Slashdot Mirror
How Far Should GPL Enforcement Go?
itwbennett writes "The debate over enforcement of the GPL flared up again this week when Red Hat kernel developer Matthew Garrett wrote in a blog post that Sony is looking to rewrite BusyBox to sidestep the GPL. Which is a perfectly legal undertaking. But it raises the question: 'Is there social pressure within the Linux kernel community to not undertake GPL compliance action?' writes blogger Brian Proffitt. 'This may not be nefarious: maybe people just would rather not bother with enforcing compliance. Better, they may argue, to just let the violation go and get on with developing better code.'"
By hanging
I think GPL enforcement sould go just as far as everyone else. It should go as far as copyright law allows and as far as the copyright lobby goes.
C|N>K
Slashdot on piracy: "Abolish all copyrights! Copying isn't theft! Everyone is entitled to everything!"
Slashdot on the GPL: "Gee whiz, the GPL copyright license protects this code. Down with leeching violators! Protect against GPL theft!"
I confess I only skimmed TFA -- this is Slashdot, after all.
But I'm not sure I understand the argument that is being made here. If Sony is really trying to "rewrite Busybox" -- which makes it sound like they're going to look at the Busybox code and write a new version that does the same thing in a different way -- then surely that's a derivative work of Busybox and it's a copyright violation.
If, on the other hand, Sony is planning to write a Busybox replacement from scratch -- what's wrong with that? Are companies not entitled to write code? How is that "violating licenses with impunity"?
If Sony is planning to do a clean-room re-engineering of Busybox -- what's wrong with that? Isn't that essentially what Linux kernel developers have done for all kinds of devices? Again, how is that "violating licenses with impunity"?
Sony wants to not use GPL-licensed code in its proprietary products. What could be more clear? Would you rather they used it without complying with the license?
Breakfast served all day!
corporate death penalty
What exactly does Sony legitimately rewriting busybox have to do with GPL enforcement?
Yeah, they're rewriting it to sidestep the GPL, but so what? That's their prerogative.
The owners of the copyrighted code are the ones who have a stake in enforcing the GPL for their code. If they don't care enough to enforce it, that's their business and completely unrelated IMO to what Sony is doing.
Maybe the argument is that if so many people don't care – in general – to not enforce the GPL for their code, that what, interest is waning in the GPL in general?
I mean, if that's really the case, then why should Sony even bother to rewrite, when they can just violate, knowing that nobody cares enough to enforce. No doubt their lawyers think that's a slippery slope, because we don't know if tomorrow everyone will change their mind.
The GPL only exists to fix the insanity that is copyrighted code. Better not code was copyrighted, sure. But since can can be copyrighted, better as much of it as possible is held in common trust, to be shared and used among those who are willing to set their improvements free.
You do not have to be pro-copyright, to be pro-enforcement of the tool that is battling the ills of copyrighted code. When we decide that math was a stupid thing to try to legally magic-wand into products anyway, there will be no GPL to enforce.
IAIFARSIJDPOOTV - I Am In Fact A Reality Star; I Just Don't Play One On TV
It seems to me as though this is less about BusyBox per se, and more about enabling companies to steal code from other GPL'd projects without having to worry about the threat of the BusyBox folks calling them out on their wrongdoing.
Forgive me if I can't think of any word other than "scum" at the moment.
You can spend months trying to rewrite busybox, or you can just put the source code on your web site. It's not that hard. In fact, Sony already do it. GPL Compliance: put the source on your web site. That's all it takes. It isn't expensive or difficult.
I second this.
"Hi there. Nice GPL copyright-backed code you got there, that you're violating the license on. It would be a shame if you had to pay $375,000 per Copyrighted Work, aka each file in the 50,000 file package. The Choice Is Yours."
Come on guys, if they're going to abuse copyright law, abuse it back, preferably with a big gun case that sets precedent. "No, you don't get to "withdraw your case. You get to pay me X BILLION dollars! Or - your choice - you can go fix it in Congress so that copyright damages are back down to $20 per work, like it should be."
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I always thought that LGPL was created for this kind of stuff. I guess that if sony contacted busybox authors in a nice manner and if it was all for some good thing (bash-scripted gadgets!), relicencing would be fast&easy option.
