Oh, and the openoffice.org web site has not been moved under ASF custody yet. So a lot of material there is now obsolete, especially around licensing and code donations.
As someone else is mentioning, the Apache Contributor License Agreement is not a copyright transfer. It is a license only. Also, Oracle did not transfer the copyright on OO.o to the Apache Software Foundation - they licensed the OO.o code base to Apache in a way that allows Apache to release it and their derivatives under the Apache License.
Also, at the ASF forking is a feature. There is no problem with forks, even of the Apache Licensed version, so long as in that case the Apache License and applicable trademarks are honored.
I notice that most replies treat this like a software EULA, but there is no copyright involved here (unless of the instructions, packaging, etc.).
If the product is protected by a patent, there might actually be a legal basis for the license. Are there patent notices, patent-pending claims, anything like that on the device, the notice, or the packaging?
If not, I suppose the thing to do is get together with some chums, make one of your own, and pass around GPL'd instructions for others making theirs [;).
That's nice to hear. Thanks. I worked for Bob while he was Director of Software at Sperry Univac in the 60's. He was a lot of fun: kept calling me "Bub." I found him on the web prior to Y2K as the result of an article reporting that he was suggesting a repair that would not require people to remap existing records. (He wanted to pack the numbers tighter and buy some time.)
I exchanged e-mail with him a few times in the last few years, and I had a chance to acknowledge the inspiration he was for me while he was still around. I don't know that he was around here. When I last exchanged e-mail with him he was frustrated about what it took to maintain his web site. Your contact was more recent. What do you think?
I guess he was a geek at heart. I had produced a fast decimal-to-binary algorithm for a machine that didn't have a built-in converter but addressed in binary and calculated in decimal (makes subscripting hard). He was the only one of his organization that worked it over and took more cycles out of it, and then I took out more using his ideas. He thanked me for giving him a chance to play. He also worried about improving programming languages, establishing software forensics, and making software engineering an activity that exploited reusable piece parts, anticipating components by a good 30 years. He funded Peter Landin and Bill Burge's work on Functional Programming in the US. He also understood about small details, like character sets and escape techniques. With regard to his people, he didn't believe in burning out developers and he thought there was a lot of life to be had outside of the office. I'm pleased to learn that he was active to the end. I'll never forget him. -- Dennis E. Hamilton
Well yes, there was a Univac II and the first full-up transistorized (and core memory for RAM) model was called Univac III although it wasn't compatible. There was emulator software to help people convert Univac I/II programs to the Univac III.
The Univac III was roughly contemporaneous with the Univac 1107. There would be no Univac IV. The 1107 line continued long into the Unisys regime. The Univac III lacked a scalable architecture and died against the System/360 and movement to plug-compatible systems, including those acquired from RCA.
It seems to me that, at the superficial level of the Yahoo account, there is serious confusion between the idea of something (e.g., the Unix model) and the expression of something in code. The development of Unix established many ideas in an integrated way that has influenced operating-system designers ever since. Some of these ideas were not original with Unix, but their integration was a marvel. That has nothing to do with the intellectual property (copyright) in the code. Let's see if the forthcoming book is more accurate on that count or is simply poor scholarship through the blinders of a strongly-held prejudice.
Other than it reminds me how old I am, I don't understand why we are confusing the introduction of the IBM System/360 with the birth of the mainframe. The first commercial mainframe (Univac I) was shipped in 1951, as I recall, and IBM had already wised up and were building at least 3 of their own at the time. I met my first mainframe computer in 1958 and the first supercomputers were already abuilding. Writing programs in Fortran was the happening thing and what served as a "byte" was 6 bits.
Well, you sent me back to the text of the GPL, and I disagree. First, I think the advice of Bruce Perens concerning GPL versus LGPL should be applied here concerning. Even if the original authors of the work in question weren't thinking very hard about this case. The GPL text recommends that the owner of the copyright be contacted for any exceptions that you want to make. There might be an alternative license available. Nevertheless, the GPL does *not* restrict reference to a library. It doesn't mention it. It also states very specifically that "derivative" is to be interpreted in the sense established under copyright law. The term "inclusion" is used, but not "reference", and reference is not given any particular technical definition in the GPL itself. That's what I could find by reading it. Now, it is also the case that RHS and the Free Software Foundation *do* claim that reference constitutes derivation, but that is their interpretation. But it being clearly stated as a condition for exercise of the rights granted by the GPL, there's nothing so explicit as has been suggested here. I would encourage, as a practice, honoring that limiting interpretation, even though I don't think copyright law supports it, nor is the GPL so finely worded that this is a clear condition on permitted exercise of the GPL. -- Dennis E. Hamilton
Re:A better take on the Internet and the Church
on
Cybernauts Awake!
·
· Score: 1
I took the opportunity to follow the useful links here on what Brian Reid is up to these days and also look through the tract on The Church and the Internet (http://justus.anglican.org/resources/tracts/nc/). I found this an useful document. What I didn't find was any mention of Cybernauts Awake! It appears to me that the tract is written to stand on its own, to provide useful links to more information, and to invite people to consider their role and, as applicable, the relationship of their expression of spirituality in the context of the Internet. It may be that this tract resonates better with some techies, but I would not cast it as a response to Cybernatus Awake! nor do I have any sense of dispute in following the recommended links. Contribution yes, dispute no. -- Dennis E. Hamilton
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and the openoffice.org web site has not been moved under ASF custody yet. So a lot of material there is now obsolete, especially around licensing and code donations.
