Inevitable? I don't think so. There are some pretty big companies out there that are privately held, e.g. DHL. Whether Google IPOs is going to depend on the people involved and what they want. And even if Schmidt really is in favor of the idea, it's still possible that he'll get ousted before any such move occurs.
No, the weather is driven by solar energy. When the sun runs down, weather stops. It's no more a perpetual motion machine than a battery-operated car is - it just has a "battery" that's going to last a good long time.:)
qmail is open source. The source is open for all to see. It's not Free Software.
Qmail is free. The source is free for all to see. It's not Open Source.
Both those statements are true. Informally, you can say that qmail is free and open source - it costs no money, and you get access to the source. Formally, though, it's neither Free nor Open Source - it violates the Free Software Foundation's definition of Free Software, and the Open Source Initiative's definition of Open Source.
But I think it's extremely disingenuous to mix and match the formal and informal definitions like you did. The fact is that the qmail license is extremely annoying, and doesn't accomplish what its author wants (because patching and compiling are easily scriptable). But in practical terms, it is pretty close to being Free/Open Source. If you want to say that licensing isn't necessarily just black-and-white, and that qmail's license is a light shade of grey at worst, I'd agree.
Then again, being both Free and Open doesn't seem to help Sendmail in being bugfree. So much for all bugs are shallow...
Yes, well, absolutely. No Silver Bullets and all. But qmail is as free and open as it is for good reason too. The qmail vs sendmail comparison clearly shows that design remains an important element of software development. But all that "better methodology" stuff comes from the Open Source folks - you're actually quoting OSI founder ESR. The Free Software folks just think Free is morally superior - which, in my opinion, is a matter of opinion, and not subject to formal debate, whether you agree or disagree.
No, it's not. In fact, I know several people who find this usage really irritating.
Which proves nothing expect, possibly, that you have some really anal-retentive friends.
It is a common usage
If it's common enough, then it is by definition correct. In fact, it was considered completely acceptable and formally correct up until about the middle of the 1800s, when some misguided grammarians decided that English needed to be more Latinized. That's also when split infinitives were declared incorrect by fiat. However, more recent linguistic theory says that English is defined by how it's actually used, not by how some other, unrelated language is defined. Thus, split infinitives are once again acceptable (though with a caution flag, as they easily become awkward), and "them" as an ungendered singular non-dehumanizing pronoun is a fait accompli, and is not incorrect.
On the other hand, over a century of deprecation has caused "them" to look awkward in such uses, and has managed to drive it out of most formal writing, so it is reasonable to call it "colloquial". Only time will tell if it ever regains its former glory as a fully acceptable term in this context. For now, one should avoid singular-them in formal writing, but people who are bothered by it are probably going to have to learn to live with it, as a century+ of brutal suppression has not made it go away. And there's a strong contingent of Jane Austin fans (among others) who are actively lobbying for its return to acceptability.
Sure, it may solve your problem, but there are plenty of people out there who cannot use whitelisting. No business can afford to annoy or obstruct potential customers. Otherwise, they'll never turn into actual customers. Even free software developers are going to be pretty reluctant to put obstacles between themselves and their users - as a Debian developer, I've considered trying whitelists, but I get too many mails from newbies who need help, and I'm not willing to put barriers in the way of those who are most likely to be unable to get past those barriers.
I don't see why so many people at/. cheer Gov't getting involved in the spam problem.
Maybe because we're not all paranoid anti-government freaks? I cheer when anyone helps in the fight against spam!
Before we cheer legal solutions (which will have their fair share of downsides) maybe more people should take technological measures.
We've been working on technological solutions for a decade and a half, and the problem is worse now than when we started. And many of the more drastic technological solutions that have been proposed have pretty serious downsides too. And, unless you're the type who goes around with a tinfoil hat all day, you have to admit that sensible legal solutions are possible. Not necessarily likely, but definitely possible.
So, assuming that I don't buy the thesis that "any government involvement in anything is evil" (which I don't), what reason do I have to object to this law?