BusyBox is just some standard UNIX utilities in one executable. BSD has all the necessary code. The BSD license doesn't require source redistribution. Putting together a BusyBox replacement shouldn't be a big deal.
We as the users, want copyright laws that favour users and maybe hurt bad companies.
Both GPL and resonable copyright enforcement benifit users/consumers.
The question should have been: How Far Should Sony Hate Go ?
Why is the GPL preventing Sony from using BusyBox as is ? The source code is already available, so if they feel the burning need to make changes, they can simply post patches on the web. Am I misinterpreting the GPL here ?
Why would rewriting BusyBox be considered cheaper/easier than complying with the GPL ?
-Billco, Fnarg.com
If you can make a program with the same functionality as BusyBox, and you run it on top of the NetBSD kernel instead of Linux, where's the requirement to provide source code?
Self defense is so over-rated....
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Self defense by doing exactly what you criticize is moronic. It's the we need nukes because they have them mentality.
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
Is that really considered a derivative work just because they can see the source?
Proving an allegation of copying requires proving two elements: first, that the alleged infringer had at one time had access to the older work; and second, that there is a level of similarity between the two. "Access" can be as simple as having heard a song on the radio a decade ago (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music).
Compaq decided to make lack of access clear when it reverse-engineered the IBM PC BIOS using a "clean room" technique. This involved having one team turn copyrighted code into descriptions of its (unprotected) functionality and a second team turn the descriptions into code, with all communications between the two teams carefully monitored. I've been told it might not be quite necessary to go that far, but in the business world, you'd often rather spend money on engineers than trial lawyers. In such a case, it's best to draw up a plan for "being able to tell IBM to go to hell, and having the federal judge draw them a map for exactly how to go there", as sigwinch put it a decade ago. (Here's such a map.)
For several hundred years, and probably before then, there has been a struggle between individuals who strive for the possibility of social segregation and the perpetuation of (their) wealth, and individuals who strive for, effectively, a vision of communal merging of humankind. The former represented by a collection of mythologies related to social darwinism, self-sufficiency, republicanism, individual property rights and free will, and the latter represented by a collection of mythologies related to equality, communalism, various forms of group or shared property, determinism and removal of all mental barriers that distinguish between groups of people (either on a national/racial or international/global/humankind basis).
Ideologies relating to both of these have been pervasive through the world and there are untold millions who lean in either direction. It's no surprise that you find plenty of people who sympathise either way.
It's also no coincidence that the terminology chosen was specifically "CopyLeft", representing effectively and in principle shared and communal property, as an alternative to "CopyRight", effectively individual, withheld and segregated property.
Consider the fact that if all property, assets and reality was virtual, and we lived in a completely software-engineered world (a la The Matrix), a world governed by GPL v3 / lack of copyrights would be one where all property would be communal. This because the integration and interoperability of software would eventually force through a completely communal state, and because 'private' property could be raided and distributed at will.
GPL v2 is an intermediary step, where communal property is effectively a voluntary or accidental movement.
This is also why there won't ever be a GPL version beyond 3. 3 is the end point. 2 is a philosophical difference. But the goal was obviously always 3, because if you ever develop 3, then it's clear that you have been intending to do so from the very beginning.
This is also why GPL enforcement is a contentious issue. There is a perception effectively of power balance, where "power creates counterpower". The more the FSF seeks to take strong action against GPL v3 violators, the more people _who are not philosophically completely sold on the idea of communal property_ will form a counter-power and avoid GPL v3. GPL v3 has seen limited uptake, most likely for this reason, because people instinctively avoid what is effectively a viral project to communalise all digital architecture. To pursue the highest profile cases would effectively force a philosophical end game at a legal and political level, which they most likely don't see as productive at this point.
Actually, the GPL goes way beyond copyrighted code. Without copyright could basically follow the BSD license - you are free to use any code you see, but you aren't required to give back what you changed...
Sorry, but no. Treat the industry as you want to be treated.
Ya know, the golden rule is a nice lesson we learned in grade school, but in the real world, if you treat others as you'd like to be treated, you're either treating them like dirt, or you're treating them well, and they walk all over you. It would work if everyone wasn't a sociopath and actually did treat people how they wanted to be treated, but there are too many people willing to take advantage.
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
The implication is clearly that we (as a community) shouldn't discourage people from using OSS code, or they'd start rewriting it to "get around" it.
