It may just be me, but don't the retail DVDs have a disclaimer exclusively stating that rental is prohibited?
Probably, but why would anyone care? That's just wishful thinking on the part of the studios
Copyright law explicitly says that it is not a violation of copyright for the owner of a copy of certain copyrighted works to rent them out. Most DVDs fall under that. It's called the "first sale doctrine", if you'd like to Google for more information.
It's irrelevant because the same objection could be raised for any pair of incompatible license. E.g., if MySQL were under GPLv3, you could object that a fork could not bring code that is GPLv2-only. There is a plenty of free software under GPLv2, and other free non-GPL licenses, that can be used with a forked MySQL.
In fact, most, if not all, significant open source databases are under licenses that, if compatible with GPLv3, are also compatible with GPLv2, and these are the most likely outside places code would come into a MySQL from.
The letter from Stallman and the others discussed two ways in which forking MySQL would be hard. One was because it is under GPLv2 without the "or later" option, so cannot mix with GPLv3 code. That a pretty irrelevant point, though, because the problem lies entirely with GPLv3's lack of compatibility wity other free licenses, such as GPLv2.
The other problem the letter mentions, though, has nothing to do with GPLv3 vs GPLv2. Here is how they describe the problem. I'll include the GPLv3 argument for completeness:
Defenders of the Oracle acquisition of its competitor naively say Oracle cannot harm MySQL, because a free version of the software is available to anyone under GNU GPL version 2.0, and if Oracle is not a good host for the GPL version of the code, future development will be taken up by other businesses and individual programmers, who could freely and easily "fork" the GPL'd code into a new platform. This defense fails for the reasons that follow.
MySQL uses the parallel licensing approach to generate revenue to continue the FLOSS development of the software. If Oracle acquired MySQL, it would then be the only entity able to release the code other than under the GPL. Oracle would not be obligated to diligently sell or reasonably price the MySQL commercial licenses. More importantly, Oracle is under no obligation to use the revenues from these licenses to advance MySQL. In making decisions in these matters, Oracle is facing an obvious conflict of interest – the continued development of a powerful, feature rich free alternative to its core product.
As only the original rights holder can sell commercial licenses, no new forked version of the code will have the ability to practice the parallel licensing approach, and will not easily generate the resources to support continued development of the MySQL platform.
The acquisition of MySQL by Oracle will be a major setback to the development of a FLOSS database platform, potentially alienating and dispersing MySQL's core community of developers. It could take several years before another database platform could rival the progress and opportunities now available to MySQL, because it will take time before any of them attract and cultivate a large enough team of developers and achieve a similar customer base.
Yet another way in which Oracle will have the ability to determine the forking of MySQL relates to the evolution of the GNU GPL license. GPL version 2.0 (GPLv2) and GPL version 3.0 (GPLv3) are different licenses and each requires that any modified program carry the same license as the original. There are fundamental and unavoidable legal obstacles to combining code from programs licensed under the different GPL versions. Today MySQL is only available to the public under GPLv2.
Many other FLOSS software projects are expected to move to GPLv3, often automatically due to the common use of the "any later version" clause. Because the current MySQL license lacks that clause, it will remain GPLv2 only and it will not be possible to combine its code with the code of many GPLv3- covered projects in the future. Given that forking of the MySQL code base will be particularly dependent on FLOSS community contributions - more so than on in-company development - the lack of a more flexible license for MySQL will present considerable barriers to a new forked development path for MySQL.
I'm assuming that hell has frozen over, because the first argument is that forking won't work because the GPL does not let the forker use the dual licensing model to make money, and that letter is signed by Stallman.
I fail to understand the reasoning for this in places where Amazon already has a huge operation (eg UK)
That's because you fail to understand how the device operates. It uses a connection to the cell phone network to receive data. In the US, Amazon has a deal with Sprint to use the Sprint wireless data network. For the international Kindle, they have a deal to use AT&T's wireless data network. When used outside the US, this incurs roaming charges.
Logically speaking, why would their operating costs be any higher? They aren't actually shipping books around--they're shipping data. And that data is probably hosted on the same servers, maybe even the same bits as their US products
The data is essentially delivered by cell phone. They are using AT&T's international roaming service for the international Kindle, and that costs a lot.