Technically, this will involve very little suing of actual spammers. What this will involve is going after the spammer's customers - those businesses that are foolish enough to purchase spamming services. The thing is that spamming doesn't make you any money directly. You have to find someone willing to pay you to spam for them. And, while it's pretty easy to set up a spam box somewhere offshore, it's not so easy to set up an entire penis-enlargement firm or "herbal viagra" firm offshore, especially if you still want to do business in the US. So, if the people actually trying to sell products find themselves at legal risk, they're much less likely to avail themselves of a spammer's services, even if the spammer has minimized his own legal risks.
Shouldn't the survey have been sent out to 400 randomly chosen developers?
No, it was a survey of Linux developers. Sending it to randomly chosen developers would be like trying to find out what women think by asking men! (Or by asking slashdot.):)
I mean, they (seem to me to) have a virtual monopoly on the business router market
Nothing virtual about it, the courts have ruled that they have a genuine, honest monopoly. However, there's nothing illegal about having a monopoly; what's illegal is abusing that monopoly, and so far, Cisco hasn't (or at least, not in any major way).
and are now seem to be trying to extend it to the consumer market.
It's always a matter of concern when a company with a monopoly moves into a new, related market, as that's where the greatest opportunities for abuse of the monopoly exist. I hope that the Justice Dept. will be watching this move closely. On the other hand, it's seems pretty unlikely that Cisco will do something like modifying Linksys equip to only talk to Cisco equip. They could, and that would definitely qualify as anti-competitive behavior IMO, but it doesn't seem to be their style, in general.
What do you guys think of Cisco, as a corporation?
In general, they seem remarkably sane to me. Success in the business world so often seems to require a dangerous degree of megalomania, paranoia, and sociopathy, but Cisco seems to have done pretty well without, to date.
This move scares me a little, because it seems to have serious opportunity for abuse, but Cisco's past record is pretty reassuring. I think this is something we should be concerned about, but I don't think we have any reason to actually worry. Yet. Time will tell.
Let me see if I understand this. Let's say, hypothetically, that one were to link to a GPL-licensed library without fully understanding all the obligations that the GPL placed on one. You're saying that there is no requirement whatsoever that this individual place his program under the GPL. He has the option, you're saying, of simply rejecting the GPL, in which case he becomes guilty of copyright infringement.
Exactly. Furthermore, this happens quite frequently, and most companies that find themselves in this situation choose to remedy the situation by fixing the copyright violation! I've been involved in a case like this myself -- and yes, dealing with it as infringement was by far the preferable option. It helped that the copyright holder was a nice guy, and simply asked us to stop using the code, but even if he'd tried to sue us to recover damages, we would much rather have paid a reasonable amount than GPL our whole product.
The other case, where the company decides to go ahead and GPL their derivate work is extremely rare, and usually makes slashdot headlines.
Let me say that again: most cases that involve the improper use of GPL'd code are dealt with as copyright violation cases!
If you think the GPL is the greatest thing...
I don't think it's the greatest thing or the worst thing. I simply think it's a thing. An interesting thing, but not always an appropriate thing. However, I reiterate that I've never (before) seen anyone call the GPL "viral" who wasn't trying to prove that it was evil.
Of course, as you so helpfully pointed out, you're under no obligation. You could simply ignore the GPL and choose to break the law instead. That was very helpful, thanks.
I would hope that it would be helpful -- most people/companies who find themselves in that situation find it extremely helpful! You can wax sarcastic all you like, but most companies would much rather deal with a small violation of civil law than give away all their code. Especially given the extreme likelihood that the violatee will be more concerned with stopping the violation than with damages.
> There is no way to accidentally create a derivative work.
Bullshit. I've been involved with a company that did it; you are completely wrong about this.
I'm sorry, I was unclear. It is obviously possible to accidentally get involved in a GPL conflict. I've done that too. But it is not possible to accidentally create a derivate work of any code, no matter what. Code doesn't write itself. So, if you're using someone else's code, that's a deliberate act, and if you do so without understanding the terms under which you are or aren't allowed to use that code, then that's an act of stupidity. (Speaking from experience here.) Doesn't matter if it's GPL'd or not, if you're going to use someone else's code, you'd better know what the terms are.
My program is not a derivative work of the Readline library;
Oh piffle. If your work is not a derivative work, then the GPL is irrelevent, and you can ignore it. The GPL only has power over you through the application of copyright law. If you're not potentially violating copyright, then the GPL is of no concern to you.
