Re:View 1.5: GPL contains a loophole's seeds
on
Hole in GNU GPL?
·
· Score: 2
the AC who was "talking to me" did not see this post so he responded to the other. Go here to see more.
View 1.5: GPL contains a loophole's seeds
on
Hole in GNU GPL?
·
· Score: 2
I agree with your view summary, but I think there is more here than that. I made this point down below but it's been bugging me. I fear it is too buried in that little discussion and all you good folks won't see it, so I've come back to make it more clear here.... my apologies for elevating it manually. Also, I am making only one narrow point. I am not fooling myself into thinking that all of the evidence I have gathered supports that one narrow point, but I include it all to show that I'm trying to be thorough in looking for the flaw. But, to refute the one narrow point you would need only to show how "distribution of copies to employees is not distribution". Just that one thing.
Here is an example illustrating that the GPL contains ambiguous usage of terms it wishes it were not ambiguous, "copy" and "distribute":
For example, if [something] would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
If a corporation makes copies within the corporation, then they are still copies, that's the law of copyrights. Therefore, I would read "all who receive copies" to include employees, but the end of that sentence above would also imply that it means the same thing as "distribution". The GPL wants "distribution" to be "extra-corporational" only, but it is hard to make that case when "all who receive copies" includes all who do receive actual copies. Other less than clear quotations include "If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place..." Wording like that is not particularly problematic, but nor does it distinguish intra-company from inter-.
The GPL goes out of its way to finesse the shrink wrap EULA problem. It says, you do not have to accept this license, but then you do not have any other authorization to have this copy. So, every copy that a company makes has this restriction on the company. But the only way an employee can be given a copy, is if the employee gets a copy that has all of the terms of the GPL, including a copy of the GPL itself, but that includes the viral right to redistribute derivative works. How does the employee know which parts bind on the company, and which on the employee? It is ambiguous.
The GPL has additional ambiguous language (with my addition in italics):
If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise)
i.e. this does not exclude terms and conditions of employment that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, [... goes on to the quote I used above]
The supposed loophole that started this thread is to have everybody join one corporation. I don't think that that loophole exists. I think the loophole is in the other direction: corporations may not safely modify GPLed software and use it "internally" unless the FSF owns the copyright. The FSF suggests turning the copyright over to them so they can enforce the licenses. I think in this case it means they won't enforce this aspect of it. IANAL, so perhaps what I see is ambiguous would not be ambiguous to a judge.
Understand, this is not FUD, I'm not bashing the GPL. I like the viral aspect, I'm just trying to make sure it works. My suggestion: tighten up the language, as the GPL itself says that it will do from time to time.
open vs. Open, free vs Free, free vs. $$$
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 3
What has made operating systems cost nothing is competition: free-market theory says that price will equal marginal cost, and the marginal cost of additional copies of software is $0 (zero). That's what makes operating systems free, not open source . But, it only lasts while there is competition. When there is none, monopoly pricing takes over. Monopoly in software is the enemy, just as monopoly is the enemy in every other market.
And why do you take sides and say Open Source? Why don't we all agree to the following simple English. Actually, you can't disagree with me, we have all agreed, this is English. All of the pain and anguish is caused by those who would attempt to redefine English, but they have all failed. So, just to let the redifiners know, this is what the words mean to everybody:
"open" source means you can see it. You might have to buy it, you might not be allowed to give it away, but you can see it because it is open to inspection. There is another meaning of open too, pertaining to standards. If standards are open, then you may make your own implementation free from restrictions. But that's all that open will ever mean. Capitalized "Open" has no meaning (you can't say capitals), just like "Coke" has no meaning. Useful in phrases like "Coke sux" and "Open sux".
"free" software doesn't cost anything, and generally can be assumed to mean that you can not only take it, but you can give it away. Some will encumber you and only allow downloads from their own site, but this distinction you probably draw when speaking about it. "It's free but you have to get it from X," you find yourself saying, because that's what it means. Capitalized "Free" has no meaning, just like "Open" has no meaning. Useful in phrases like "Open sux" and "Free sux".
source that is both free and open, with no special punctuation, does start to take on the magical meaning that the redefiners want, for if it's free to receive and copy, and open for inspection, it meets the Open and Free criteria, except it doesn't sux. Free, open and unencumbered gets almost all the way there, failing only to make the viral/copyleft distinction one way or the other.
"GPLed" is how we make that distinction most conveniently, though "copyleft" and "viral" are almost as common.