The key here is the code behind grand central dispatch is not GPL compatible [arstechnica.com], so Linux will probably never get this code
That's not quite correct. There are two parts to GCD: libdispatch and the kernel support. The kernel support is MIT license, so is compatible with GPL. Besides, the kernel component wouldn't be ported anyway--it would be rewritten from scratch if one were doing GCD Linux, so the license doesn't matter.
Libdispatch is Apache license. It runs in the applications, not the kernel, so the kernel being GPLv2 is irrelevant. What's relevant are the licenses of the applications that might want to use libdispatch. Many of those will be licensed as GPLv2 or later. Those are OK, because Apache license is compatible with GPLv3.
Finally, if libdispatch were to be included as a standard part of Linux, even GPLv2 code could dynamically link to it, because it would fall under the system library exception.
The FSF lacks standing to enforce the Linux kernel license. Report them on the kernel list, so that the people who actually own the copyrights on the kernel, and therefore have standing to enforce the license, will see.
The authors of the GPLv2 (i.e. RMS) clearly intended it to cover as much as possible: any and all works following under the statutory definition.
They seem to want to cover more than that, as they claim things far beyond what copyright law considers to be a derivative work. For example, they have claimed that if there is a GPL and a non-GPL library that accomplishes some function with different interfaces, and you distribute source code with #ifdef directives to allow the person building the software to choose which library interface to use, then this source code is a derivative work of the GPL library, if and only if there is no non-GPL library that clones the GPL library interface.
The license was already proven in court numerous times in different countries
In all the cases I've seen, the alleged violator was doing something that would violate copyright if not done under license. No one has ever seriously questioned, as far as I am aware, that the license would not hold up in those kinds of cases.
However, the problem with the GPLv2, as FSF reads it, is that they think it covers some things that are not prohibited by copyright. No one has ever went to court over those, and if they did, the FSF would lose.
If you really want a conspiracy theory, toss in that another factor Microsoft considered was that Danger uses Unix servers, Oracle RAC, Java apps, and Hitachi SAN software. No sign of any significant Windows technology. So, they purposefully destroy the data. That not only hits T-Mobile, per your proposed conspiracy theory, but also hits Oracle and Unix and Java, and it shakes confidence in the whose Cloud idea.
Google and Amazon are ahead of MS right now in Cloud stuff, so if Microsoft can throw a delay into that sector, it hurts Google and Amazon more than it hurts Microsoft. By the time people get over the fright and are ready to jump back in, Microsoft will have its cloud offering out, AND they can point out that all major cloud failures have been on Unix or Linux, and with non-MS databases and app servers--and argue that if you want to get back into the cloud, go with MS on Windows servers, MSSQL databases, and.NET apps.
The problem with proposing fun conspiracy theories like you and I are doing, though, is that the real conspiracy theorists are already there. I've already seen several of the tin-foil hat crowd saying it was on purpose.
What I've long wanted for MMORPGs is a screen in front at the normal position, and a second touch screen in the position 10GUI has the touch panel. Note I want the touch thingy to be a touch screen, not just a touch panel.
The screen in normal position would show me my view of the world, with minimal overlays (probably just health bars, damage and heal numbers, and such, and minimap, and maybe the last couple lines of chat).
The bottom screen would also show the world, but would have action bars, full chat, and so on.
It would allow casting spells and taking other actions by touching the target with a designated finger, and invoking the action by either touching the icon for that action on an action bar, or by gesture. There would be gestures that combine targeting and action.
For instance, lets say we get hit by AoE, and I need to get heal spells on everyone. I'd touch and hold on the icon for the heal spell I want to use, and then with the targeting finger tap everyone I want to heal. Similar for attacking, defending, and buffing.
Restraining orders aren't jokes. If the poker really was the person subject to the restraining order (and not someone else spoofing), she deserves whatever punishment would have come her way if she had telephoned, dropped by in person, or in any other, more conventional way, violated the order.
Danger is a Unix, Oracle, Java shop, so if you are going to go down the "they did it on purpose" path, you might as well theorize that it isn't just to scare people away from cloud computing. It could be to scare them away from Unix, and Oracle, and Java! Conspiracy nuts might as well be bold.