That's the entire argument for the GPL. Basically, if some simple conditions aren't met, you don't get to take advantage of all the work that's been put into it. The idea being that you'd rather they not use your code at all if they're going to be dicks about it.
Sony, for reasons I don't quite understand but are entirely up to them, seems unhappy about putting the publicly-available-and-not-competitively-relevant source code on their website. More power to them, but the tradeoff is spending a bunch of time rewriting software that already exists and works fine. More power to them.
When I license my code under the GPL, I realize that the odds of its reuse are somewhat smaller. But that's fine, since I'd rather that somebody saving time by building off my work makes their source available (to me, and everybody else). If they don't want to do that, I don't want to save them the trouble of having to write it themselves.
The more interesting story here is that Sony's got it in its head that it'll be cheaper to rewrite Busybox than continue to have links to it. Not sure how they figured it.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Go take your medicine. You need it.
DRTFA, but if they are advocating not enforcing the GPL and just developing instead - why don't they just advocate using a BSD derived licence?
In other words, if you have chosen to use GPL for your code, then you must have done so because you want people to abide by those conditions, and so you must want to enforce them.
If you don't, then don't use GPL.
If you selectively enforce GPL, then it just weakens enforcement.
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
Once again, Slashdot links to a blog instead of the original source. The linked blog gets its evidence from a wiki page at http://www.elinux.org/Busybox_replacement_project
This page has a Q&A which clearly states that it is not a Sony project:
Q. Tim Bird, the proposer of this project, works for Sony. Is this a Sony project?
A. No. Although Tim is employed by Sony, he spends a portion of his employed time working on behalf of the embedded industry to improve Linux and encourage GPL compliance. As of February 2, 2012, Sony has not endorsed or agreed to support this project. This wiki page is for gathering information and project description information, to present to various companies to solicit support and resources for the project.
Q. Can Tim's creation of this proposal be used to infer anything about Sony's compliance record, future compliance intent, or other business practices?
A. Tim has only recently informed his management about this proposal, and Sony has not yet (as of 2/2/12) agreed to support it. So, "no, not really". Sony has a good compliance record, and has strong compliance policies in place. It has never been contacted by the SFC and has no expectation of being contacted by the SFC about any license violation of GPL software. Tim is doing this as part of his (paid for by Sony) role in the industry to address issues which inhibit the adoption of Linux in consumer electronics.
The argument that is being made in a nutshell:
Busybox copyright is enforced by the SFLC, which sues companies to get them to comply. When negotiating for compliance, they also request that the company in question comply with the GPL2 license on the Linux kernel. Now, for whatever stupid reasons, some companies don't want to release their kernel modifications for Android devices. So they think that by removing Busybox, the SFLC will no longer have a copyright claim that opens them to litigation which results in their releasing their kernel source. This reasoning is flawed, because there is another, much easier way to avoid Busybox litigation: put the source code on your web site. That's all it takes. They could keep their kernel sources, and just put up the Busybox source, and they would achieve the same thing.
The other argument being made by one developer is that enforcement action is pointless, because he hasn't seen any Busybox source opened up from this route that was worth anything. Others disagree, saying there was some useful code, and that it's not just about Busybox - the Busybox enforcement actions have also resulted in kernel drivers being opened up.
So, the "outrage" here is the allegation that Busybox is being rewritten so that companies can violate the copyright of the Linux kernel without being sued by the SFLC.
"Copyleft is a play on the word copyright to describe the practice of using copyright law to offer the right to distribute copies and modified versions of a work and requiring that the same rights be preserved in modified versions of the work. In other words, copyleft is a general method for making a program (or other work) free (libre), and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well." -- Taken from wikipedia article on Copyleft.
If I was selling another person's software without permission then I think they would have every right to sue me for every penny I owned.
uhhh...what?
GPL - stuff must remain free for everyone to use, modify and distribute
Typical copyright - stuff must remain mine and everyone has to pay me and agree to be subject to my whims to see or use even part of it
Oversimplification, of course, but the point is that they are not both "nukes", because they aren't the same thing at all, just use a the same legal framework for completely different results.
Proffitt is a financially motivated troll, raking up the mud to get page hits. Please stop posting his blog posts, they don't help improve our lives or our software.
thank you
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
With copyright : You can release your code under GPL requiring people who use it to also release their code under the GPL.