I'm not taking sides on the licenses, I'm just siding with the people who try to speak clearly regardless of where they stand.
open source did not destroy the browser market
on
Free Be
·
· Score: 3
There's tons of money to be made in browsers, but you probably don't like this way either: the money is in giving away browsers that try to point users to certain portals. The reason for the dearth of them is that Microsoft abused its monopoly power. If other players had equal opportunity to cut deals with hardware vendors and/or ISPs to use their customized browsers, you would see more competition in the short run.
In the long run, of course, one dominant browser might still emerge as there is nothing to stop one browser from being customizable for all of the different parochial portal operators. But the browser that emerged emerged because of monopoly power over the desktop by a company that does not participate in either free or open source, not because of free download and distribution.
I think the trick to controlling this sort of monopoly abuse (and which would work for cable TV too) is to not allow vertical integration. If you are a portal/channel, you are not an ISP. If you are an ISP, you are not a software vendor. No bundling. AOL should have to open its protocols and allow other software to compete, Microsoft should have to open the desktop and allow other software to compete, and no ISP should control either your software or your choice of portal. Its how free-market theory actually works in the Theory that goes by that name.
I truly understand your point, so don't just reiterate it. You are failing to prove it.
"Copy" and "distribute" are not used synonymously
I didn't say they were used synonymously, but I was not as clear as I should have been. I said the GPL "does not distinguish between copying and distribution in a way that differentiates them". What I meant was, how is it that copying is always copying under copyright law, but distribution is only outside of any particular corporation? Is that the meaning of the word?
The GPL never defines what "distribute" means. If you are aware that the law defines what it means, by all means, fill me it. But if I said to you "take this to the copy machine and distribute copies to everybody who works here", I would be using the word distribute in an ordinary way. The GPL uses it in no way that conflicts with this mean. I quote (the word "patent" has no bearing on this example):
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Actually (I didn't say it before but I will now) "receive copy" and "distribute" are used synonymously in this example, or you are opening a loophole.
apologies: that previous sentence has made my case better than anything else I've written. however, I don't have more time to work on this so I will continue, but the rest was written before I wrote that so we will experience a brief period of intertemporal flux... adjusting phase to compensate... engage...
If a copy is always a copy, then all those who receive copies are all of the people within a corporation. Sorry, that's just what the word copy means. Now, you might make the point that corporations are individuals and "distribution" within the corporation does not constitute distribution. I claim that is not at all clear from what I know, for it that reasoning were to hold, corporations acting as individuals would need buy only one copy of a copyrighted work and then they could copy it willy-nilly so long as it stayed in the corporation.
My question, especially in light of the language used in the GPL ("all those who receive copies"), is: where is the language that says that copying within a corporate entity is copying, but "receiving copies" within a corporate entity is not distributing? The world would still be a rational place if this were true, I'd be happy to swallow it, I simply don't see it.
I just skimmed it quickly so I'm not going to stake my life on it, but I just read the GPL and it does not distinguish between copying and distribution in a way that differentiates them.
Copyright law forbids you to make copies, whether or not EULAs do. GPLed software does not grant you the right to copy unless you agree to the distribution terms. I don't see how GPLed software is distinguished from any other copyrighted material. I can't copy copyrighted books, or music , etc. I can't distribute GPLed software binaries unless I agree to make the source available, including modifications. It does not distinguish between who copies are distributed to.
P.S. The post this is a reply to talked about a "loophole". The rest of this thread is about a loophole. This question is about whether the GPL is more restrictive than I've heard told.
Moderators, moderate this AC up! This post seems to make more sense than all the others put together:
a company can't buy one copy of a copyrighted work and distribute it to all employees, so how can it distribute modified copylefted software to all of its employees without triggering the GPL-source clause?
I realized I left out another important benefit to open source bug hunting:
if a bug is quite serious but intermittent or hard to duplicate, the "all bugs are shallow" rule kicks in. With the source widely distributed, the chance of a person encountering the bug being equipped to fix it goes way up. This should not be overstated as such bugs can still be hard to stamp out.
It doesn't seem like support for "logical partitions" would be a difficult thing to add. I'd recommend it to the BSD set because it would make it can be a fairly big obstacle for linux heads who want to try BSD. Is there some reason not to?
