And I was marked troll and ridiculed for saying that this is what they are obliged to do. From the bottom of my heart, fuck you slashdot. Also just disregard the mod points on the post, look at the amount of people responding without even thinking twice about what they are writing. There is no space here for truth, only hormones of feeble minded fools. And the "mods", being us who receive mod points to classify the value of information in posts, are no better in doing the job anymore than the rest of you. Slashdot is the fundamental definition of "defective by design", and you'll come to notice that only the idiots stay longer than average. This is my last post, and I truly hope nobody cares as that would prove it being the outmost right decision to take.
Oh and before you respond to this in some sad attempt of ridicule such as "cry me a river" or any other internet meme which has already been done close to an infinite amount of time, know that I won't be here to read it. So knowing that you may go ahead and waste your time.
You're entangling yourself in semantics. You're clearly the one who's misinterpreting me. I never said you're forced to release the code, I said obliged. And I never claimed that you could, by law, enforce somebody to release said code. I'm afraid you're making assumptions that I cannot be held responsible for.
Yes you are obligated to do such a thing, and if you don't comply you can be dragged to court where you could be sentenced to pay for copyright infringement.
Exactly: not complying, getting dragged to court, and paying is an option. You're not obligated to open the source, you can just suffer the consequences of copyright violation instead.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not, but if you aren't, then how does this not mean that you're obliged to open the source? You're obliged to follow the law, and if you don't you'll get punished for it. Am I misinterpreting the word obliged? Because that to me is a perfect usage of the word obliged. Correct me if I'm wrong but is everybody thinking I'm saying forced? Because I'm not. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/obliged
Ahh, I'm naive am I, just because I disagree with you?
Nope, because you're trying to imply that Microsoft would be unaware of the GPL. And we're not even talking about the GPL in detail, we're talking about the fundamental point of the GPL. That which most teenagers even know.
Or rather I understand that the actions of a lower level employee or related third party does not necessarily equate to corporate policy, and the former can be considered unwilfull distribution, while the latter can be considered wilfull.
That's very easy to say. Not that we would ever be able to prove this, but I'm willing to bet you that if you ask any Microsoft developer about the fundamental meaning of the GPL they would give it to you without hesitating for one second. The GPL isn't some "underground" phenomena.
Yes you are obligated to do such a thing, and if you don't comply you can be dragged to court where you could be sentenced to pay for copyright infringement.
You are wrong, in the case of unwilfull infringement, positive action to cease infringement is enough - you are not obligated to release the code, and you are not bound by the licence. The copyright holder can still persue damages for prior infringement, but thats it.
Unwilfull? You see that's where our difference is. You seem to be so naive to think that Microsoft developers are unaware of the GPL. And also, of course one can refuse to release the code, but then one would get fined. What did you think I meant? Somebody will force you to release the code with a gun pointed at your head?
And no it's not enough to pull the application, if you've distributed the binary and you've used GPL code you're obligated to release that code.
No, you're not automatically obligated to do any such thing. What happens is that you may be infringing on the copyrights on the GPL'd code, so it's up to the copyright holders to decide what to do: ignore it, negotiate a (presumably non-GPL) license agreement with you, or take you to court. And if the latter, the judge will decide what the punishment should be--most likely it'll be "stop distributing the software and pay the copyright holder $$$$$". It's unlikely that the punishment would be "publish the source code to your app that used GPLed code."
Yes you are obligated to do such a thing, and if you don't comply you can be dragged to court where you could be sentenced to pay for copyright infringement.
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:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
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.)
You've posted this like 3 times now, that I know of. It's getting tiresome. And no it's not enough to pull the application, if you've distributed the binary and you've used GPL code you're obligated to release that code. Your mistake, your mess. MS wouldn't be so forgiving, why should the GNU community be? You'd think that the worlds largest software producer, in 2009, would have a better understanding regarding the GPL.
I have no objections to proprietary software, but if you want others to follow your licenses, you are expected to follow others. It's not so fucking difficult now is it?
Oh and the only troll I see here Sopssa is you for posting repetetive bullshit posts like the one above.
And what if the big corporations go on patenting sprees and start patenting anything imaginable?
Well, first they have to invent it, which means it has to be new and nonobvious - so no patenting "filing a patent" or "earning money". And if they do invent something, they have to disclose it to the world and teach us all how to do it. And if they've really done something new and nonobvious and it's actually valuable and innovative, why shouldn't they have a limited period to exploit that invention? Particularly when, by it's very definition, it's limited, and 20 years later, everyone gets to do this new, nonobvious, and valuable method?
