I should be fine like that because everything I distributed was available as the major components of the operating system. In fact it was the operating system. Do you agree? The exception here just seems to draws a line on the dependency stack, for practicality sake, so that you your GPL'd app doesn't require the distribution of the compiler you used to compile it, the kernel code for system calls it uses, or the x86 instructions for the processor it will run on. I'm not sure these exceptions have any bearing on the distribution of the actual code itself, just on the dependencies of building and running it.
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. Note how it ends "unless that component itself accompanies the executable". So you don't have to distribute Linux source code when you distribute the source for a Linux application, but you still have to distribute the source for what you are distributing. In your PC example, if it is determined to be a commercial distribution, you would be obligated to provide the source for _any_ GPL program on the box you are selling.
Updated versions of Paint and WordPad? Is that really what they're going for? Maybe that's all they could accomplish on a short, 3 year, release cycle. It's not like you can turn out significant improvements every 6 months you know.
Hell, you could argue it shows they want the community more involved in Java development. Um, that is exactly what I was arguing. Did you read my post as a criticism of Sun?
Suppose I build a computer and install mandrake/mandriva linux on it, then sell it to someone, do I need to distribute the source code for mandrake now? No, because part 3c of the GPLv2 says I can just forward the offers given to me. Only for noncommercial distribution. If you're selling the PC, wouldn't that mean you must abide by either 3a or 3b?
However, the whole contract/license GPL issue is generally moot. If they did not agree to the GPL, they have no right to distribution, and therefore are in violation of the copyright. The GPL only says you must "agree" to the terms of the license in order to have permission to distribute it. If you don't "comply" with it, then it's a contract violation, but not a copyright violation.
If you claim that you never agreed to be bound by the terms of the GPL, then it would be a copyright violation.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:...
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Since this was distributed as a commercial product, they have to make the source available, they can't just pass on the offer.
One of the major benefits of releasing something into open source is the volunteer help. Don't hold it back just because a relatively small component needs to be rewritten. Remove the component again, leaving stubs, and just explain what it's supposed to do. For something as major as a GPL Java, the component will be rewritten by volunteers in no time at all, plus a small well defined project like that is a great way to get up to speed on a new code base. That is exactly what Sun did, the released all of the code they owned as GPL (last year), and provided binary "plugs" for the rest so that you could still modify and compile a working JVM. Redhat's IcedTea project took the available code, replaced the "plugs" with code from the Classpath project, and produced a fully GPL'd JVM.
However, Sun's JVM is dual-licensed, and as such they can't just include the Classpath code like IcedTea did, as that would violate Classpath's GPL license. Instead Sun is re-implementing the remaining code so that it can be dual-licensed as well.
To take Digium Asterisk as an example of a disastrous dual licensing scheme, they release a GPL version of their code and keep their proprietary version closed source (which means they can use no GPL code in it). All contributions made are given to Digium or put in the public domain - stripping the original author of his or her copyright. The GNU project has the same requirements, they don't want to include code in their project that will prevent them from changing the license for their project in the future. It's also a legal issue, as only the copyright holder of the code can sue somebody for infringement.
Sun, if I remember, doesn't require that you give them ownership of the code, only that you grant them copyright on it. That way Sun can do whatever they want with it, but at the same time so can you, including selling you code under a proprietary license to one of Sun's competitors.
Bea is doing some interesting things with their LiquidVM, which lets you run Weblogic as the "Guest OS" on top of your hypervisor. I can see this letting shared hosting companies offer J2EE to their clients.
Is the only problem you have that Sun has final say in the JCP? While not the same as the JCP, Sun has intentionally stacked the OpenJDK governance board so that the number of non-Sun employees is at least 1 greater than the number of Sun employees.
They were "gun-type", they used hollow uranium spheres fired down a barrel at a uranium plug. There were, I believe 4, detonations of this design: Hiroshima, one test of the W9, and two tests of the W33.
Actually several types of uranium plug weapons were developed by the US, including various artillery shell designs. South Africa's nuclear program, I believe, was almost exclusively of this design.
The Saudis and Saddam never got along. Iran is a Sharia state, and Iraq was ruled by a secularist. If you're right in your implications then it was a miracle that guy managed to keep Iraq on the map at all, which presents an odd paradox. Well, Saddam did have quite a bit of help during the Iran-Iraq war.
There's lot of reactor designs that produce a fusion reaction, not just tokamaks. There's just none that produce enough energy to sustain their own reactions.
There's also rpmfind.net for those on Redhat, Suse or one of their offspring.
Generally though, your distro's repositories are your source for new software. Ubuntu, I know, has user-ratings available via their "Add/Remove" program. It wouldn't surprise me if others had something similar.