BTW, in the other direction, Linux would do well to support a few "slices" of the BSD scheme. It allows multiple "logical" partitions to live in any single partition, not just the DOS-Extended. This would allow more easier co-residence with the BSDs, and more flexible after-the-fact repartitioning without having to shuffle everything around. Seems trivial to port both ideas in both directions.
P.S. is the largescale lack of moderating up in this topic because interest in BSD as a percentage of slashdotters is low, so there are only a few moderators? just asking; this piece of news is not particularly controversial... not, for instance, like a Beowulf cluster of these things would be:)
Slow down, friend. It was hard for me to tell which side of the issue you're on because you went so breathlessly fast. However, this part I can answer:
What I don't understand is: why are you bashing MSDN, the biggest developersource on the planet?
I did not say that the sorts of information that are in MSDN are not useful, they are indispensible. But they are especially indispensible because so little information is available from other sources. These scraps are not a substitute (in terms of usefulness) for source, not the source of an example, but the source of the implementation. I'm bashing MSDN because
It is a proprietary software/proprietary data expensive product from a monopoly. I don't mind paying for things, but monopolists by definition charge higher prices than competition would allow, and Microsoft is such an extensive monopoly their competitors in virtually every area of software are forced to pay them for information that should be included with the operating system for free.
It is a hodgepodge of articles, samples, etc., similar to what one finds if one searches the web: 1000s of hits, very hard to find what's important. Nothing wrong with that as one source (heck, I search the web too) but alone that is not enough. What would be better would be if the source to the API call in question were available.
Because it is a monopoly product, they can get away with all sorts of less than optimal functionality, including sleazy little things like many many MSDN links invisibly sneak you on to their website... what if I work at a competitor and I don't want Microsoft to know what we're working on? They go to great lengths to let you view only, no copying or linking outside of the product. Much of it is in HTML, but can I use my favorite browser? They go out of their way to stop you from doing that, all to extend their monopoly.
Have you ever worked on an MSWindows-platform product that was competitive with Microsoft? I don't understand why all the Microsoft-boot-licking engineers we see here -- that by no means includes everybody, I'm talking about the people who defend Microsoft with an enthusiasm out of all proportion -- don't resent the many hours they spend searching for a work-around to some poorly documented Microsoft bug, while Microsoft's engineers laugh and sneer at you behind their phony smiles. Are you guys sheep? It's like the athletes from a lesser team volunteering to help rub-down the stars from the dominant team before the game. "Oh, OJ, you're so strong!" I don't get it.
Their metrics don't measure what's important. Open source has two huge bug-related benefits:
if you are a developer and something you are working on is not working, you can figure out why. you don't run into the problem of an unresponsive undocumented API. Look at all the crap MSDN-CD is full of, and how impossible it would be to get any work done without it, and how many little SDK idioms you need to resort to.
if a bug you encounter is important to you, but "unimportant" to other people -- because it is obscure, or the software is no longer being supported... many possible reasons -- you can fix it yourself or hire someone to. you are not dead in the water.
Important bugs in important software will be fixed just about as quickly in either system: the 5 key people who know the source behave more or less the same way in open or closed source situations. It's the vastly larger number that matter to most developers. And, as more and more developers realize this and enjoy more working on open source, it won't matter what the other guys think.
This will never last. Everybody knows in the future our best computers will still not have solved all the problems of natural language recognition, and we will have to ask for our foods backwards: computer, tea, Earl Grey, hot.
Attempts to keep track of preferences between sessions all fail in the food realm because for most meals people reject cookies.
Take a job because you want the job, not the options. Think of options as worth very little. The good thing about that? you should get a lot of them : ) Or, think of them as magnifiers: options with a good job with a good company with a good salary multiply its value. Any missing or negative elements also get multiplied.
Don't dream about the famous, home-run companies like RedHat, Amazon, Yahoo, and Netscape. These are rare. Your chance of participating in one of those is like your chance of doing what Linus T did.
But, assuming that you are asking about the opportunities that most people are presented with, here's a thought exercise:
If you get options for 1% of a company an amount generally offered only to the 1st couple of engineers after the founders
and it goes public valued at $100 millionand very few companies achieve that valuation
by that time your shares will likely have been diluted let's use 50% as the company must sell more shares to raise money for growth
and it will have taken 4 years
so you now have a $125K a year bonusbreak out the champagne, but not too expensive
Now, that's nothing to sneeze at, it's a nice bonus. But, you probably weren't paying attention to the probabilities: this was the unlikely, lucky scenario.