On the other hand, if your program is a derivative work (which seems a more plausible interpretation of copyright law to me, though IANAL), then your argument that libraries should be special because code that uses the libraries doesn't constitute a derivative work is, quite simply, wrong.
Those options are exclusive, you can't argue both at once.
Now, if the API is not exclusive to a particular implementation of a library (as, for example, the readline API, now that there is a bsd-licensed version of readline out there), then you can build against the version of the library whose license you prefer, and that's the license that will apply, even if one of your customers replaces the bsd-readline with the API-compatible original gpl'd-readline library. But that's another matter.
If you link your program with a GPL-licensed library, then the GPL attaches itself to your program.
Once again you have it backwards: if you want to make a GPL'd program, then you should feel free to link against a GPL'd library. If you didn't want to make a GPL'd program, then you shouldn't have been using GPL'd code!
Furthermore, the GPL in no way "attaches itself to your code!" If you don't comply with the license of the code you've linked to, then you have a simple case of copyright violation. There is absolutely no requirement that you GPL your code, if you "accidentally" link with GPL'd code. That's just the only way you can get a free defense against a copyright infringement suit. If you don't want to GPL your derivative work, then you don't have to -- you simply have to deal with the fact that you made a mistake, and used code you had no legal right to use. You deal with it the same way you would if you'd used code you found on a tape somewhere that you later discovered was the proprietary work of XYZ corp.
And with libraries, the GPL is only an issue if the only library that provides the API you use is GPL'd -- in which case, your intent to create a derivative work is pretty clear. In the case of readline, for example, there are now other versions of the library that are API-compatible, so merely linking with readline would not constitute making a derivative work, as long as you stick to the common API.
Nobody in this thread wants to have a "GPL sucks/GPL rocks" debate.
Ok, fair enough. I've never seen someone argue that the GPL was viral who wasn't trying to prove that there was something wrong with it before, but I'm willing to concede that you may be the first.
So, back to the genetic analogy. You cannot get "infected" with the GPL unless you deliberately "infect" yourself. There is no way to accidentally create a derivative work. Calling the GPL "viral" is like injecting plasmids into a cell and then claiming that the plasmids are "viral" because there's new genetic material in the cell now. It's just plain ridiculous.
Here's a quick quiz for you. Is there any possible relationship between the fact that the GPL only grants permission to do things you could not do by default, which I reluded to in my earlier post, and the fact that calling the GPL viral is preposterous?
I tell you what: I'll post some of the code I've written over the last 20+ years, without any license, and you can just use that in one of your projects, and I'll sue you for copyright infringement, and then you can explain to me how the GPL is so much worse.
The whole "if I use GPL'd code, then I have to GPL my derivate work, so it's viral" argument is completely specious. it's precisely backwards. If you want to GPL your derivate work, then you can use someone else's GPL'd code in your work. Otherwise, DON'T USE IT! It's really that simple!
Of course, given your nick, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you start with a faulty premise and derive ridiculous conclusions from it. Original Twirlip: "Given that humans are six-limbed, it therefore follows that..."; new Twirlip: "given that the GPL is viral, it therefore follows that..."
First of all, "genetic" is not a good word to describe something that affects derivative works.
No, you're right. The best term for something like that is "copyright law". And indeed, if there's anything "viral" around here, it's copyright law.
Here's a quick quiz for you. What's the difference between GPL'd code and unlicensed code? (I.e. just some random code of mine I posted on a web site, with no license information.) What happens if you take the unlicensed code and use it in your project without permission? For bonus points, explain why it's so much better to not be able to use something at all than only to be able to use something under certain limited conditions. (I threw that last in because it seems to be what you've been trying (and failing) to explain for the last several posts.)
Soooo, let me see if I get this right - your argument is basically that the GPL is not viral so long as I don't use GPL code the way it's supposed to be used?
What do you mean, "the way it's supposed to be used?" The purpose of emacs or gcc is to edit text or compile source code, respectively.
Taking someone else's code and sticking it in your project is by default illegal! If Oracle were to post their entire code base on the web, but omitted any license, you would be breaking the law if you took some of that code and stuck it in your project. If you don't like that, negotiate terms with Oracle.
