Why would the BBB give a rat's ass? They get their paychecks from big businesses. They exist simply to run interference and make it difficult for the consumer to resolve a problem. They hope to wear the people down until they simply give up. That's the sole purpose of the BBB.
OK, let me clarify things. Let's assume that you are the author of a piece of software. Now, you decide to license it under the GPL. Now, people are distributing it around and building new programs out of it, also licensed under the GPL (as would be required since they are using your code). Now, you are approached by SoftCo. They want to use your code in a piece of commercial software and they don't want to have to distribute source. Since you're the author and copyright holder of the code, you are free to charge them $100K and license it to them under different terms.
Your second scenario is not legal. You can't use GPL'd code in a program of your own and then distribute without offering up the source as well. If you want to do such a thing, you would have to obtain permission from the copyright owner.
The key point to remember here is that the GPL depends upon copyright law for its existence. If you don't own the copyright, then how could you license it under the GPL? If you do own the copyright, then, just like any other copyright holder, you can make your own terms for licensing. Nobody has to agree to it, but then if they don't, then they may not be able to make use of your software. There is no reason that a copyright holder has to give everybody the same terms. Microsoft can license Windows to a big corporation under different terms than they license it to you. So too can you license your software to everybody under the terms of the GPL, and then also license it to someone under different terms. You hold the copyright, you call the shots.
When he said, "No one else owns the GPLed version," he was referring to the other poster's statement that GPL'd code was owned by everyone. He meant that "no one else, except the author, owns the GPLed version."
True enough. I did find the size codes in the Crutchfield catalog to be helpful though. I bought an in-dash MP3 player for my girlfriend's car a few months ago. A friend of mine and I installed it in the dark. Sure, it took a couple of hours, but it all went pretty smoothly. If I was planning to do anything that required too much messing with wiring, then I'd have it done professionally.
Whoops. Yep, you're right. I got it mixed up. Anyway, it is a bit zealous, but he's also correct about not relying on proprietary software (that uses proprietary data formats) for critical data. The Nunez letter just fills in the reasons. His letter refers to the needs of the state, where Skoll's article refers to businesses. I think the argument for the state is a good one. The argument for businesses is also good, but not as strong. I think that some proprietary software could meet the more limited needs of business a lot easier than it could meet the needs of a government like that of Peru. The bottom line is that both Skoll and Nunez believe that open source makes more sense where availability and retainability of data are concerned. I don't think either are trying to get rid of proprietary software. They are just saying that proprietary vendors may need to meet some different requirements that are currently only filled by open source software. They both seem to want competition. Skoll's refrain of "adapt or die" seems to indicate this.
Actually, that quote is from Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nunez, the Peruvian legislator that is part of a group proposing that the government of Peru use only open source software in cases where it is available and meets the needs of the state. You can read his response to a letter written by the head of Microsoft's Peru office here.
Even that one doesn't propose to do away with proprietary software, or prohibit it from competing for government contracts if it can meet the requirements of the state for openness. I recommend reading the full letter. It's quite interesting and well-written.
Probably because it would hurt their credibility when all they really have to do is point to their successes, which are far more convincing than any silly think-tank report.
You can't re-negotiate the license for a private party.
This isn't true. The author can release the software under as many different licenses as he wishes, and to whomever he wishes.
GPL is IP that can no longer be privately owned.
Again, not really true. The other still holds the copyright to the code. He is the owner. He has simply decided to license it to anyone that wants it under the terms of the GPL. He can still license it out to other people or businesses under a different license if he wishes.
It really seems (to my amateurish, ill-informed eye) that if the "study" really is sponsored by Microsquish, they have shot themselves in the foot thoroughly.
So, what else is new? Microsoft seems to always have a gun aimed at its foot. Its amazing they can still walk.
Ok, now if you want to have any credibility at all, you must explain exactly how you believe that the GPL'd software community will self-destruct. Otherwise you're simply trolling.
When are the open source zealots (I said zealots not supporters, they AREN'T the same) going to realize that 100% open source isn't truely viable, and that a BALANCE is necessary.
I think you've got it wrong. He's not saying that everything must be open source. He's saying that open source and proprietary software should compete. He's rebutting the argument made by the report's author that the government should not use open source software. It's the proprietary vendors that are trying to make things 100% proprietary software here by discrediting open source.
Why does the author keep referring to the IP community and the "GPL community" as separate things? He even says that the GPL competes with US copyright law. This guy either has a fundamental lack of understanding about copyright or is a bald-faced liar. GPL'd software is IP as much as any proprietary software. GPL'd software uses copyright law as its basis, just as proprietary software does. The only issue here is the licensing terms. The only term that they take issue with is the fact that they can't simply steal the code and incorporate it into proprietary products because they would have to release the source to those products. That's their whole gripe.
They don't even consider the fact that most proprietary licenses are far more harsh than the GPL. In fact, you don't even have to agree to the GPL to use GPL'd software. If you don't agree, then basic copyright law applies. If you do agree, then you get additional rights, over and above what traditional copyright law allows, albeit with some obligations as well. I think that any claim about the restrictiveness of the GPL license is disingenuous at best.