Assign a probability of 10% and you get an expected value of $12,500 a yearquiz: how much salary should you give up? : )
and this is only for the first few employees. Later employees likely get 10% of these numbers.
It's worse than that: Chances are, however, that if the company is succeeding it will show up on the radar of a big company and will get bought out in the $10-$20 million range after a couple of years and you will get maybe $200K but you'll have to wait around through your vesting period of 4 or 5 years to receive it. In these scenarios, the founders will be doing 10x better than you at $2-$10 million and post-acquisition or -IPO their salaries will be fat which is why they will cut the deals without asking what you think. They will be thinking, "we are offered $20 million to give up. Otherwise, that $20 million and more will be used in a marketing campaign to defeat us. We do not have $20 million in cash to fight back... hmmm."
Remember, these are the rosy scenarios! I'm not even talking about the 90% ugly ones.
But the reality is much better than this! Take the damn deal! It will be fun, and the real rewards come from doing a good job and getting promoted. If the company goes to $100 million and you are among the first 10 employees? By that time you will be managing a huge group of people who are really getting nothing:) pumping up your resume with real experience and visibility, and getting the opportunity to jump ship in a few years and be a founder which is where the action is. All this presuming you are talented in a variety of areas. If you are not, take the deal anyway, because you are not talented and who is going to give you a better deal?
So, just to sum up (didn't I just sum up?:), if you are in a startup situation, get as much info as you can. Run the numbers up above by the people making you the offer. Don't be afraid to ask any questions you want. The tougher your questions, the more they'll think "this one's got 'nads! We want'em on our side!" Ask about the ownership of the founders and the investors. Ask what happens in case of an acquisition. Ask for the "right to be taken along", meaning, they sell their shares, you can sell yours. Ask for [can't remember the term: immediate vesting on IPO or acquisition] so they'll have to offer you a good job to stay. When you ask what percentage you are being offered, ask if it's fully diluted (taking into account special options that the investors have to execute their liquidation preferences). Ask for more shares! (they're worthless, remember?:) From the point of view of the founders, your options are actually very expensive: each sliver of.25% equals an employee, there's only room for a few 10's or so, and they are going to need many more employees. In the course of asking the tough questions, you will discover whether the founders think of you as a junior partner, or a mushroom. (The mushroom theory of management: keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit.)
Also pay attention to the quality of the shares. Look at investor confidence: a company that has tried to raise money and failed and wants to pay you shares instead of salary? Nope. A company that has the confidence to pay you a real salary is also offering you shares that are real.
But really pay attention to the rest of the offer. It's the job, the people, the day to day that is going to launch your career to the next level. If you approach the options as gravy on top of a good job, you can have a lot of fun with them, as if they gave you a giant book of lottery tickets on top of a real job with a real salary.
Appreciating jazz is different from performing it. Lisa has no "cool". I think it would be more in her character to play Baroque harpsichord, something more nerdy. How about playing jazz on an oboe... anything.
IBM picked Linux because they figured they could sell software services out of the deal... reaping their value-add without simultaneously feeding/creating a monster/competitor as they did with Microsoft.
That's my point, but to comment on your other contention, a low-power single-chip implementation of the standard Wintel motherboard would solve a huge software problem. Suddenly, everything we run on desks and laptops could run in a handheld. Not saying that Transmeta is doing anything like that, but I can imagine useful hardware. I would imagine that IBM would really want to make a big splash in handhelds if they had an opportunity. Their fab is a sunk cost so that's just icing.
The fact that you say "probably" indicates the weakness of your supposition. I would deny he's a right winger. I think a better characterization (this comes from an article in the Atlantic Monthly 10 years ago) would be "populist".
This classification turns the old left-right line into a 4 quadrant plane featuring libertarians (left on social issues, right on econ) and populists (right on social issues, left on econ). One group of populists would be the blue collar people who like a social safety net, but dislike affirmative action.
Lisa, once the voice of reason and common sense, inexplicably plays the saxophone like a hep cat. It has never made any sense to me as a joke and it seemed totally out of character, a bit like Frasier Crane singing the blues for the opening of his show.
I've always liked Seinfeld better than the Simpson's. The Simpson's is very clever and very funny but I think it moves too slowly, not enough jokes per minute and a little too predictable. I find myself channel surfing even when I want to watch it.
But, I do like Marge's sisters a lot, and that hottie who appeared once, Lurleen: "Noone understands you but I do!"