Without copyright : You can release your code, but you have no way to enforce others to do the same.
You can call it what you like, but if you are against copyright you are against the GPL and should be using the BSD license.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Agreed. "Treat others as you want to be treated." That's a lovely idealistic and academic notion. It's also one that requires everyone in the society to accept. One act of douchbaggery will lead to a cascade failure of this construct.
My folks tried to take this social high-road back in the 70s. They were treated like doormats, until they couldn't take any more and had to defend themselves from the hordes of predatory-types.
Some guy's speculation and Brian Proffitt's anti-Linux propaganda again?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Self defense by doing exactly what you criticize is moronic. It's the we need nukes because they have them mentality.
What's wrong with that mentality? MAD works and is, in fact, the only thing that does.
Thats an interesting point. If you follow the golden rule you will get hurt by someone who doesn't - and that person won't be hurt at all. On the other hand if you "treat other people as they treat you" at least there is some feedback, some encouragement to follow the rule as well.
Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!
"In the land of the Golden Rule, the douchbag is king"
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Indentured servitude to RMS would be much better.
But alas, it would probably also qualify as cruel and unusual punishment.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
.. Since that is about reimplementation, not copying, but GPL enforcements should be taken as far as it can.
Seriously, if you don't care enough to sue for copyright violation or even to let others do so on your or the communities behalf, then why are you licensing under the GPL to begin with?
I really don't care for arguments that everyone should BSD license their work, the argument is often self-serving and not everyone is ok with others profitting of your work with nothing given in return.
On the other hand, if you dont care about that a permissive license is most definitely the right choice.
If the GPL is stifling development (commercial or not), then it's stifling development, simple as that. If the license is an impediment, then it has failed to encourage development.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
But the really nasty part of all of this is that Toybox's only purpose is to allow the GPL on the kernel to be infringed with impunity, because kernel developers currently aren't cooperating with SFC.
Does anyone want to sell their copyright on existing kernel code? I'd throw you a few bucks to contribute it to SFC.
Bruce Perens.
The golden rule CAN actually work, if you approach life with a tit for tat strategy (benevolent or otherwise). If you are nice until someone shits on you and are then a bastard in return, this is completely compatible with the golden rule a.k.a. "do as you would be done by". If you are nice to others and they are nice to you in return, it all works out. And if you are reasonable, then you would also understand that someone is going to attempt to shaft you if you shaft them first. However, as long as you are nice to someone using a tit for tat strategy then you will never see their vengeful side. So "employ a (benevolent) tit for tat strategy as you would hope others do towards you" is not only nice, it is a very practical way to approach life, consistent with a functioning society that will even self regulate in the absence of a justice system.
You do need to be guarded against those who would feign tit for tat for an extended period of time until they judge the time is ripe for a mortal blow.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
Let's take FreeBSD as an example. FreeBSD and GPL code coexisted a long time just fine, that is until FSF switched gcc to GPLv3. At this point, FreeBSD was stuck with the last gcc and binutils published under GPLv2, and they had no choice but to start looking elsewhere for a replacement (currently transitioning towards clang/llvm). In this case, licensing a central piece of OSS infrastructure exclusively under GPLv3 was quite hostile to non-GPL OSS (!) projects that depends on it and was clearly not nice. On the other hand, enforcing GPL(v3) on closed-source vendors like Sony who never played nice with the OSS world is a perfectly acceptable policy, IMHO. And I'm saying this even though I am a strong advocate of BSD-license licensing: you GPL folks have no reason to bow to those who don't reciprocate in some sense... but you could show more flexibility towards OSS projects by dual-licensing under GPLv2 and GPLv3.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Ah, the "I want so I'll take and rationalise later" reasoning.
If you don't bother enforcing your license then you weaken it for everyone else as people will continue to think they can just treat OSS as public domain because, well, they are doing and getting away with it.
If you are not going to enforce your choice of license, then use a license that you will enforce or just release public domain and be done with it.
Reverse engineering is the process of discovering how a system, through analysis allows one to determine how the system functions or operates. Therefore software engineers can analyse busybox code and create a technical specification of the system at a higher level of abstraction. This specification can then be handed over to another group of programmers who can then write code according to the specification written.
