If you follow the letter of the GPL no. Clause 4 says:
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
So if you keep using the same copy of that code later (even if you then comply with the GPL rules) you may not distribute that copy.
But you could ofcourse just ask (get from ftp a web site, etc.) a new fresh copy which does grant you those permission again:)
Maybe this is not done by default, or maybe it is not documented clearly enough but please always add the following line to your/etc/apt/sources.list:
deb http://security.debian.org/ potato/updates main
And run apt-get update && apt-get upgrade at least once a week. Then you will always have all the latest security fixes (such as for xchat and ntop this week).
Mixing (L)GPL and non GPL compatible code
on
IBM Releases SashXB
·
· Score: 3
As someone on Gnotices noted
http://news.gnome.org/gnome-news/96696453 2/ SashXB is under the LGPL, but it uses Mozilla and Xerces which are under the NPL/MPL and the Apache license. These licenses are not GPL compatible!
This might not be a direct problem for SashXB since it is under the LGPL but it might be a problem for pure GPL programs in GNOME that want to use parts of the libraries that it depends on.
Should GNOME really include parts that are not GPL compatible?
Add deb http://spidermonkey.helixcode.com/evolution/distri butions/Debian/./ to your/etc/apt/sources.list.
Do apt-get update
And apt-get install evolution
(Assuming you have already installed Helix Gnome. Just add deb http://spidermonkey.helixcode.com/distributions/de bian unstable main to sources.list otherwise.)
If you decide to port to MacOS X please try out GNUStep. That way you can keep your software free and run on MacOS X when it finally ships.
From www.gnustep.org: GNUstep provides an Object-Oriented application development framework and tool set for use on a wide variety of computer platforms. GNUstep is based on the original OpenStep specification provided by NeXT, Inc. (now Apple). GNUstep is becoming more and more stable every day and is used in a production environment by several companies.
Note that is also important to post the 'Cryptanalysis of Contents Scrambling System' of Frank A. Stevenson. So even if DeCSS binary itself would be ruled illegal then we would at least have the analysis of how this system works.
> There is nothing illegal with linking GPLed code to non-GPL libraries!
Linking is not the problem. The GPL does not restrict the use of code in any way. What it does restrict is distributing derived works based on the code. The complete derived work must be distributed under the terms of the GPL (or less restrictive terms) and that includes all parts that the program is based on. So that includes libraries.
> As the article states, people were writing GPLed software against the uber-proprietary Motif libraries for years. Emacs made system calls on non-free OSes.
There is a special exception in the GPL for making a work based on "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."
> There is nothing illegal about writing GPLed code which uses the Qt API and libraries.
Writing a derived work from GPLed and QPLed source is not the problem or illegal. The question is wheter distributing a derived work based on a GPLed application and a QPLed library is. The article seems to cleam that the distribution is legal, but that does not make it true.
Except for the special exceptions in the GPL for system components and the exceptions that normal copyright law makes for fair use the whole program is considered a derived work and should be distributed under terms that are not more restrictive then the GPL. Since when you make a derived work from GPLed (KDE program) code and QPLed (QT library) code the complete program cannot legally be distributed without violating the GPL.
> One keeps seeing this, and it is wrong. It is pure FUD spread by some zealots--GNOME users? GPL fanatics? who knows.
The reason you keep seeing it is because a lot of people (including the people that wrote the GPL!) think that is intent of the GPL. The above paragraph may seem like FUD spread by a zealot to you, but that doesn't make it not true. (It also doesn't make it true of course, but a lot of "GNOME users" and/or "GPL fanatics" seem to think it is true. And I think that if the GPL is ever tested in court it will be shown to be the correct legal interpretation.)
It is interesting how these big entertainment people always have the same kind of rant. Bast on two ideas I just don't agree with.
First - all property is property: <I>You own a home. You own a car. They're yours - they belong to you. They are your property. Well, your ideas belong to you, too. And "intellectual property" is property, period.</I>
And I just happen to disagree. I think that an idea cannot be owned. Period.
Second - an idea will disappear if not owned: <I>For the great ferment of works and ideas, including your own, if taken at will and without restraint, have no chance of surviving any better than did the buffalo.</I>
But nobody owns Debian GNU/Linux, Gnome or the new Linux-IA64 kernel. And they seem to survive very well.