Etymology: Latin, so, thus -- more at SO
Date: circa 1859 : intentionally so written -- used after a printed word or passage to indicate that it is intended exactly as printed or to indicate that it exactly reproduces an original "said he seed [sic]g it all"
First, I don't know what that little "g" is, and I would [sic] it if there weren't already a sic there:) To that I would add, the purpose of the square brackets is to say "this is editorial, inserted by the quoter, not the quotee." There are other uses for the editorial brackets, primarily to indicate that I might have changed your wording but attempted to preserve meaning. All this in answer to your question, "but [for what], exactly does '[sic]' stand...?"
The first thing I thought when I saw that link was, "The Matrix is offering us college courses now? cool!":)
I just wanted to say that I found the Matrix totally realistic technologically, and I like to think of myself as highly realism-oriented I walked out of Raiders of the Lost Ark and didn't think putting a deLorean in Back to the Future was funny in any way. Here's how I rationalize The Matrix: IMHO, martial arts are mystical hocus pocus, martial arts in movies are insipid and martial arts video games really really really pointless. However, I also realize that many people disagree with me. So, if all the programmers that like Mortal Kombat were to work on coding the matrix, it would be exactly like that matrix in The Matrix, wouldn't it?
As to the philosophy, cool in the movie because it was presented as someone else's idea of what if, like acting out a scenario "what if I was John Malkovich?", but not much there to take away... how do I know I'm not dreaming that I'm in the movies?
actually, to clarify, CTO is abused. Let me explain it this way: note that there is never a CMO, a chief marketing officer. This is because marketing the company's products is so central to the company that it doesn't need explicit representation in the executive suite beyond what the CEO brings. In a like manner, if you are a technology company, the CEO looks after the technology in the products, and the engineers are perfectly capable of selecting their own technology tools.
But think about supermarkets 20 years ago: who was going to champion the expensive installation of scanners? That's a CTO role, created when a CEO is visionary enough to understand that the company needs one.
It's important not to have strict rules about this stuff, none of it is hard and fast. Does Real Networks or AOL need a CTO? I.e., are they media companies or technology companies? There is no answer to that question, just like there is no one way to coach a football team. You make your best predictions, look at the people-assets you have, deploy them and see if you win. Winning says that what you did worked in your situation.
I agree with all the points you made, except you overlooked that they actually did hava a psychic, the lady who made the prophesies. I guess to try to justify her presence in a CS way, she was a Brooksian character: "I don't know exactly how this is going to play out, but I've seen enough Mythical Man Months to see that nothing's going to change till we get a real hacker in here, and the chicks are going to dig him."
Personally I think they stuck her in for racist reasons. Hollywood seems to like to sprinkle a few black people in many movies in seemingly important roles (either gifted in some positive way (Whoopie Goldberg in Ghost or STNG) or an incredibly down to earth person with a good heart (inumerable gruff police captains who roll their eyes at the stick up his ass craven police chief or mayor)) but they don't get to be the actual lead. In the studio's defense, it's probably better than leaving black people out altogether, or just portraying them as drug dealers, but with market research so far telling studios that their audience wants to see keanu or leonardo, what are they going to do? Still, I find it embarrassing to watch it played out in such a self conscious (epistomological?) way: psychico ergo negro. (sorry if that sounded negative, I was just trying desparately to get back on topic:)
Slashdot Mirror
the AC who was "talking to me" did not see this post so he responded to the other. Go here to see more.
Here is an example illustrating that the GPL contains ambiguous usage of terms it wishes it were not ambiguous, "copy" and "distribute":
If a corporation makes copies within the corporation, then they are still copies, that's the law of copyrights. Therefore, I would read "all who receive copies" to include employees, but the end of that sentence above would also imply that it means the same thing as "distribution". The GPL wants "distribution" to be "extra-corporational" only, but it is hard to make that case when "all who receive copies" includes all who do receive actual copies. Other less than clear quotations include "If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place..." Wording like that is not particularly problematic, but nor does it distinguish intra-company from inter-.
The GPL goes out of its way to finesse the shrink wrap EULA problem. It says, you do not have to accept this license, but then you do not have any other authorization to have this copy. So, every copy that a company makes has this restriction on the company. But the only way an employee can be given a copy, is if the employee gets a copy that has all of the terms of the GPL, including a copy of the GPL itself, but that includes the viral right to redistribute derivative works. How does the employee know which parts bind on the company, and which on the employee? It is ambiguous.