Under Sec. 103(f) of the DMCA (17 U.S.C. 1201 (f)) says that if you legally obtain a program that is protected, you are allowed to reverse-engineer and circumvent the protection to achieve interoperability between computer programs. The underlying question is, how protected is the busybox's code is?. In the USA courts have found contractual prohibitions (EULA) to override the copyright law see Bowers v. Baystate Technologies. To what extent cases like this can used is questionable and in Europe, Article 6 of the 1991 EU Computer Programs Directive allows reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability.
The web site http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise22.html provides further cases that make for interesting reading.
As mentioned in the OP, "just let the violation go and get on with developing better code.'", seems to me the best way to go.
Regards
Slashdotgirl
The more I know, the less I know
a judge will just rule the damages you're asking for aren't reasonable and reduce them. Judges are kings of their court. We've watched several copyright trolls get slapped by Judges (Righthaven comes to mind). Judges are property holders. They're going to come done on the side of property in almost every case.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"As part of their request to remedy a busybox GPL violation, the SFC does ask for source code unrelated to busybox"
What are the names of these Busybox using companies that the SFC requested non-GPL code from?
"There are instances where this litigation and the terms requested by the SFC have resulted in companies dropping their embedded Linux projects."
What are the names of these companies?
"It has also caused even compliant companies to re-evaluate their adoption of Linux"
What are the names of these companies, define 're-evaluate`.
ref: Busybox Replacement Project
AccountKiller
GPL - my stuff must remain free for everyone to use, modify and distribute AND all your stuff that has touched my stuff is now part of my stuff and must remain free for everyone to use, modify and distribute.
Bullshit. How do you imagine doing away with copyright would enforce that source code is made available with binaries? The fact of the matter is it won't. You're confusing GPL software with warezing.
Agreed.
Besides, if those trying to re-implement Busy Box actually make a better product and are compelled to keep it a better product (or be out-competed) then one of the key objectives (delivering better code to the users) is met even if the other key objective (delivering greater freedom) has been circumvented.
Ultimately, I'd regard the better code objective as being the Prime Objective, although as the only significant evolutionary pressure for closed-source to be better is open-source, you have to have someone delivering greater freedom with a damn good alternative in order to guarantee the "better code" requirement is met and stays met.
Reasonable, sane, rational enforcement of the GPL is part of what provides that evolutionary pressure.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
What is "sidestepping the gpl"? Sony says for some products GPLing is for some reason problematic (which may be even not due to their own decisions), so lets write a free version.
IMHO GPL should be enforced wherever it was intended to apply. If i invest time in something, i want that this happens under my conditions.
...I say take Sony, Disney, Warner, etc to the wall. If they want to continue paying the RIAA to chase us, then we should be able to put it right back on them if they are violating GPL terms on their blu-ray discs and media streaming web sites. I'm not saying they are (but it wouldn't surprise me). What's good for the goose is good for the gander...
anyone who thinks 'only 2 lines can screw up someone elses's code' is a ridiculous thing, should go after Microsoft SCO, and leave GNU alone.
Using the GPL gives an extra incentive for people who want to use the code without distributing their changes to promote the elimination of copyright.
Using BSD means companies can use the code as they wish while still inflicting copyright on others.
The pragmatic choice for the goal of eliminating copyright is to use the GPL.
Dilbert RSS feed
Unfortunately that type of thinking has no place in our legal system. These crazy laws escalating will only get stopped when you can actually use them on somebody that HAS $20 BILLION dollars. Right now it is a stitation where the large companies all cross license out of court...so the FULL force of law only applies to newbies.
Remember a few years back when Microsoft couldn't buy their way out of an injunction and had to REMOVE a feature from MSOffice... We need MORE of that!
If you're going to release something and don't care whether or not derived works come with source, then why use GPL in the first place? If you don't care, you don't care. If you care, you care. Is it that hard to "know yourself?" ;-)
It makes me wonder if some people are using GPL as a bluff, to trick derivers into releasing their source, even though there would be no consequences for failing to do so.