I'm not sure how it could be any worse than ICANN. It is already becoming more and more controlled by corporations. They're going to do away with the At-Large seats on the board and simply appoint whoever they see fit to appoint. This begs for massive abuse. Especially since they never made a convincing argument for why the At-Large representatives should be done away with in the first place. It would have boiled down to the fact that they don't share the interests of those already on the board, which is promoting the interests of big business over that of everyone else. So, everyone serving on the ICANN board will have a nice, cushy, well-paid job as a rubber stamp for the desires of big business. I think we need to realize that ICANN is already lost. Anything that Congress does can only help to make them more accountable. Any accountability is better than none at all.
Hmm.. yeah. I think there was a story here on/. a while back (a year ago maybe?) that got everyone in a tizzy because some site was saying that IE had this outrageous percentage of users. The conclusion then was the same as what you're saying. The site that was doing the counting was serving mostly Windows-related sites (and a few Mac sites) and was therefore badly skewed. Not sure if it was thecounter.com or some other site though. I can't think of too many sites that would give non-skewed results either. Google is probably the only one that is relatively neutral. Maybe a few of the more popular hardware sites would work too.
Actually the figure is more like 75%. I haven't found a single analysis that puts the combined total users of all versions of IE at 80% or more. 75% seems to be about the peak, and it should drop significantly since all 30-35 million AOL users will come out of IE's share. I invite you to do your own Google searches and see if you can find any that give higher estimates. I'd be curious to see them.
That's because IE loads at bootup, something which Mozilla is also capable of, in which case you won't see the splash screen. It only shows up if Mozilla isn't already loaded.
Well, that does only cover the software/service portion, not the hardware. I still don't know about enforceability. They sell the hardware exclusively for use with the service. Without service, it's just a lump of metal and plastic. I really have to wonder if this agreement would hold up in court.
Two things. First, Tivo does not seem to claim the right to make changes to your hardware without your consent, only to the services offered. Second, they don't seem to claim that they will shut you down due to the mere allegation that you are infringing on someone's copyright. Those are substantial differences.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would the BBB give a rat's ass? They get their paychecks from big businesses. They exist simply to run interference and make it difficult for the consumer to resolve a problem. They hope to wear the people down until they simply give up. That's the sole purpose of the BBB.
OK, let me clarify things. Let's assume that you are the author of a piece of software. Now, you decide to license it under the GPL. Now, people are distributing it around and building new programs out of it, also licensed under the GPL (as would be required since they are using your code). Now, you are approached by SoftCo. They want to use your code in a piece of commercial software and they don't want to have to distribute source. Since you're the author and copyright holder of the code, you are free to charge them $100K and license it to them under different terms.
Your second scenario is not legal. You can't use GPL'd code in a program of your own and then distribute without offering up the source as well. If you want to do such a thing, you would have to obtain permission from the copyright owner.
The key point to remember here is that the GPL depends upon copyright law for its existence. If you don't own the copyright, then how could you license it under the GPL? If you do own the copyright, then, just like any other copyright holder, you can make your own terms for licensing. Nobody has to agree to it, but then if they don't, then they may not be able to make use of your software. There is no reason that a copyright holder has to give everybody the same terms. Microsoft can license Windows to a big corporation under different terms than they license it to you. So too can you license your software to everybody under the terms of the GPL, and then also license it to someone under different terms. You hold the copyright, you call the shots.
When he said, "No one else owns the GPLed version," he was referring to the other poster's statement that GPL'd code was owned by everyone. He meant that "no one else, except the author, owns the GPLed version."
True enough. I did find the size codes in the Crutchfield catalog to be helpful though. I bought an in-dash MP3 player for my girlfriend's car a few months ago. A friend of mine and I installed it in the dark. Sure, it took a couple of hours, but it all went pretty smoothly. If I was planning to do anything that required too much messing with wiring, then I'd have it done professionally.
Maybe you should ask them to stop. I get a rather thin catalog about every other month. I like to browse through it and see what's new.
Whoops. Yep, you're right. I got it mixed up. Anyway, it is a bit zealous, but he's also correct about not relying on proprietary software (that uses proprietary data formats) for critical data. The Nunez letter just fills in the reasons. His letter refers to the needs of the state, where Skoll's article refers to businesses. I think the argument for the state is a good one. The argument for businesses is also good, but not as strong. I think that some proprietary software could meet the more limited needs of business a lot easier than it could meet the needs of a government like that of Peru. The bottom line is that both Skoll and Nunez believe that open source makes more sense where availability and retainability of data are concerned. I don't think either are trying to get rid of proprietary software. They are just saying that proprietary vendors may need to meet some different requirements that are currently only filled by open source software. They both seem to want competition. Skoll's refrain of "adapt or die" seems to indicate this.
Actually, that quote is from Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nunez, the Peruvian legislator that is part of a group proposing that the government of Peru use only open source software in cases where it is available and meets the needs of the state. You can read his response to a letter written by the head of Microsoft's Peru office here.