The GPL has additional ambiguous language (with my addition in italics):
The supposed loophole that started this thread is to have everybody join one corporation. I don't think that that loophole exists. I think the loophole is in the other direction: corporations may not safely modify GPLed software and use it "internally" unless the FSF owns the copyright. The FSF suggests turning the copyright over to them so they can enforce the licenses. I think in this case it means they won't enforce this aspect of it. IANAL, so perhaps what I see is ambiguous would not be ambiguous to a judge.
Understand, this is not FUD, I'm not bashing the GPL. I like the viral aspect, I'm just trying to make sure it works. My suggestion: tighten up the language, as the GPL itself says that it will do from time to time.
And why do you take sides and say Open Source? Why don't we all agree to the following simple English. Actually, you can't disagree with me, we have all agreed, this is English. All of the pain and anguish is caused by those who would attempt to redefine English, but they have all failed. So, just to let the redifiners know, this is what the words mean to everybody:
I'm not taking sides on the licenses, I'm just siding with the people who try to speak clearly regardless of where they stand.
In the long run, of course, one dominant browser might still emerge as there is nothing to stop one browser from being customizable for all of the different parochial portal operators. But the browser that emerged emerged because of monopoly power over the desktop by a company that does not participate in either free or open source, not because of free download and distribution.
I think the trick to controlling this sort of monopoly abuse (and which would work for cable TV too) is to not allow vertical integration. If you are a portal/channel, you are not an ISP. If you are an ISP, you are not a software vendor. No bundling. AOL should have to open its protocols and allow other software to compete, Microsoft should have to open the desktop and allow other software to compete, and no ISP should control either your software or your choice of portal. Its how free-market theory actually works in the Theory that goes by that name.
"Copy" and "distribute" are not used synonymously
I didn't say they were used synonymously, but I was not as clear as I should have been. I said the GPL "does not distinguish between copying and distribution in a way that differentiates them". What I meant was, how is it that copying is always copying under copyright law, but distribution is only outside of any particular corporation? Is that the meaning of the word?
The GPL never defines what "distribute" means. If you are aware that the law defines what it means, by all means, fill me it. But if I said to you "take this to the copy machine and distribute copies to everybody who works here", I would be using the word distribute in an ordinary way. The GPL uses it in no way that conflicts with this mean. I quote (the word "patent" has no bearing on this example):
Actually (I didn't say it before but I will now) "receive copy" and "distribute" are used synonymously in this example, or you are opening a loophole.
If a copy is always a copy, then all those who receive copies are all of the people within a corporation. Sorry, that's just what the word copy means. Now, you might make the point that corporations are individuals and "distribution" within the corporation does not constitute distribution. I claim that is not at all clear from what I know, for it that reasoning were to hold, corporations acting as individuals would need buy only one copy of a copyrighted work and then they could copy it willy-nilly so long as it stayed in the corporation.My question, especially in light of the language used in the GPL ("all those who receive copies"), is: where is the language that says that copying within a corporate entity is copying, but "receiving copies" within a corporate entity is not distributing? The world would still be a rational place if this were true, I'd be happy to swallow it, I simply don't see it.
Copyright law forbids you to make copies, whether or not EULAs do. GPLed software does not grant you the right to copy unless you agree to the distribution terms. I don't see how GPLed software is distinguished from any other copyrighted material. I can't copy copyrighted books, or music , etc. I can't distribute GPLed software binaries unless I agree to make the source available, including modifications. It does not distinguish between who copies are distributed to.
P.S. The post this is a reply to talked about a "loophole". The rest of this thread is about a loophole. This question is about whether the GPL is more restrictive than I've heard told.
a company can't buy one copy of a copyrighted work and distribute it to all employees, so how can it distribute modified copylefted software to all of its employees without triggering the GPL-source clause?
BTW, in the other direction, Linux would do well to support a few "slices" of the BSD scheme. It allows multiple "logical" partitions to live in any single partition, not just the DOS-Extended. This would allow more easier co-residence with the BSDs, and more flexible after-the-fact repartitioning without having to shuffle everything around. Seems trivial to port both ideas in both directions.
P.S. is the largescale lack of moderating up in this topic because interest in BSD as a percentage of slashdotters is low, so there are only a few moderators? just asking; this piece of news is not particularly controversial... not, for instance, like a Beowulf cluster of these things would be :)
What I don't understand is: why are you bashing MSDN, the biggest developersource on the planet?