How is the GPL different? Well, the GPL gives you permission to take some of the code and use it in your project under certain conditions. (Those conditions are, of course, that you release your derivative work under the same terms.) How is that viral? It's giving you permission to do something you wouldn't otherwise be allowed to do. It's not giving you carte blanche to do anything you want to do, but it's permission to do more that you ordinarily could not, by default. What's viral about that? Hell, if that isn't good enough for you, you can try to negotiate terms with the copyright holder, so you're no worse off than you were with the Oracle code.
Sheesh, this whole "GPL is viral" thing is as stupid as anything coming out of the "information wants to be free; so copyrights want to be violated" crowd.
The GPL, on the other hand, spreads. If you link GPL-licensed code in with your project, poof! Your project is now GPL-licensed as well, for better or for worse. Some people will argue it's better, some worse, but all agree that it's viral.
No, you're simply wrong. I'll ignore the better/worse argument, and simply focus on the part where you are incredibly wrong. To Wit: acceptance of the GPL is always entirely voluntary! If you link GPL-licensed code in with your project, then your code is NOT GPL'd unless you choose to make it that way. The catch, of course, is that if you don't make it GPL'd, then the rights granted to you to use that code disappear, and you're guilty of copyright violation. But if you prefer that (and some people have), then that is all that happens, and you merely have to address the issue: remove the copyrighted code which you did not have the right to use, make reparations to the copyright owner if necessary, then replace the copyrighted code with your own code, and go on your merry way.
It's really no different than using any other copyrighted code you might stumble across, without permission from the copyright owner. The only thing that makes it seem different is that there is an optional out, if you want: make the whole work GPL'd, thereby gaining the implicit permission to use the code granted by the GPL.
The junk fax laws haven't been 100% either. But it would certainly result in a huge reduction in spam.
A lot of my spam already comes from overseas. Either someone has found an open relay in Asia
Which is irrelevent; a red herring. If a junk fax is sent from a company with a business presence in the US, that company can be sued, even if they actually sent the junk fax from their Tokyo offices. Granted, they wouldn't because of long-distance charges, but the point is that if they did it still wouldn't help 'em.
or the spammers themselves are international.
That's more of a problem, but as I said above, if the company has a US presence, then they can be held liable in US courts. So we'd be limiting spam to companies which are entirely outside the US. And since most spam comes from the US (whether or not it's bounced off of asian relays - something they do only because asia has more open relays), and anti-spam law could cause a huge reduction in spam.
Note that I'm not advocating that we only use a legal approach here. I simply think it's a good idea to use a multipronged attack.
Obviously anti-spam laws aren't going to stop people who are already breaking the law (frauds and scams), but it will kill the business of the professional spammers (who lure small companies into believing that spam will earn them tons of money), and that can be nothing but a Good Thing. The amateurs aren't anywhere near as good at disguising the origin of the spam, or devising ways around filters and blocks.
Junk mail is paid for by the sender; spam, like junk faxes, is paid for by the receiver (directly or indirectly, though higher ISP bills). This is why junk faxes were made illegal, and its why spamming should be illegal.
I'm always glad to see junk mail, because I know it means that someone out there is helping to fund the post office, and making it cheaper for me when I want to send snail-mail myself. I'm furious as hell when I see spam, because I know it means that someone out there is costing my ISP money, making it more expensive for me to be able to send email.
You had it lucky. Where I was stationed, we didn't have any newfangled interactive terminals. We had to punch our URLs onto cards and mail them to headquarters
No joke, many years back, I worked for a company that had an Internet e-mail gateway, but no other Internet access, and I discovered a service that you could use: you email them an URL, and they email you back a copy of the web page.
Of course, "clicking" on a link was a non-trivial process with this sort of "browser", but I actually found it useful once or twice....
1."Make spam illegal out right." Problem: OK, this is a bit extreme.
Why is it extreme? Junk faxes were made illegal, and the justification for that (cost to receiver, not sender) is just as valid for spam.
Even if you did manage to do that, companies from outside the US
Companies from outside the US are still subject to US laws and regulations if they do business in the US. And if they don't do business in the US, then it would be pretty silly of them to advertise to people in the US.
or companies/people can hide where the e-mails are coming from
Who cares where it's coming from? If a company sends you a junk fax, you can sue them. The location of the fax machine has no bearing on the matter. They can have the fax machine located in the Bahamas, but if they're a US company (or do business in the US), they will still be just as liable. Why should it be any different for spam?