Again, if 1.5% of FOSS developers are women, but only 0.1% of the comments are sexist, what is the REAL problem that you're trying to "solve"?
You've provided a nice illustration of the problem. If it turns out that, say, 10% of FOSS developers are black, do you think that would make nigger references OK as long as we kept them under 1%? If 5% of FOSS developers are gay, do you think that allows up to 0.5% faggot references?
Anyone have some stats on the percentage of FOSS developers that are Jewish, Arab, or Mexican so I can figure out what percentage of my comments are allowed to mention kikes, camel fucking, and wetbacks without it being a problem?
A ballot screen on Safari to promote IE? Ridiculous. The most recent version of IE for Macs is IE 5! Why do you want people to be using technology that predates Windows XP?
In case anyone is curious, IE 5.2 does still work OK on Snow Leopard.
Why IE? Why not create a windows app that provides ballot screen which ftp the browser behind the scenes after user selection. If MS wants to do this there are ways to do it without using IE
Because it would be a completely pointless thing to do. IE is used for more then web browsing. MS also uses components from IE for the help system and other things where they want to display formatted text. No one has a rational complaint about that. So it is perfectly sensible to use it for this.
An interesting point: This research is being done in China, not the United States. Whatever happened to basic research being done in the US? Today's PARC laboratory is not in the US, but appears is in China.
You see one interesting research project out of China and conclude the US is doomed? What about things like Photosynth, from University of Washington and Microsoft Research, both of which are in the US? Just look around here, or in the science and technology sections at Reddit, and you'll find plenty of stories about US basic research.
And someone griping in IRC that Miguel's article got posted while groklaw's extensive treatment on the same issue was passed over... Actually that was rather informative. Hardly makes them a loon, no?
The loony part is the part where he says Slashdot always takes the Microsoft side.
Slashdot Mirror
It may just be me, but don't the retail DVDs have a disclaimer exclusively stating that rental is prohibited?
Probably, but why would anyone care? That's just wishful thinking on the part of the studios
Copyright law explicitly says that it is not a violation of copyright for the owner of a copy of certain copyrighted works to rent them out. Most DVDs fall under that. It's called the "first sale doctrine", if you'd like to Google for more information.
Quote from the link you gave:
How many other fast-tracked ISO standards have no conforming implementations.
Answer: at least one. ODF.
Did you have a point?
It's irrelevant because the same objection could be raised for any pair of incompatible license. E.g., if MySQL were under GPLv3, you could object that a fork could not bring code that is GPLv2-only. There is a plenty of free software under GPLv2, and other free non-GPL licenses, that can be used with a forked MySQL.
In fact, most, if not all, significant open source databases are under licenses that, if compatible with GPLv3, are also compatible with GPLv2, and these are the most likely outside places code would come into a MySQL from.
The letter from Stallman and the others discussed two ways in which forking MySQL would be hard. One was because it is under GPLv2 without the "or later" option, so cannot mix with GPLv3 code. That a pretty irrelevant point, though, because the problem lies entirely with GPLv3's lack of compatibility wity other free licenses, such as GPLv2.
The other problem the letter mentions, though, has nothing to do with GPLv3 vs GPLv2. Here is how they describe the problem. I'll include the GPLv3 argument for completeness:
Defenders of the Oracle acquisition of its competitor naively say Oracle cannot harm MySQL, because a free version of the software is available to anyone under GNU GPL version 2.0, and if Oracle is not a good host for the GPL version of the code, future development will be taken up by other businesses and individual programmers, who could freely and easily "fork" the GPL'd code into a new platform. This defense fails for the reasons that follow.
MySQL uses the parallel licensing approach to generate revenue to continue the FLOSS development of the software. If Oracle acquired MySQL, it would then be the only entity able to release the code other than under the GPL. Oracle would not be obligated to diligently sell or reasonably price the MySQL commercial licenses. More importantly, Oracle is under no obligation to use the revenues from these licenses to advance MySQL. In making decisions in these matters, Oracle is facing an obvious conflict of interest – the continued development of a powerful, feature rich free alternative to its core product.
As only the original rights holder can sell commercial licenses, no new forked version of the code will have the ability to practice the parallel licensing approach, and will not easily generate the resources to support continued development of the MySQL platform.