I do agree that the internet and digital convergence are difficult concepts. And it is sometimes very difficult to make a living on an idea alone. But I don't think that the arguments the big entertainment industry makes are true. I have seen how the internet brings people together to freely create better processes, concepts, software code, procedures, designs, ideas and the very content that the big entertainment industry think they alone can create.
You are right that the modern version of the classic MacOS libraries (Carbon) libraries won't be available (yet?) on GNU/Linux. But don't forget that the new Cocoa library is just a modern variant of the NextStep/OpenStep libraries that are already available as GNUStep that is under active development.
They (Slashdot/Andover) don't own those posts. Slashdot is just like HotMail, A telephone company or a newsgroup. They host a discussion forum and they should not be responsible or interfere with the content.
What is interesting is what would happen when SlashCode finally has support for NNTP/Usenet news gateways. Then the Slashdot comments would also automagically appear on DejaNews and thousands of other news servers. Then it would be obvious why it is not the business of Slashdot/Andover to remove these postings.
This was already on Advogato yesterday. A lot of people got upset, there where some flame wars and everything was explained by the Mozilla developers in this article.
Since nothing really happend and the article above gives a trivial way to enable the preference. Why was this posted a day later on Slashdot anyway?
The discussion points out some interesting facts about why some individuals are listed as big contributers (such as the author of libtool. Duh.) and why some aren't listed at all. They even have some comments from the developers of the survey.
And I just love the comment of Havoc Pennington:
It shows me as a major contributor to "gnuclear" and nothing else - I don't even know what gnuclear is.;-)
The conclusion was that this is not like apt since apt figures out the (local) dependencies at the client and not the server. And even if it would be considered the same thing then apt/dpkg did have this functionaly long before Microsoft applied for the patent. Just look at the Changlog for dpkg-ftp.
I have a copy of the cp4break.zip but it doesn't contain the GPL in any file.
But it does say: "You are allowed to mirror this document and the related files anywhere you see fit." Which is what I am doing:)
There is one file -Unit1.pas- which does say "CPHack v0.1.0 by Eddy L O Jansson / Released under the GPL" although the GPL is not included in the package.
I don't see how or why this trick can be illegal. It might be that distributing the result of this trick to others may be illegal. But making a backup copy of the movie shouldn't be illegal. Or maybe someone wants to extract a small part of the movie to be used in a (critical) review about that movie. I think that should be fair use.
a "you are responsible for ensuring that people you distribute the software to comply with this license" clause
a "you must contact us if you distribute patches" clause
an unilateral-termination clause
a "you must adhere to U.S. law" clause
The 'ensure that others comply' and the 'Termination clause' seem very non-free, the others are only very annoying (especialy if you don't have easy internet access and live outside the US).
At work we suffered from the bug in old Sun JDKs (old is JDK 1.2.1 and JDK 1.3Beta which came out just a couple of months ago). Our applications all gave date ParseExceptions and we had to advance the clocks to March 1.
If you ever read the Masters of Reverse Engineering text file about The Truth about DVD CSS cracking by MoRE and [dEZZY/DoD] that came with DeCSS and that can be found on:
You can read the following very interesting statement:
Lately, Jon Johansen of MoRE has been pretty much all over the news in Norway, though he had NOTHING to do with the actual cracking of the DVD CSS protection. Yes, it was MoRE who did DeCSS, but the actual crack was not a team effort, MoRE didn't even exist back when the anonymous German (who is now a MoRE member) cracked it...
GNU Free Documentation License
on
GPL for Books?
·
· Score: 5
Miguel de Icaza's activity log has a link to the irc discussion that the author of gnap had with the people from Napster. I am not sure if this discussion took place before or after he received the letter.
I think that the Sun "community" source license is dangerous. It seems that the SCSL is a deliberate attempt at stopping the popularity of Free Software.
By providing developers with easy ways to get at their source but keeping complete control over what is happening with that source (don't try to fix a bug or add a feature and distribute your improvements to anybody unless you can pay lots of money to Sun for testing/compatability "support") they can stop any innovation that they don't want. But at the same time they have now legally prevented people from doing something simular since they have seen Suns "Intellectual Property".
I surely hope my employer doesn't think something like this is a "step in the right direction" and order me to look at the "Community" source code, because then they have effectively tight my (and their!) hands to improve on the ideas in any way that is a treat to Sun. If you accept the license terms that Sun dictates it will be very difficult to ever do anything (as Free Software or even proprietary software) without fear of having accepted Suns terms.