I think most of the people who complain about the patent system, whether they realize it or not, are primarily concerned about the "new and nonobvious" part, rather than subject matter eligibility. We don't like it when someone gets a patent on a method of swinging on a swing, or investing in a hedge fund, or tickling a cat. But that's because those have either been done before, or are so freaking obvious that it's removing something from the public domain if you grant a patent on them... and that's a question of novelty and obviousness, not subject matter.
Quit your trolling. You can patent general easy-to-think-of ideas which would then cover any real innovations. This is constantly being done today.
Wow, I'm old. I never really stopped and thought about just how horrid modern class rooms have become, I certainly never pictured some twit droning on from a canned Power Point.
On the upside you'll be properly prepared for any number of meetings.
Wow, you are old. You didn't have books when you went to school? I can tell you that a teacher reading from a book is even worse. The problem is not books nor powerpoint, the problem is teachers or professors that couldn't care less.
I'm not joking guys. We really planned on making our money on patenting our business model. We figured the big corporate bastards have made it impossible for tiny businesses like ours to make money and stay in business any other way so we'd patent our business model to protect ourselves from the giant behemoths. What will happen if you can't patent a business model is the behemoths who were in the same niche but slightly less profitable will look over and see you making money hand over fist and decide to copy your homework. What can you do? You're tiny. You're toast! But wait! I have a business model patent! You have to *buy* me! That means I get one last pay-check before you cut me loose!
They take that away and now we're defenseless in front of gigantic corporations who have the resources to just wholesale copy our model.
And what if the big corporations go on patenting sprees and start patenting anything imaginable? Just like all patenting has come down to. Any idiot realises that patenting was never created to benefit "the small players." Really, conspiracy aside, but how much influence does small businesses contra large businesses have on politics and politicians? Do you think there is one single top politician who doesn't own stock in one or many large corporations? And it doesn't have to be a plot or a cartel, you can be a very honest politician but when that opportunity comes along the temptation to make a few extra hundred thousand can become too much. Also it does help if you can pretend you're doing it for "the small players."
I'm all for making fun of people who get injured by their own stupidity. I'm talking about the guys who decide to skateboard off of the roof of a 3 storey house, and end up breaking their penises or permanently damaging their scrotums.
But please, show some respect for those who are cursed with a disease or disability that they had no control over.
The part about free will is ignoring the fact that neurons are "fine" enough to be affected by such things as the Uncertainty Principle. This introduces some fundamental randomness in the system, which in turn means human actions are not necessarily purely deterministic.
Don't mix random and undeterminable. The observer is not the centre of the universe, so don't put yourself in that position. Even if you're able or unable to observe certain actions and reactions they are not bound to your observing. The fact that you are even able to observe is the product of a reaction, so the action has already taken place. Thus fate may very well still exist.
how is this anything new? A completely unprotected system can be infected and then do whatever any other computer can.
The subject in TFS is bad. It should have read "Malware downloads child..." instead. The possibility has always been there, it just hadn't happened yet, as far as I know. This gives new angles to tackle from the prosecutors side.
Please, don't flatter yourself. Don't for one second think that anything you do by your "ethics" is justified more than what I do by mine. We have something called law, and these are the rules which we've woven together based on the common interests of all. You're just trying to push your (rather childish idealist) view onto others without any argument, so you use the ridiculous "ethics" card. That's another word for "duuh I don't know what to say but it doesn't like 'feel' right", if you're dumb, and if you're smart then it's merely a method of rhetorics. But guess what, unless you can show me how I can benefit from something I will never buy it. And if you're so shortsighted to not understand what I mean with benefit or profit, that if it also benefits those I care about it then benefits me, or that if it holds any future potential benefit (e.g. public healthcare), then I have no interest in further wasting my time. You can go preach somewhere else.
Oh and yes I am egoistic, all biological creatures are, but some are also more hipocritical than others -- and the latter I try my best not to be. Not for you or anybody else, but for myself as basing anything on a lie will produce an unwanted outcome.
Slashdot Mirror
And I was marked troll and ridiculed for saying that this is what they are obliged to do. From the bottom of my heart, fuck you slashdot. Also just disregard the mod points on the post, look at the amount of people responding without even thinking twice about what they are writing. There is no space here for truth, only hormones of feeble minded fools. And the "mods", being us who receive mod points to classify the value of information in posts, are no better in doing the job anymore than the rest of you. Slashdot is the fundamental definition of "defective by design", and you'll come to notice that only the idiots stay longer than average. This is my last post, and I truly hope nobody cares as that would prove it being the outmost right decision to take.