And that's a clever idea (who really has time for dealing with lawyers?) but if that's your position, then all the more reason you should be loudly rattling your saber, angrily screaming that your Crack Legal Team WILL enforce GPL to the maximum, salt the farmland of violators after raping their daughters and poisoning their wells, bringing violators' heads to you so that their skulls may decorate the pikes which ring your lair. The last thing you want anyone hearing, is that you won't really enforce it, even if it's true.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Thor strike from orbit. Nothing like a terminal velocity steel I-beam buried in the center of the CEO's BMW as it sits in the parking lot to get the point across.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
And yet your company would scream bloody murder if their IP was treated in the same way. Rather hypocritcal, no?
C|N>K
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If the binary code of the kernel of one of the *BSD systems showed striking similarities to the binary code of Linux, then there would most likely already have been lawsuits between one of the companies selling *BSD support and one of the companies selling Linux support.
Sony is not doing this project the summary was wrong. From the FAQ on the project.
"Q. Tim Bird, the proposer of this project, works for Sony. Is this a Sony project?
A. No. Although Tim is employed by Sony, he spends a portion of his employed time working on behalf of the embedded industry to improve Linux and encourage GPL compliance. As of February 2, 2012, Sony has not endorsed or agreed to support this project. This wiki page is for gathering information and project description information, to present to various companies to solicit support and resources for the project."
It reason is that it seems that the authors of BusyBox are very willing to go after companies and sometimes ask for remedies outside the scope of compliance with the GPL. At least that is what they are claiming.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
... but you could show more flexibility towards OSS projects by dual-licensing under GPLv2 and GPLv3.
I don't really share that concern. The GPL has been the major obstacle in most open source license incompatibilities long before GPLv3 came out. Most people need to look at this fairly complicated reference table in order to figure out the compatibility issues the GPL has with itself, saying nothing of the issues it has with other open source licenses. If GNU really likes the GPLv3, I say let them have it. After all, look what it's given us in just this one case: LLVM! I've appreciated GCC for a long time, but maybe competition within the open source universe isn't so bad.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
I was arguing that if Sony wanted to not have GPL obligations extend to its future products, Sony could switch those products away from the Linux platform in favor of one of the BSDs. Apple did this, building its Mac OS X and iOS platforms around bits and pieces of FreeBSD on top of Mach.
GPL is a fairy tale. the fact that it exists is one thing, enforcing it is a completely different story, but it's a beautiful concept.
Yeah, sort of like the fairy tale my grandma told me before she died: "70 years from now, when you and your children should be dead, you'll finally be able to freely use the works I created while under agreement with the greedy publishers; Their plan to end the public domain will fail because... you are a Cylon."
Public domain code doesn't make a statement, public domain code just hands over the code. Copyleft actually works: you can have your draconic copyright (the notion that one either supports copyright as it currenlty exists or is against it in principle is a false dillema), but you will have to write your own code. Subverting rules is much better than just being subverted by them.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
I am not quite sure if it would work in all cases. One certain example comes to mind, where it might not have worked. This example I won't mention, for Godwin's sake. But some opponents are just too suicidal to be coerced into non-aggressive behaviour in a MAD setting.
[--- PGP key and more on http://www.root42.de ---]
Releasing to the public domain has its own problems, unfortunately. That's what caused Creative Commons to come up with the CC0 license, as they explain:
Dedicating works to the public domain is difficult if not impossible for those wanting to contribute their works for public use before applicable copyright or database protection terms expire. Few if any jurisdictions have a process for doing so easily and reliably. Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to what rights are automatically granted and how and when they expire or may be voluntarily relinquished. More challenging yet, many legal systems effectively prohibit any attempt by these owners to surrender rights automatically conferred by law, particularly moral rights, even when the author wishing to do so is well informed and resolute about doing so and contributing their work to the public domain.
Don't be silly. Putting stuff under the GPL is the closest thing to abolishing copyright that you (as an individual) can do. It gives out your code in a public domain equivalent and makes sure that nobody can slap their own copyright onto it. It's been described as judo against the copyright system.
No contradiction.
And since I apparently mangled my link, that quotation is from http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0
MAD is redundant compared to MAnon-D. The former presupposes will to die, the latter the will to live.
People who support MAD usually think as Thomas Hobbes; every man's warre against every man.
Thomas Hobbes presupposed a Newtonian model of man that is wholly incorrect with THE FACTS.
If you want to use the Cold War as a standard of man's "natural state" go right ahead.
