm or outright deny what is said, you don't belong here.
It's been that way for almost a decade, well before Digg or Reddit ever dreamed of existing.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
If you have weak-ass google-fu you're not even close to being a nerd or geek - you're just a poseur.
If you can't directly examine the evidence for yourself, then you're likely just a sheep that will blindly follow everything that everyone else says and does - IE The Republican Party.
And as the Planesdragon that responded to you said - it's not rocket science to find this information. It's not like it's classified knowledge, given that Palm has been around with the same business model for quite a time. And anybody that's EVER dealt with a Palm device should already know that lots of their stuff is based directly off of open source.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Because, just like Microsoft, they rely on government force and the unnatural legal construct called "intellectual property" to get their way. Stallman (RMS) speaking out against the Pirate Party was the last straw. Like socialism / communism, GPL relies on an irrational philosophy of trying to force others to "do the right thing", and the license is getting ever-more restrictive with each version. The road to tyranny is always paved with benevolent rationalizations to use force for good!
RMS clearly believes either that all programmers should work for free (which isn't an option for anyone who isn't independently wealthy and/or wants to have a family, etc) or, more likely, that all software development should be subsidized by the governments, as is already the case in many publicly-funded universities. From my radical Anarcho-Capitalist point of view virtually all taxation constitutes theft, but this is an issue on which the more mainstream libertarians / fiscal conservatives would agree with me.
I don't have a problem with people releasing and using restrictively-licensed software, but I do have a problem with them calling it "free". That term should only apply to public domain software, as well as permissive "just cover our legal butts" licenses like BSD.
Okay, then. Giving people money for software is a bad thing. Got it.
Also, you misspelled licenses. I'm usually the guy that people point out grammatical errors to, rather than visa versa. But, still, if you are going to offer advice about a subject, it helps your creditability to actually spell it correctly. Or at least use a web browser with integrated spell checking. Again, the point of posting was not nitpicking, but clarifying as posts similar to your last one have led to quite a bit of misinformation about the GPL license.
Since we've already gone off the topic anyway and getting modded up for it, I might as well point out a couple of things in your post.
Licence can be spelt with a c. In fact it is spelt with a c in British English where I believe the language originated from.
But well done for being a bitch about it.
By the way, were you meant to say too instead of to in that sentence? Saying to doesn't make much sense to me
For being a guy that usually point out peoples grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, you really aren't that good writing yourself.
I don't usually do it. I meant "to". If I had used "too" i would still have needed "to" and it should have gone before the adjective. " but clarifying as posts too similar to your last one". I guess with the spelling of license, I'm getting full payback for my bellyaching in highschool Only had access to a spellchecker set to Brittish English, so I still type colour,tyre, metre, centre and favourite sometimes. But still the case of the verb was wrong, and the guy was generally just wrong. I think this may have been the first time I've actually tried to point out someones spelling mistake. So, no I don't do it often.
I firmly believe that I am a crumulant writter. My hugo award that I refused due to a three way scheduling error with the academy awards banquet, and the nobel prize for literature ceremony, can attest to that.
...Along with my overly honest, nonchalant way of humbly attesting to my greatness.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
How much of the ports collection is actually BSD? I bet there is a large amount of Apache, MIT, and other licenses in the mix. I know for a fact there is a large amount of GPL software in ports. The mere existence of ports is not really an argument in favour of the original poster's argument, however. The relative insignificance of the BSD family of OS's despite the court decision back in the day that freed the code, and the dominance of Linux would seem to support the conjecture that a BSD-only ecosystem would not last. Indeed it's likely only because of Linux that BSD is still healthy. Despite the fact that Apple uses a lot of BSD code in their operating system, this has not really benefited the BSDs back directly, further supporting my point. Whereas Oracle can fork a GPL'd distro and no real harm comes to the community. In fact because of the GPL'd nature of the Linux kernel, Oracle is throwing not-insignificant amounts of money at projects that will better Linux for Oracle's purpose (btrfs, etc), while at the same time benefiting the entire community. Oracle is not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. The GPL is, in fact, keeping them honest. The BSD provides much less incentive/deterant, given our current system of human nature, governance, and copyright law.
'Licences' is the correct spelling in British English and most Commonwealth English variants.
"The obvious difference is that GPL violations lead to less sharing, while piracy leads to more sharing."
This shouldn't make a difference. It is still about the rights of the original copright owner, not the effects of violation their license.
What part of "push the update" didn't you get? The PHONES were shipped legally; it was the software on the phone that was distributed illegally. Having distributed the code in violation of the license, Palm must take steps to mitigate the damage.. If you force the offending code to be deleted, you have rectified the situation. The question of damages for the initial infraction would still be open, but Artifex couldn't claim damages for an ongoing violation.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
It is still about the rights of the original copright owner
Maybe for you it is. It seems that you see preserving copyright holders' supposed rights as a goal in itself. But the "majority of slashdotters" you're complaining about don't: they see copyright as a means to an end, which can be used for good (promoting sharing) or evil (prohibiting sharing).
Personally, I wouldn't mind at all if the GPL lost its legal teeth because copyright were abolished. I see the GPL as mainly giving back the rights that copyright took away; in a world where anything could be freely copied, cloned, disassembled, modified, and redistributed, I don't think it would be very important to require people to distribute source along with binaries anyway.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Careful who you attack. I've been an engineer for 20 years and have programmed more hardware and languages than you probably can imagine, so don't piss on my leg.
But *I* am sick and tired of people who don't show even the most basic politeness in forums like this and behave like complete assholes while they (probably) are just some total loosers in real life.
All the self proclaimed gurus who hide their inability to communicate with normal people in a polite manner behind a facade of elitism. Which isn't often so elitist at all if you take a minute to look behind it.
I have witnessed many times providers telling clients they could not be bothered to fix things, in spite of recognizing a problem actually exists.
Closed source shops of course.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.