I did not say that the sorts of information that are in MSDN are not useful, they are indispensible. But they are especially indispensible because so little information is available from other sources. These scraps are not a substitute (in terms of usefulness) for source, not the source of an example, but the source of the implementation. I'm bashing MSDN because
Have you ever worked on an MSWindows-platform product that was competitive with Microsoft? I don't understand why all the Microsoft-boot-licking engineers we see here -- that by no means includes everybody, I'm talking about the people who defend Microsoft with an enthusiasm out of all proportion -- don't resent the many hours they spend searching for a work-around to some poorly documented Microsoft bug, while Microsoft's engineers laugh and sneer at you behind their phony smiles. Are you guys sheep? It's like the athletes from a lesser team volunteering to help rub-down the stars from the dominant team before the game. "Oh, OJ, you're so strong!" I don't get it.
Important bugs in important software will be fixed just about as quickly in either system: the 5 key people who know the source behave more or less the same way in open or closed source situations. It's the vastly larger number that matter to most developers. And, as more and more developers realize this and enjoy more working on open source, it won't matter what the other guys think.
Attempts to keep track of preferences between sessions all fail in the food realm because for most meals people reject cookies.
It might look like it didn't slow the project down too much, but a clear-headed person would not be fooled.
Oh, look, I just flipped a coin and it came out heads. Obviously, this coin doesn't come out tails too much, does it! Wanna bet me?
How does chandra work? How are X-rays focused? Pinhole camera? I doubt that because it would really cut down on light gathering.
But, assuming that you are asking about the opportunities that most people are presented with, here's a thought exercise:
- If you get options for 1% of a company an amount generally offered only to the 1st couple of engineers after the founders
- and it goes public valued at $100 million and very few companies achieve that valuation
- by that time your shares will likely have been diluted let's use 50% as the company must sell more shares to raise money for growth
- and it will have taken 4 years
- so you now have a $125K a year bonus break out the champagne, but not too expensive
Now, that's nothing to sneeze at, it's a nice bonus. But, you probably weren't paying attention to the probabilities: this was the unlikely, lucky scenario.It's worse than that: Chances are, however, that if the company is succeeding it will show up on the radar of a big company and will get bought out in the $10-$20 million range after a couple of years and you will get maybe $200K but you'll have to wait around through your vesting period of 4 or 5 years to receive it. In these scenarios, the founders will be doing 10x better than you at $2-$10 million and post-acquisition or -IPO their salaries will be fat which is why they will cut the deals without asking what you think. They will be thinking, "we are offered $20 million to give up. Otherwise, that $20 million and more will be used in a marketing campaign to defeat us. We do not have $20 million in cash to fight back... hmmm."
Remember, these are the rosy scenarios! I'm not even talking about the 90% ugly ones.
But the reality is much better than this! Take the damn deal! It will be fun, and the real rewards come from doing a good job and getting promoted. If the company goes to $100 million and you are among the first 10 employees? By that time you will be managing a huge group of people who are really getting nothing :) pumping up your resume with real experience and visibility, and getting the opportunity to jump ship in a few years and be a founder which is where the action is. All this presuming you are talented in a variety of areas. If you are not, take the deal anyway, because you are not talented and who is going to give you a better deal?
So, just to sum up (didn't I just sum up? :), if you are in a startup situation, get as much info as you can. Run the numbers up above by the people making you the offer. Don't be afraid to ask any questions you want. The tougher your questions, the more they'll think "this one's got 'nads! We want'em on our side!" Ask about the ownership of the founders and the investors. Ask what happens in case of an acquisition. Ask for the "right to be taken along", meaning, they sell their shares, you can sell yours. Ask for [can't remember the term: immediate vesting on IPO or acquisition] so they'll have to offer you a good job to stay. When you ask what percentage you are being offered, ask if it's fully diluted (taking into account special options that the investors have to execute their liquidation preferences). Ask for more shares! (they're worthless, remember? :) From the point of view of the founders, your options are actually very expensive: each sliver of .25% equals an employee, there's only room for a few 10's or so, and they are going to need many more employees. In the course of asking the tough questions, you will discover whether the founders think of you as a junior partner, or a mushroom. (The mushroom theory of management: keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit.)
Also pay attention to the quality of the shares. Look at investor confidence: a company that has tried to raise money and failed and wants to pay you shares instead of salary? Nope. A company that has the confidence to pay you a real salary is also offering you shares that are real.