The acquisition of MySQL by Oracle will be a major setback to the development of a FLOSS database platform, potentially alienating and dispersing MySQL's core community of developers. It could take several years before another database platform could rival the progress and opportunities now available to MySQL, because it will take time before any of them attract and cultivate a large enough team of developers and achieve a similar customer base.
Yet another way in which Oracle will have the ability to determine the forking of MySQL relates to the evolution of the GNU GPL license. GPL version 2.0 (GPLv2) and GPL version 3.0 (GPLv3) are different licenses and each requires that any modified program carry the same license as the original. There are fundamental and unavoidable legal obstacles to combining code from programs licensed under the different GPL versions. Today MySQL is only available to the public under GPLv2.
Many other FLOSS software projects are expected to move to GPLv3, often automatically due to the common use of the "any later version" clause. Because the current MySQL license lacks that clause, it will remain GPLv2 only and it will not be possible to combine its code with the code of many GPLv3- covered projects in the future. Given that forking of the MySQL code base will be particularly dependent on FLOSS community contributions - more so than on in-company development - the lack of a more flexible license for MySQL will present considerable barriers to a new forked development path for MySQL.
I'm assuming that hell has frozen over, because the first argument is that forking won't work because the GPL does not let the forker use the dual licensing model to make money, and that letter is signed by Stallman.
Groklaw has an interesting take on this, full of conspiracy theories.
See, for example, this comment, where PJ is talking about Monty, and says:
I have come to suspect he's a double agent. And I believe the beneficiary will be Microsoft.
Wow
And the iPhone bought in the UK uses the AT&T data network in the US to receive data then?
What does that have to do with Amazon's choice of wireless carrier?
I fail to understand the reasoning for this in places where Amazon already has a huge operation (eg UK)
That's because you fail to understand how the device operates. It uses a connection to the cell phone network to receive data. In the US, Amazon has a deal with Sprint to use the Sprint wireless data network. For the international Kindle, they have a deal to use AT&T's wireless data network. When used outside the US, this incurs roaming charges.
Logically speaking, why would their operating costs be any higher? They aren't actually shipping books around--they're shipping data. And that data is probably hosted on the same servers, maybe even the same bits as their US products
The data is essentially delivered by cell phone. They are using AT&T's international roaming service for the international Kindle, and that costs a lot.
The guy who wrote Jack says you are wrong.
That's not quite correct. There are two parts to GCD: libdispatch and the kernel support. The kernel support is MIT license, so is compatible with GPL. Besides, the kernel component wouldn't be ported anyway--it would be rewritten from scratch if one were doing GCD Linux, so the license doesn't matter.
Libdispatch is Apache license. It runs in the applications, not the kernel, so the kernel being GPLv2 is irrelevant. What's relevant are the licenses of the applications that might want to use libdispatch. Many of those will be licensed as GPLv2 or later. Those are OK, because Apache license is compatible with GPLv3.
Finally, if libdispatch were to be included as a standard part of Linux, even GPLv2 code could dynamically link to it, because it would fall under the system library exception.
Report them to the FSF
The FSF lacks standing to enforce the Linux kernel license. Report them on the kernel list, so that the people who actually own the copyrights on the kernel, and therefore have standing to enforce the license, will see.
They seem to want to cover more than that, as they claim things far beyond what copyright law considers to be a derivative work. For example, they have claimed that if there is a GPL and a non-GPL library that accomplishes some function with different interfaces, and you distribute source code with #ifdef directives to allow the person building the software to choose which library interface to use, then this source code is a derivative work of the GPL library, if and only if there is no non-GPL library that clones the GPL library interface.
In all the cases I've seen, the alleged violator was doing something that would violate copyright if not done under license. No one has ever seriously questioned, as far as I am aware, that the license would not hold up in those kinds of cases.
However, the problem with the GPLv2, as FSF reads it, is that they think it covers some things that are not prohibited by copyright. No one has ever went to court over those, and if they did, the FSF would lose.