Please don't fall into this trap! Don't accept Sun source code because it is now easy to become part of their "community". You will later regret it if Sun sends laywers because you have seen source code that effectively belongs to Sun (and not to the community you thought you where part of).
Slashdot Mirror
Here is the copy that was send to the gcc mailing list: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2000-09/msg 00035.html.
This might not be a direct problem for SashXB since it is under the LGPL but it might be a problem for pure GPL programs in GNOME that want to use parts of the libraries that it depends on.
Should GNOME really include parts that are not GPL compatible?
Do apt-get update
And apt-get install evolution
(Assuming you have already installed Helix Gnome. Just add deb http://spidermonkey.helixcode.com/distributions/de bian unstable main to sources.list otherwise.)
Have Fun!
From www.gnustep.org:
GNUstep provides an Object-Oriented application development framework and tool set for use on a wide variety of computer platforms. GNUstep is based on the original OpenStep specification provided by NeXT, Inc. (now Apple). GNUstep is becoming more and more stable every day and is used in a production environment by several companies.
There is a:
The Press Release says: "Sun's open-sourcing of StarOffice Suite is the single largest open-source software contribution in GPL history"
So what was the largest Free Software contribution? The GNU project itself?
> There is nothing illegal with linking GPLed code to non-GPL libraries!
Linking is not the problem. The GPL does not restrict the use of code in any way. What it does restrict is distributing derived works based on the code. The complete derived work must be distributed under the terms of the GPL (or less restrictive terms) and that includes all parts that the program is based on. So that includes libraries.
> As the article states, people were writing GPLed software against the uber-proprietary Motif libraries for years. Emacs made system calls on non-free OSes.
There is a special exception in the GPL for making a work based on "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."
> There is nothing illegal about writing GPLed code which uses the Qt API and libraries.
Writing a derived work from GPLed and QPLed source is not the problem or illegal. The question is wheter distributing a derived work based on a GPLed application and a QPLed library is. The article seems to cleam that the distribution is legal, but that does not make it true.
Except for the special exceptions in the GPL for system components and the exceptions that normal copyright law makes for fair use the whole program is considered a derived work and should be distributed under terms that are not more restrictive then the GPL. Since when you make a derived work from GPLed (KDE program) code and QPLed (QT library) code the complete program cannot legally be distributed without violating the GPL.
> One keeps seeing this, and it is wrong. It is pure FUD spread by some zealots--GNOME users? GPL fanatics? who knows.
The reason you keep seeing it is because a lot of people (including the people that wrote the GPL!) think that is intent of the GPL. The above paragraph may seem like FUD spread by a zealot to you, but that doesn't make it not true.
(It also doesn't make it true of course, but a lot of "GNOME users" and/or "GPL fanatics" seem to think it is true. And I think that if the GPL is ever tested in court it will be shown to be the correct legal interpretation.)
It is interesting how these big entertainment people always have the same kind of rant. Bast on two ideas I just don't agree with.
First - all property is property:
<I>You own a home. You own a car. They're yours - they belong to you. They are your property. Well, your ideas belong to you, too. And "intellectual property" is property, period.</I>
And I just happen to disagree. I think that an idea cannot be owned. Period.
Second - an idea will disappear if not owned:
<I>For the great ferment of works and ideas, including your own, if taken at will and without restraint, have no chance of surviving any better than did the buffalo.</I>
But nobody owns Debian GNU/Linux, Gnome or the new Linux-IA64 kernel. And they seem to survive very well.
I do agree that the internet and digital convergence are difficult concepts. And it is sometimes very difficult to make a living on an idea alone. But I don't think that the arguments the big entertainment industry makes are true. I have seen how the internet brings people together to freely create better processes, concepts, software code, procedures, designs, ideas and the very content that the big entertainment industry think they alone can create.
You are right that the modern version of the classic MacOS libraries (Carbon) libraries won't be available (yet?) on GNU/Linux. But don't forget that the new Cocoa library is just a modern variant of the NextStep/OpenStep libraries that are already available as GNUStep that is under active development.
But should Slashdot/Andover do that?
They (Slashdot/Andover) don't own those posts.
Slashdot is just like HotMail, A telephone company or a newsgroup. They host a discussion forum and they should not be responsible or interfere with the content.