Oh and before you respond to this in some sad attempt of ridicule such as "cry me a river" or any other internet meme which has already been done close to an infinite amount of time, know that I won't be here to read it. So knowing that you may go ahead and waste your time.
You're entangling yourself in semantics. You're clearly the one who's misinterpreting me. I never said you're forced to release the code, I said obliged. And I never claimed that you could, by law, enforce somebody to release said code. I'm afraid you're making assumptions that I cannot be held responsible for.
Yes you are obligated to do such a thing, and if you don't comply you can be dragged to court where you could be sentenced to pay for copyright infringement.
Exactly: not complying, getting dragged to court, and paying is an option. You're not obligated to open the source, you can just suffer the consequences of copyright violation instead.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not, but if you aren't, then how does this not mean that you're obliged to open the source? You're obliged to follow the law, and if you don't you'll get punished for it. Am I misinterpreting the word obliged? Because that to me is a perfect usage of the word obliged. Correct me if I'm wrong but is everybody thinking I'm saying forced? Because I'm not. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/obliged
Bah, sorry I must have clicked the wrong button. Here's my reply.
Ahh, I'm naive am I, just because I disagree with you?
Nope, because you're trying to imply that Microsoft would be unaware of the GPL. And we're not even talking about the GPL in detail, we're talking about the fundamental point of the GPL. That which most teenagers even know.
Or rather I understand that the actions of a lower level employee or related third party does not necessarily equate to corporate policy, and the former can be considered unwilfull distribution, while the latter can be considered wilfull.
That's very easy to say. Not that we would ever be able to prove this, but I'm willing to bet you that if you ask any Microsoft developer about the fundamental meaning of the GPL they would give it to you without hesitating for one second. The GPL isn't some "underground" phenomena.
Yes you are obligated to do such a thing, and if you don't comply you can be dragged to court where you could be sentenced to pay for copyright infringement.
You are wrong, in the case of unwilfull infringement, positive action to cease infringement is enough - you are not obligated to release the code, and you are not bound by the licence. The copyright holder can still persue damages for prior infringement, but thats it.
Unwilfull? You see that's where our difference is. You seem to be so naive to think that Microsoft developers are unaware of the GPL. And also, of course one can refuse to release the code, but then one would get fined. What did you think I meant? Somebody will force you to release the code with a gun pointed at your head?
You mean those that stretch back an incredible 5 days? That's some nice invesigative background checking there Sherlock.
What do you want MS to do? Scour the interwebs for every licensed software to compare it with what Microsoft's coders produce?
What? I don't understand your question. Why would this be relevant to the topic at hand?
And no it's not enough to pull the application, if you've distributed the binary and you've used GPL code you're obligated to release that code.
No, you're not automatically obligated to do any such thing. What happens is that you may be infringing on the copyrights on the GPL'd code, so it's up to the copyright holders to decide what to do: ignore it, negotiate a (presumably non-GPL) license agreement with you, or take you to court. And if the latter, the judge will decide what the punishment should be--most likely it'll be "stop distributing the software and pay the copyright holder $$$$$". It's unlikely that the punishment would be "publish the source code to your app that used GPLed code."
Yes you are obligated to do such a thing, and if you don't comply you can be dragged to court where you could be sentenced to pay for copyright infringement.
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:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
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.)
You've posted this like 3 times now, that I know of. It's getting tiresome. And no it's not enough to pull the application, if you've distributed the binary and you've used GPL code you're obligated to release that code. Your mistake, your mess. MS wouldn't be so forgiving, why should the GNU community be? You'd think that the worlds largest software producer, in 2009, would have a better understanding regarding the GPL.
I have no objections to proprietary software, but if you want others to follow your licenses, you are expected to follow others. It's not so fucking difficult now is it?
Oh and the only troll I see here Sopssa is you for posting repetetive bullshit posts like the one above.
If only I could get a hold of 1000 of those, do you people realise how expensive firewood is these days?
That doesn't make sense.
Sorry you're infringing on my patent, unless your patent is for non-profit purposes in which case I'm ok with it.
And what if the big corporations go on patenting sprees and start patenting anything imaginable?
Well, first they have to invent it, which means it has to be new and nonobvious - so no patenting "filing a patent" or "earning money". And if they do invent something, they have to disclose it to the world and teach us all how to do it. And if they've really done something new and nonobvious and it's actually valuable and innovative, why shouldn't they have a limited period to exploit that invention? Particularly when, by it's very definition, it's limited, and 20 years later, everyone gets to do this new, nonobvious, and valuable method?