If you really want a conspiracy theory, toss in that another factor Microsoft considered was that Danger uses Unix servers, Oracle RAC, Java apps, and Hitachi SAN software. No sign of any significant Windows technology. So, they purposefully destroy the data. That not only hits T-Mobile, per your proposed conspiracy theory, but also hits Oracle and Unix and Java, and it shakes confidence in the whose Cloud idea.
Google and Amazon are ahead of MS right now in Cloud stuff, so if Microsoft can throw a delay into that sector, it hurts Google and Amazon more than it hurts Microsoft. By the time people get over the fright and are ready to jump back in, Microsoft will have its cloud offering out, AND they can point out that all major cloud failures have been on Unix or Linux, and with non-MS databases and app servers--and argue that if you want to get back into the cloud, go with MS on Windows servers, MSSQL databases, and .NET apps.
The problem with proposing fun conspiracy theories like you and I are doing, though, is that the real conspiracy theorists are already there. I've already seen several of the tin-foil hat crowd saying it was on purpose.
Star Trek, Season 1, Episode 23, "A Taste of Armageddon".
What I've long wanted for MMORPGs is a screen in front at the normal position, and a second touch screen in the position 10GUI has the touch panel. Note I want the touch thingy to be a touch screen, not just a touch panel.
The screen in normal position would show me my view of the world, with minimal overlays (probably just health bars, damage and heal numbers, and such, and minimap, and maybe the last couple lines of chat).
The bottom screen would also show the world, but would have action bars, full chat, and so on.
It would allow casting spells and taking other actions by touching the target with a designated finger, and invoking the action by either touching the icon for that action on an action bar, or by gesture. There would be gestures that combine targeting and action.
For instance, lets say we get hit by AoE, and I need to get heal spells on everyone. I'd touch and hold on the icon for the heal spell I want to use, and then with the targeting finger tap everyone I want to heal. Similar for attacking, defending, and buffing.
Restraining orders aren't jokes. If the poker really was the person subject to the restraining order (and not someone else spoofing), she deserves whatever punishment would have come her way if she had telephoned, dropped by in person, or in any other, more conventional way, violated the order.
Danger is a Unix, Oracle, Java shop, so if you are going to go down the "they did it on purpose" path, you might as well theorize that it isn't just to scare people away from cloud computing. It could be to scare them away from Unix, and Oracle, and Java! Conspiracy nuts might as well be bold.
Again, if 1.5% of FOSS developers are women, but only 0.1% of the comments are sexist, what is the REAL problem that you're trying to "solve"?
You've provided a nice illustration of the problem. If it turns out that, say, 10% of FOSS developers are black, do you think that would make nigger references OK as long as we kept them under 1%? If 5% of FOSS developers are gay, do you think that allows up to 0.5% faggot references?
Anyone have some stats on the percentage of FOSS developers that are Jewish, Arab, or Mexican so I can figure out what percentage of my comments are allowed to mention kikes, camel fucking, and wetbacks without it being a problem?
Do you have any reason to believe those rates apply to ebooks?
Why can't we have Lynx as an option?
Because no sane person who wants a text-based browser would pick Lynx over Links.
A ballot screen on Safari to promote IE? Ridiculous. The most recent version of IE for Macs is IE 5! Why do you want people to be using technology that predates Windows XP?
In case anyone is curious, IE 5.2 does still work OK on Snow Leopard.
Why IE? Why not create a windows app that provides ballot screen which ftp the browser behind the scenes after user selection. If MS wants to do this there are ways to do it without using IE
Because it would be a completely pointless thing to do. IE is used for more then web browsing. MS also uses components from IE for the help system and other things where they want to display formatted text. No one has a rational complaint about that. So it is perfectly sensible to use it for this.
An interesting point: This research is being done in China, not the United States. Whatever happened to basic research being done in the US? Today's PARC laboratory is not in the US, but appears is in China.
You see one interesting research project out of China and conclude the US is doomed? What about things like Photosynth, from University of Washington and Microsoft Research, both of which are in the US? Just look around here, or in the science and technology sections at Reddit, and you'll find plenty of stories about US basic research.
And someone griping in IRC that Miguel's article got posted while groklaw's extensive treatment on the same issue was passed over... Actually that was rather informative. Hardly makes them a loon, no?
The loony part is the part where he says Slashdot always takes the Microsoft side.