But really pay attention to the rest of the offer. It's the job, the people, the day to day that is going to launch your career to the next level. If you approach the options as gravy on top of a good job, you can have a lot of fun with them, as if they gave you a giant book of lottery tickets on top of a real job with a real salary.
Appreciating jazz is different from performing it. Lisa has no "cool". I think it would be more in her character to play Baroque harpsichord, something more nerdy. How about playing jazz on an oboe... anything.
That's my point, but to comment on your other contention, a low-power single-chip implementation of the standard Wintel motherboard would solve a huge software problem. Suddenly, everything we run on desks and laptops could run in a handheld. Not saying that Transmeta is doing anything like that, but I can imagine useful hardware. I would imagine that IBM would really want to make a big splash in handhelds if they had an opportunity. Their fab is a sunk cost so that's just icing.
The fact that you say "probably" indicates the weakness of your supposition. I would deny he's a right winger. I think a better characterization (this comes from an article in the Atlantic Monthly 10 years ago) would be "populist".
This classification turns the old left-right line into a 4 quadrant plane featuring libertarians (left on social issues, right on econ) and populists (right on social issues, left on econ). One group of populists would be the blue collar people who like a social safety net, but dislike affirmative action.
I've always liked Seinfeld better than the Simpson's. The Simpson's is very clever and very funny but I think it moves too slowly, not enough jokes per minute and a little too predictable. I find myself channel surfing even when I want to watch it.
But, I do like Marge's sisters a lot, and that hottie who appeared once, Lurleen: "Noone understands you but I do!"
what the heck have I done... :)
First, I don't know what that little "g" is, and I would [sic] it if there weren't already a sic there :) To that I would add, the purpose of the square brackets is to say "this is editorial, inserted by the quoter, not the quotee." There are other uses for the editorial brackets, primarily to indicate that I might have changed your wording but attempted to preserve meaning. All this in answer to your question, "but [for what], exactly does '[sic]' stand...?"
Oh, I forgot, the whole bit about the humans being kept around as little power sources was unscientific.
I just wanted to say that I found the Matrix totally realistic technologically, and I like to think of myself as highly realism-oriented I walked out of Raiders of the Lost Ark and didn't think putting a deLorean in Back to the Future was funny in any way. Here's how I rationalize The Matrix: IMHO, martial arts are mystical hocus pocus, martial arts in movies are insipid and martial arts video games really really really pointless. However, I also realize that many people disagree with me. So, if all the programmers that like Mortal Kombat were to work on coding the matrix, it would be exactly like that matrix in The Matrix, wouldn't it?
As to the philosophy, cool in the movie because it was presented as someone else's idea of what if, like acting out a scenario "what if I was John Malkovich?", but not much there to take away... how do I know I'm not dreaming that I'm in the movies?
Good one! :)
actually, to clarify, CTO is abused. Let me explain it this way: note that there is never a CMO, a chief marketing officer. This is because marketing the company's products is so central to the company that it doesn't need explicit representation in the executive suite beyond what the CEO brings. In a like manner, if you are a technology company, the CEO looks after the technology in the products, and the engineers are perfectly capable of selecting their own technology tools.
But think about supermarkets 20 years ago: who was going to champion the expensive installation of scanners? That's a CTO role, created when a CEO is visionary enough to understand that the company needs one.
It's important not to have strict rules about this stuff, none of it is hard and fast. Does Real Networks or AOL need a CTO? I.e., are they media companies or technology companies? There is no answer to that question, just like there is no one way to coach a football team. You make your best predictions, look at the people-assets you have, deploy them and see if you win. Winning says that what you did worked in your situation.
Personally I think they stuck her in for racist reasons. Hollywood seems to like to sprinkle a few black people in many movies in seemingly important roles (either gifted in some positive way (Whoopie Goldberg in Ghost or STNG) or an incredibly down to earth person with a good heart (inumerable gruff police captains who roll their eyes at the stick up his ass craven police chief or mayor)) but they don't get to be the actual lead. In the studio's defense, it's probably better than leaving black people out altogether, or just portraying them as drug dealers, but with market research so far telling studios that their audience wants to see keanu or leonardo, what are they going to do? Still, I find it embarrassing to watch it played out in such a self conscious (epistomological?) way: psychico ergo negro. (sorry if that sounded negative, I was just trying desparately to get back on topic :)