I think most of the people who complain about the patent system, whether they realize it or not, are primarily concerned about the "new and nonobvious" part, rather than subject matter eligibility. We don't like it when someone gets a patent on a method of swinging on a swing, or investing in a hedge fund, or tickling a cat. But that's because those have either been done before, or are so freaking obvious that it's removing something from the public domain if you grant a patent on them... and that's a question of novelty and obviousness, not subject matter.
Quit your trolling. You can patent general easy-to-think-of ideas which would then cover any real innovations. This is constantly being done today.
And what if the big corporations go on patenting sprees and start patenting anything imaginable? Just like all patenting has come down to.
Wow, you didn't even read further than my first sentence. There has to be some award for this.
Wow, I'm old. I never really stopped and thought about just how horrid modern class rooms have become, I certainly never pictured some twit droning on from a canned Power Point.
On the upside you'll be properly prepared for any number of meetings.
Wow, you are old. You didn't have books when you went to school? I can tell you that a teacher reading from a book is even worse. The problem is not books nor powerpoint, the problem is teachers or professors that couldn't care less.
I'm not joking guys. We really planned on making our money on patenting our business model. We figured the big corporate bastards have made it impossible for tiny businesses like ours to make money and stay in business any other way so we'd patent our business model to protect ourselves from the giant behemoths. What will happen if you can't patent a business model is the behemoths who were in the same niche but slightly less profitable will look over and see you making money hand over fist and decide to copy your homework. What can you do? You're tiny. You're toast! But wait! I have a business model patent! You have to *buy* me! That means I get one last pay-check before you cut me loose!
They take that away and now we're defenseless in front of gigantic corporations who have the resources to just wholesale copy our model.
And what if the big corporations go on patenting sprees and start patenting anything imaginable? Just like all patenting has come down to. Any idiot realises that patenting was never created to benefit "the small players." Really, conspiracy aside, but how much influence does small businesses contra large businesses have on politics and politicians? Do you think there is one single top politician who doesn't own stock in one or many large corporations? And it doesn't have to be a plot or a cartel, you can be a very honest politician but when that opportunity comes along the temptation to make a few extra hundred thousand can become too much. Also it does help if you can pretend you're doing it for "the small players."
I patent patenting for profit!
This research seems kinda shaky.
That's not funny.
I'm all for making fun of people who get injured by their own stupidity. I'm talking about the guys who decide to skateboard off of the roof of a 3 storey house, and end up breaking their penises or permanently damaging their scrotums.
But please, show some respect for those who are cursed with a disease or disability that they had no control over.
I find your code of ethics fascinating.
I find ethics fascinating.
so I'll give greater weight to my prejudices.
You say that as if scientists don't have prejudices/presuppositions/premises. I've never met a human that didn't.
All people make assumptions. Smart people are willing to give those up.
The part about free will is ignoring the fact that neurons are "fine" enough to be affected by such things as the Uncertainty Principle. This introduces some fundamental randomness in the system, which in turn means human actions are not necessarily purely deterministic.
Don't mix random and undeterminable. The observer is not the centre of the universe, so don't put yourself in that position. Even if you're able or unable to observe certain actions and reactions they are not bound to your observing. The fact that you are even able to observe is the product of a reaction, so the action has already taken place. Thus fate may very well still exist.
how is this anything new? A completely unprotected system can be infected and then do whatever any other computer can.
The subject in TFS is bad. It should have read "Malware downloads child..." instead. The possibility has always been there, it just hadn't happened yet, as far as I know. This gives new angles to tackle from the prosecutors side.
You are a lovely man.
Please, don't flatter yourself. Don't for one second think that anything you do by your "ethics" is justified more than what I do by mine. We have something called law, and these are the rules which we've woven together based on the common interests of all. You're just trying to push your (rather childish idealist) view onto others without any argument, so you use the ridiculous "ethics" card. That's another word for "duuh I don't know what to say but it doesn't like 'feel' right", if you're dumb, and if you're smart then it's merely a method of rhetorics. But guess what, unless you can show me how I can benefit from something I will never buy it. And if you're so shortsighted to not understand what I mean with benefit or profit, that if it also benefits those I care about it then benefits me, or that if it holds any future potential benefit (e.g. public healthcare), then I have no interest in further wasting my time. You can go preach somewhere else.
Oh and yes I am egoistic, all biological creatures are, but some are also more hipocritical than others -- and the latter I try my best not to be. Not for you or anybody else, but for myself as basing anything on a lie will produce an unwanted outcome.
I can see it's time for bed, because I'm spelling like an eight-year-old.