Defining Statistics and Social Research
I would stay clear of Ninjas if i were you.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
A few lines of code are all that is needed. Let's call this replacement 'ScumBox'. ScumBox just needs to be a barely working dummy, so that scum always can claim: 'We are not using BusyBox, this is ScumBox, which we adjusted to our needs'.
the problem with _not_ enforcing GPL compliance is that if it goes on for long enough, companies may legitimately claim an "estoppel" defense, which summaries as "well you haven't bothered up until now, therefore you must not be bothered at all, go away". this is an *acceptable* legal defense, and it means that, by not enforcing Copyright, people are *losing* the right to that Copyright. that includes Google as much as anyone else, and the reason why i am singling them out is because a senior member of staff within Google specifically told me, when i pointed out the rampant GPL violations of the linux kernel source code inside Android, that "Google is not the world's GPL Cop".
And there's no way two lines can be so essential that you can't write your own.
Unless they're so unique and apposite that they're not two lines. They're the core of the program and your derivative cannot work without them.
If you can shave ten cents off the cost of your widget by using a slightly smaller memory module, you've just saved a million bucks.
Thank you. What are the terms for licensing this philosophical gem? (that's important, because you can claim copyright on this phrase for the next 130 or so years.)
Except that's not at all what the "golden rule" means. It means that you treat people the way you want them to treat you, regardless how they actually have treated you. In other words, what you're saying is, "the golden rule can work, as long as you don't always follow it".
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." —Lao Tzu
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
Crazy idea, meet sovereign immunity.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
GPL - my stuff must remain free for everyone to use, modify and distribute AND all your stuff that has touched my stuff is now part of my stuff and must remain free for everyone to use, modify and distribute.
That's exactly how copyright is designed to work. If you copy someone's stuff, then they have partial or perhaps even total ownership of your copy.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Turnabout is fair play. If they're willing to do it to us, perhaps they should be made to feel the same pain.
WRONG. Just plain fucking WRONG.
Only if your stuff is actually a derivative work of the GPL stuff, and you are distributing it, does that come into play. If you don't want to abide by my terms, don't use my code. End of story.
Well, how is a person supposed to react if they knew that they were going to be excruciatingly branded and slathered in hot metal (Imhotep in The Mummy is not covered in mechanical flesh-eating scorpion-beatles... that is boiling mercury-gold-silver amalgam)? Isaac Passover Coat. Roasted whole, do not harm the boy. We keep a map simlar to that Da Vinci "roll roll roll your boat" from Hackers.
Incidentally, the opening scene for War Games includes a reference to the lady in the red dress from The Matrix.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
Except you need to go further back. If I was a criminal, I wouldn't want crimes committed against me. Therefore, according to the golden rule, I shouldn't be a criminal.
Treat the industry as you want to be treated.
I applaud your Christianity, but these are not people, they'r soulless machines. Corporations. They are only after money, and the people who run them worship that money, probably more than you worship God. When Jesus said to treat others how you want to be treated, I don't think he was referring to treating Satan as you would want to be treated.
A corporation is no more a "person" than your car is, no matter what the Supreme Court says. Feel free do do any damage you wish, unless, of course, it harms real people.
Free Martian Whores!
"Leave it to a stupid wop to bring a knife to a gunfight" -- Jim Malone (Sean Connery), The Untouchables
Free Martian Whores!
But that's NOT the golden rule. The golden rule doesn't say treat people how they treat you, or be nice as long as everyone else is. The rule is that you treat people like you would like to be treated because you're suppose to love your neighbor as much as you love yourself, even if your neighbor is the world's biggest asshole.
If you treat an asshole like he treats you, then you're an asshole, too. You're not going to turn many assholes into non-assholes, period, but you certainly wo't get them to stop assholish behavior by being one. Fighting fire with fire only results in a huge fire; you need water, not gasoline.
And besides, everybody is an asshole some time or another. But some people are born sociopaths, nothing will change them. The trick is avoiding them completely.
The whole philosophy is, unhappily, the antithesis of America. Blessed are the meek? Yeah. Blessed are the poor??? (banker laughs his ass off). If someone sues you for your cloak, give him your coat as well? Sure, uh huh. In America? LOL!
Someone yesterday said Christians are weird. He's right, we are.
Free Martian Whores!