Even that one doesn't propose to do away with proprietary software, or prohibit it from competing for government contracts if it can meet the requirements of the state for openness. I recommend reading the full letter. It's quite interesting and well-written.
Probably because it would hurt their credibility when all they really have to do is point to their successes, which are far more convincing than any silly think-tank report.
You can't re-negotiate the license for a private party.
This isn't true. The author can release the software under as many different licenses as he wishes, and to whomever he wishes.
GPL is IP that can no longer be privately owned.
Again, not really true. The other still holds the copyright to the code. He is the owner. He has simply decided to license it to anyone that wants it under the terms of the GPL. He can still license it out to other people or businesses under a different license if he wishes.
It really seems (to my amateurish, ill-informed eye) that if the "study" really is sponsored by Microsquish, they have shot themselves in the foot thoroughly.
So, what else is new? Microsoft seems to always have a gun aimed at its foot. Its amazing they can still walk.
Ok, now if you want to have any credibility at all, you must explain exactly how you believe that the GPL'd software community will self-destruct. Otherwise you're simply trolling.
When are the open source zealots (I said zealots not supporters, they AREN'T the same) going to realize that 100% open source isn't truely viable, and that a BALANCE is necessary.
I think you've got it wrong. He's not saying that everything must be open source. He's saying that open source and proprietary software should compete. He's rebutting the argument made by the report's author that the government should not use open source software. It's the proprietary vendors that are trying to make things 100% proprietary software here by discrediting open source.
Why does the author keep referring to the IP community and the "GPL community" as separate things? He even says that the GPL competes with US copyright law. This guy either has a fundamental lack of understanding about copyright or is a bald-faced liar. GPL'd software is IP as much as any proprietary software. GPL'd software uses copyright law as its basis, just as proprietary software does. The only issue here is the licensing terms. The only term that they take issue with is the fact that they can't simply steal the code and incorporate it into proprietary products because they would have to release the source to those products. That's their whole gripe.
They don't even consider the fact that most proprietary licenses are far more harsh than the GPL. In fact, you don't even have to agree to the GPL to use GPL'd software. If you don't agree, then basic copyright law applies. If you do agree, then you get additional rights, over and above what traditional copyright law allows, albeit with some obligations as well. I think that any claim about the restrictiveness of the GPL license is disingenuous at best.
I'm not sure how it could be any worse than ICANN. It is already becoming more and more controlled by corporations. They're going to do away with the At-Large seats on the board and simply appoint whoever they see fit to appoint. This begs for massive abuse. Especially since they never made a convincing argument for why the At-Large representatives should be done away with in the first place. It would have boiled down to the fact that they don't share the interests of those already on the board, which is promoting the interests of big business over that of everyone else. So, everyone serving on the ICANN board will have a nice, cushy, well-paid job as a rubber stamp for the desires of big business. I think we need to realize that ICANN is already lost. Anything that Congress does can only help to make them more accountable. Any accountability is better than none at all.
Yeah, but at least we have a shot at voting the bums out if they fuck things up. Don't have that ability, even in theory, with ICANN.
Hmm.. yeah. I think there was a story here on /. a while back (a year ago maybe?) that got everyone in a tizzy because some site was saying that IE had this outrageous percentage of users. The conclusion then was the same as what you're saying. The site that was doing the counting was serving mostly Windows-related sites (and a few Mac sites) and was therefore badly skewed. Not sure if it was thecounter.com or some other site though. I can't think of too many sites that would give non-skewed results either. Google is probably the only one that is relatively neutral. Maybe a few of the more popular hardware sites would work too.
Here ya go. This should make you happy. Now you can make Moz look just like IE. Bout as standard as you can get.
I really like the Pinball skin. It's attractive and unobtrusive.
How is that for Embrace & Extend (TM)?
They are simply doing the embracing part. They aren't extending them in proprietary ways, which is what Microsoft is faulted for.
Actually the figure is more like 75%. I haven't found a single analysis that puts the combined total users of all versions of IE at 80% or more. 75% seems to be about the peak, and it should drop significantly since all 30-35 million AOL users will come out of IE's share. I invite you to do your own Google searches and see if you can find any that give higher estimates. I'd be curious to see them.
That's because IE loads at bootup, something which Mozilla is also capable of, in which case you won't see the splash screen. It only shows up if Mozilla isn't already loaded.
That's the theory. In practice, this meeting is between the congresspeople and the only constituents that matter to them.
Probably not. That thing only has about a 100 foot range. I'm thinking he'll need something a bit more powerful.
Well, that does only cover the software/service portion, not the hardware. I still don't know about enforceability. They sell the hardware exclusively for use with the service. Without service, it's just a lump of metal and plastic. I really have to wonder if this agreement would hold up in court.
Two things. First, Tivo does not seem to claim the right to make changes to your hardware without your consent, only to the services offered. Second, they don't seem to claim that they will shut you down due to the mere allegation that you are infringing on someone's copyright. Those are substantial differences.