As someone else is mentioning, the Apache Contributor License Agreement is not a copyright transfer. It is a license only. Also, Oracle did not transfer the copyright on OO.o to the Apache Software Foundation - they licensed the OO.o code base to Apache in a way that allows Apache to release it and their derivatives under the Apache License.
Also, at the ASF forking is a feature. There is no problem with forks, even of the Apache Licensed version, so long as in that case the Apache License and applicable trademarks are honored.
I notice that most replies treat this like a software EULA, but there is no copyright involved here (unless of the instructions, packaging, etc.).
If the product is protected by a patent, there might actually be a legal basis for the license. Are there patent notices, patent-pending claims, anything like that on the device, the notice, or the packaging?
If not, I suppose the thing to do is get together with some chums, make one of your own, and pass around GPL'd instructions for others making theirs [;).
That's nice to hear. Thanks. I worked for Bob while he was Director of Software at Sperry Univac in the 60's. He was a lot of fun: kept calling me "Bub." I found him on the web prior to Y2K as the result of an article reporting that he was suggesting a repair that would not require people to remap existing records. (He wanted to pack the numbers tighter and buy some time.)
I exchanged e-mail with him a few times in the last few years, and I had a chance to acknowledge the inspiration he was for me while he was still around. I don't know that he was around here. When I last exchanged e-mail with him he was frustrated about what it took to maintain his web site. Your contact was more recent. What do you think?
I guess he was a geek at heart. I had produced a fast decimal-to-binary algorithm for a machine that didn't have a built-in converter but addressed in binary and calculated in decimal (makes subscripting hard). He was the only one of his organization that worked it over and took more cycles out of it, and then I took out more using his ideas. He thanked me for giving him a chance to play. He also worried about improving programming languages, establishing software forensics, and making software engineering an activity that exploited reusable piece parts, anticipating components by a good 30 years. He funded Peter Landin and Bill Burge's work on Functional Programming in the US. He also understood about small details, like character sets and escape techniques. With regard to his people, he didn't believe in burning out developers and he thought there was a lot of life to be had outside of the office. I'm pleased to learn that he was active to the end. I'll never forget him. -- Dennis E. Hamilton
Well yes, there was a Univac II and the first full-up transistorized (and core memory for RAM) model was called Univac III although it wasn't compatible. There was emulator software to help people convert Univac I/II programs to the Univac III.
The Univac III was roughly contemporaneous with the Univac 1107. There would be no Univac IV. The 1107 line continued long into the Unisys regime. The Univac III lacked a scalable architecture and died against the System/360 and movement to plug-compatible systems, including those acquired from RCA.
It seems to me that, at the superficial level of the Yahoo account, there is serious confusion between the idea of something (e.g., the Unix model) and the expression of something in code. The development of Unix established many ideas in an integrated way that has influenced operating-system designers ever since. Some of these ideas were not original with Unix, but their integration was a marvel. That has nothing to do with the intellectual property (copyright) in the code. Let's see if the forthcoming book is more accurate on that count or is simply poor scholarship through the blinders of a strongly-held prejudice.
Other than it reminds me how old I am, I don't understand why we are confusing the introduction of the IBM System/360 with the birth of the mainframe. The first commercial mainframe (Univac I) was shipped in 1951, as I recall, and IBM had already wised up and were building at least 3 of their own at the time. I met my first mainframe computer in 1958 and the first supercomputers were already abuilding. Writing programs in Fortran was the happening thing and what served as a "byte" was 6 bits.
Well, you sent me back to the text of the GPL, and I disagree. First, I think the advice of Bruce Perens concerning GPL versus LGPL should be applied here concerning. Even if the original authors of the work in question weren't thinking very hard about this case. The GPL text recommends that the owner of the copyright be contacted for any exceptions that you want to make. There might be an alternative license available. Nevertheless, the GPL does *not* restrict reference to a library. It doesn't mention it. It also states very specifically that "derivative" is to be interpreted in the sense established under copyright law. The term "inclusion" is used, but not "reference", and reference is not given any particular technical definition in the GPL itself. That's what I could find by reading it. Now, it is also the case that RHS and the Free Software Foundation *do* claim that reference constitutes derivation, but that is their interpretation. But it being clearly stated as a condition for exercise of the rights granted by the GPL, there's nothing so explicit as has been suggested here. I would encourage, as a practice, honoring that limiting interpretation, even though I don't think copyright law supports it, nor is the GPL so finely worded that this is a clear condition on permitted exercise of the GPL. -- Dennis E. Hamilton
I took the opportunity to follow the useful links here on what Brian Reid is up to these days and also look through the tract on The Church and the Internet (http://justus.anglican.org/resources/tracts/nc/). I found this an useful document. What I didn't find was any mention of Cybernauts Awake! It appears to me that the tract is written to stand on its own, to provide useful links to more information, and to invite people to consider their role and, as applicable, the relationship of their expression of spirituality in the context of the Internet. It may be that this tract resonates better with some techies, but I would not cast it as a response to Cybernatus Awake! nor do I have any sense of dispute in following the recommended links. Contribution yes, dispute no. -- Dennis E. Hamilton