Absolutely correct. There will also be users who start down the path of loading modified software into the product they bought, screw it up and then complain loudly to the manufacturer that it's broken. Unlike the "I hit it with a hammer" case, its never going to be obvious that the user is the one who willfully bricked the device, so the manufacturer is going to end up replacing it every time. This is a huge drain on profits, so Sony is making the business decision to prevent this happening. Sound decision, I'd do the same.
The golden rule is a concept that is in pretty much every religion or culture. At its heart is the concept of reciprocity, which is just another way of saying "tit for tat". Naturally this should be the case, since in the iterated social interactions between citizens that are common to every society it is only natural that the different game playing strategies emerge. It is also only natural that different thinkers in different societies give them a name, and especially the one that is necessary and to be encouraged for a functioning society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule
As far as Christianity is referred, I was using the "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" version of the golden rule. And unless one is of the opinion that one's own evil deeds should escape punishment, then getting vengeance is compatible with the golden rule.
The goal is not to turn assholes into non-assholes. It's to punish them and to set an example to other would-be assholes - do they want the carrot or the stick?
Mostly true. Then often when that happens karma will catch up with you in the form of others teaching you a lesson.
This was the interpretation of Christianity I had in my youth, the doormat version of Christianity. This was one of the reasons I decided it was not for me. However, to get a correct assessment I would probably have to study everything as an adult and come to my own conclusions. Realistically Christians and Christian nations have embarked on campaigns of retaliation. Personally I don't think a society of doormats is a noble or good thing. But I view the bible as an imperfect product of many different men, so I am not surprised that practically speaking it has to be "hacked" to be followed properly, if at all.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
If you look at the wikipedia list of all the different conceptions of the golden rule, I'm sure you will find one that is consistent with my interpretation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule
If you want to obey a primitive version of the golden rule that says you should behave the same way to all people, then go ahead. Go ahead and get screwed by all the sociopaths in life if that is your wont.
Personally, I follow something like this:
1. Don't get screwed, by anyone.
2. Be nice to others, starting in small amounts and then gradually increasing as they reciprocate.
3. But note their behavior - are they attempting to con you? If so, avoid. See rule 1.
4. If someone attempts to screw you for a small amount, write it off. Part of the point of rule 2. is to make the amount that you would be screwed by so minuscule that it's not worth someone's time and effort to do so.
5. If someone screws you for a non-trivial amount, get justice.
If I meet others following the same policy, I will build up good friendships and relationships with people I can trust. I am more than happy to "be done by" anyone following these rules as it will lead to the sort of reliable relationships with others I seek, along with filtering out everyone I don't want to deal with.
A note to the pedantic - rule 1. does not include acts of charity, and general duties to one's own family. Looking after your wife and family as a provider is not "getting screwed". It's doing your job.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
For a massive example of MAD failing, take a look at the patent lawsuits between Apple/Google/Samsung/Nokia etc.
Lawsuits don't necessarily amount to mutually assured destruction for large companies, so it's not a failure of MAD.
It's a case of iterated Prisoner's Dilemma. Usually, companies will cross-license each other's patents, since cooperating is cheaper than suing each other. But if, say, Apple believes the expected damages from an infringement suit against Google (minus the cost in PR and legal expense) outweigh the benefits of peaceful coexistence, then it makes sense (from their perspective) to sue.
In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
And unless one is of the opinion that one's own evil deeds should escape punishment, then getting vengeance is compatible with the golden rule.
Ah, but escaping one's own evil deeds is the bedrock of Christianity. Your sins are forgiven, paid in blood by the world's only innocent man. How can you be forgiven if you refuse to forgive others? That is the difference between Christianity and all other religions.
The goal is not to turn assholes into non-assholes. It's to punish them and to set an example to other would-be assholes - do they want the carrot or the stick?
You can't change people. Assholes will be assholes and there's nothing you or I can do about it. There's no cure for sociopathy.
This was the interpretation of Christianity I had in my youth, the doormat version of Christianity. This was one of the reasons I decided it was not for me. However, to get a correct assessment I would probably have to study everything as an adult and come to my own conclusions.
Studying it as an adult is logical. And rather than being a doormat, you just say "no". Ripped me off? Not getting back in the house again. Didn't pay back the money I loaned? Don't ask for more. Reward good deeds, forgive evil deeds but don't let the evil be rewrded. It isn't easy and nobody can do it well.
Free Martian Whores!