The two ends could build an map, where instead of transmitting a duplicate chunk you just send "It's the same as chunk #123". Of course that table would get big very fast, so you'd either need lots of memory or trim the index every so often, so that only the most commonly used chunks stay in memory.
It's funny, because if I take any random file, make 10 copies of it, encrypt all 10 with the same key, then compress them all together, I actually do get some amount of compression.
Unless you plan on not duplicating sounds or sound sequences throughout your conversation, or using really big packets, chances are that you'll be repeating some of the same chunks of data, which will result in the same chucks of encrypted data, which would allow for compression. A generously lossy encoding of the original data could make it even more likely to get duplicate data chunks.
In other words the settlement details are rarely every made public in these kinds of situations. What they have announced is that the settlement grants a royalty-free patent license to all upstream and downstream developers, distributors and users.
Iraq had a Muslim President that most Muslims hated. Iran currently has a Muslim President that most Muslims don't like any better. Muslim Presidents of Pakistan, Egypt and Indonesia have largely been unpopular with Muslims world wide.
Historically having a Muslim head-of-state hasn't gotten a country any sympathy from the Muslim community.
I think it would do US relations with the Middle East a world of good to elect a Muslim president. Most Muslim nations can't get along with other Muslim nations, what makes you think having a Muslim President of the United States will do us any good?
Slashdot Mirror
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable. Note how it ends "unless that component itself accompanies the executable". So you don't have to distribute Linux source code when you distribute the source for a Linux application, but you still have to distribute the source for what you are distributing. In your PC example, if it is determined to be a commercial distribution, you would be obligated to provide the source for _any_ GPL program on the box you are selling.
You want a widget that never changes color from orangish-yellow?
If you claim that you never agreed to be bound by the terms of the GPL, then it would be a copyright violation.
GPLv2 says:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
Since this was distributed as a commercial product, they have to make the source available, they can't just pass on the offer.to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
However, Sun's JVM is dual-licensed, and as such they can't just include the Classpath code like IcedTea did, as that would violate Classpath's GPL license. Instead Sun is re-implementing the remaining code so that it can be dual-licensed as well.
Sun, if I remember, doesn't require that you give them ownership of the code, only that you grant them copyright on it. That way Sun can do whatever they want with it, but at the same time so can you, including selling you code under a proprietary license to one of Sun's competitors.
Bea is doing some interesting things with their LiquidVM, which lets you run Weblogic as the "Guest OS" on top of your hypervisor. I can see this letting shared hosting companies offer J2EE to their clients.
Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are heavily populated cities today.
They were "gun-type", they used hollow uranium spheres fired down a barrel at a uranium plug. There were, I believe 4, detonations of this design: Hiroshima, one test of the W9, and two tests of the W33.
Give how effective our "War on Terrorism" and similar "War on Drugs" have been, a "War on Cholesterol" would probably just kill more healthy people.
Actually several types of uranium plug weapons were developed by the US, including various artillery shell designs. South Africa's nuclear program, I believe, was almost exclusively of this design.
There's lot of reactor designs that produce a fusion reaction, not just tokamaks. There's just none that produce enough energy to sustain their own reactions.
There's also rpmfind.net for those on Redhat, Suse or one of their offspring.
Generally though, your distro's repositories are your source for new software. Ubuntu, I know, has user-ratings available via their "Add/Remove" program. It wouldn't surprise me if others had something similar.
The two ends could build an map, where instead of transmitting a duplicate chunk you just send "It's the same as chunk #123". Of course that table would get big very fast, so you'd either need lots of memory or trim the index every so often, so that only the most commonly used chunks stay in memory.
It's funny, because if I take any random file, make 10 copies of it, encrypt all 10 with the same key, then compress them all together, I actually do get some amount of compression.
Unless you plan on not duplicating sounds or sound sequences throughout your conversation, or using really big packets, chances are that you'll be repeating some of the same chunks of data, which will result in the same chucks of encrypted data, which would allow for compression. A generously lossy encoding of the original data could make it even more likely to get duplicate data chunks.
Encrypt the data first, then compress it.
In other words the settlement details are rarely every made public in these kinds of situations. What they have announced is that the settlement grants a royalty-free patent license to all upstream and downstream developers, distributors and users.
Iraq had a Muslim President that most Muslims hated. Iran currently has a Muslim President that most Muslims don't like any better. Muslim Presidents of Pakistan, Egypt and Indonesia have largely been unpopular with Muslims world wide.
Historically having a Muslim head-of-state hasn't gotten a country any sympathy from the Muslim community.
Apache made a MapReduce implementation in Java that is quite extensively used.