What is interesting is what would happen when SlashCode finally has support for NNTP/Usenet news gateways. Then the Slashdot comments would also automagically appear on DejaNews and thousands of other news servers. Then it would be obvious why it is not the business of Slashdot/Andover to remove these postings.
No, that is not obvious. Why would Slashdot/Andover remove posts they don't own?
Slashdot is just like a telephone company or a newsgroup. A discussion group.
Microsoft should ask the original owners of the posts to remove them. But not order Slashdot to remove them!
Since nothing really happend and the article above gives a trivial way to enable the preference. Why was this posted a day later on Slashdot anyway?
The discussion points out some interesting facts about why some individuals are listed as big contributers (such as the author of libtool. Duh.) and why some aren't listed at all. They even have some comments from the developers of the survey.
And I just love the comment of Havoc Pennington:
http://www.debia n.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0005/msg00000.h
The conclusion was that this is not like apt since apt figures out the (local) dependencies at the client and not the server. And even if it would be considered the same thing then apt/dpkg did have this functionaly long before Microsoft applied for the patent.
Just look at the Changlog for dpkg-ftp.
But it does say: "You are allowed to mirror this document and the related files anywhere you see fit." Which is what I am doing :)
There is one file -Unit1.pas- which does say "CPHack v0.1.0 by Eddy L O Jansson / Released under the GPL" although the GPL is not included in the package.
I don't see how or why this trick can be illegal. It might be that distributing the result of this trick to others may be illegal. But making a backup copy of the movie shouldn't be illegal. Or maybe someone wants to extract a small part of the movie to be used in a (critical) review about that movie. I think that should be fair use.
- a "you must monitor our web site" clause
- a "you are responsible for ensuring that people you distribute the software to comply with this license" clause
- a "you must contact us if you distribute patches" clause
- an unilateral-termination clause
- a "you must adhere to U.S. law" clause
The 'ensure that others comply' and the 'Termination clause' seem very non-free, the others are only very annoying (especialy if you don't have easy internet access and live outside the US).See: http://developer. java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4209272.html
This as almost what the LiViD people did.
Frank Stevenson wrote a Cryptanalysis of the Content Scrambling System which can be found on:
crypto.gq.nu
It might be a good idea to mirror his paper also for such a documentation project. (It seems to be far more important then the actual DeCSS source.)
If you ever read the Masters of Reverse Engineering text file about The Truth about DVD CSS cracking by MoRE and [dEZZY/DoD] that came with DeCSS and that can be found on:
www.lemuria.org/DeCSS/dvdtruth.txt
You can read the following very interesting statement:
Lately, Jon Johansen of MoRE has been pretty much all over the news in Norway, though he had NOTHING to do with the actual cracking of the DVD CSS protection. Yes, it was MoRE who did DeCSS, but the actual crack was not a team effort, MoRE didn't even exist back when the anonymous German (who is now a MoRE member) cracked it...
Richard Stallman is drafting a GNU Free Documentation License as can be read in the Debian Legal mailinglist archive:t ml.
t ml.
http://www.debia n.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0001/msg00077.h
You might want to read the whole thread about Updating the OpenContent license which starts at:
http://www.debia n.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0001/msg00064.h
Miguel de Icaza's activity log has a link to the irc discussion that the author of gnap had with the people from Napster. I am not sure if this discussion took place before or after he received the letter.
I think that the Sun "community" source license is dangerous. It seems that the SCSL is a deliberate attempt at stopping the popularity of Free Software.
By providing developers with easy ways to get at their source but keeping complete control over what is happening with that source (don't try to fix a bug or add a feature and distribute your improvements to anybody unless you can pay lots of money to Sun for testing/compatability "support") they can stop any innovation that they don't want. But at the same time they have now legally prevented people from doing something simular since they have seen Suns "Intellectual Property".
I surely hope my employer doesn't think something like this is a "step in the right direction" and order me to look at the "Community" source code, because then they have effectively tight my (and their!) hands to improve on the ideas in any way that is a treat to Sun. If you accept the license terms that Sun dictates it will be very difficult to ever do anything (as Free Software or even proprietary software) without fear of having accepted Suns terms.
Please don't fall into this trap! Don't accept Sun source code because it is now easy to become part of their "community". You will later regret it if Sun sends laywers because you have seen source code that effectively belongs to Sun (and not to the community you thought you where part of).