Or do you think companies will send you messages saying, "Hi, would you like to buy a penis enlarger? Well, I'd love to sell you one, but I can't, because if I told you where to send the money, then you'd know how to sue me, so I guess you'll just have to go on living with your small penis"? I'll grant you that it might be pretty hard to track down the sender of a message like that, but somehow, I doubt that very many people, no matter how evil, would feel motivated to send such a silly message.:)
after all, you're already indenting your code properly, right?
No, I'm not. My editor does a fine job of keeping track of such tedious details for me. (At least when I'm working in C/C++/Java/Perl/Tcl/Lisp/etc.) Of course, my editor also does a fairly good job of handling proper indentation for python too; in effect, I use TAB and BS as my block delimiters, and it all mostly just works.
Basically, with C/Perl/whatever, if my indenting is messed up, then I know my block delimiters are messed up somewhere, so I look, and fix the problem. With python, if my indenting is messed up, then I know my indenting is messed up somewhere, so I look and fix the problem. It can be a little more tedious to fix in python sometimes, since the editor can't just automatically re-indent the section properly, but most of the time (say, 99.9%), it's just a matter of sliding a chuck of code left or right, which is no problem.
What I think it boils down to is: if you're using decent tools, python is really neither better nor worse (as far as the whole indent/whitespace matter is concerned) -- merely different. As with many technical matters, this one is given far too much importance both by python's fans and its detractors.
with no explicit block delimiters in the language, you can no longer use % to jump betwen block start/endpoints in vi.
Yup. Although I'd like to say that anyone using vi for programming should be beaten severely until they switch to vim!:)
And conversely, Windows is only <whatever the sticker price happens to be> if your time has no value. Both systems have costs above and beyond the purchase price, not just Linux. And going from Win95 to XP would involve retraining as well. Things change -- I've still got a copy of MSWord 1.0 (for DOS and OS/2), and it bears little or no resemblance to the MSWord of today.
There are a lot of people involved in KDE and Gnome, not just Havoc and Waldo. I'm sure that some of them have or will be looking at XP. Surely there's no need for every single developer in both projects to go off and buy, install and test a system they have no plans to use on a regular basis.
As MS likes to remind us (foolishly, since they lose by this measure), maintenance and admin costs have to be considered too. I used to have a dual-boot system, and after a year, I'd had constant problems with Windows, and had been forced to reinstall 5 times, while Linux had worked flawlessly the entire time. So I dumped the Windows partition and bought myself a Playstation (and a copy of GTA, to keep this oh-so-vaguely on topic:).
Slashdot Mirror
A Google IPO is inevitable
Inevitable? I don't think so. There are some pretty big companies out there that are privately held, e.g. DHL. Whether Google IPOs is going to depend on the people involved and what they want. And even if Schmidt really is in favor of the idea, it's still possible that he'll get ousted before any such move occurs.
Isn't weather kind of a perpetual motion machine?
:)
No, the weather is driven by solar energy. When the sun runs down, weather stops. It's no more a perpetual motion machine than a battery-operated car is - it just has a "battery" that's going to last a good long time.
qmail is open source. The source is open for all to see. It's not Free Software.
Qmail is free. The source is free for all to see. It's not Open Source.
Both those statements are true. Informally, you can say that qmail is free and open source - it costs no money, and you get access to the source. Formally, though, it's neither Free nor Open Source - it violates the Free Software Foundation's definition of Free Software, and the Open Source Initiative's definition of Open Source.
But I think it's extremely disingenuous to mix and match the formal and informal definitions like you did. The fact is that the qmail license is extremely annoying, and doesn't accomplish what its author wants (because patching and compiling are easily scriptable). But in practical terms, it is pretty close to being Free/Open Source. If you want to say that licensing isn't necessarily just black-and-white, and that qmail's license is a light shade of grey at worst, I'd agree.
Then again, being both Free and Open doesn't seem to help Sendmail in being bugfree. So much for all bugs are shallow...
Yes, well, absolutely. No Silver Bullets and all. But qmail is as free and open as it is for good reason too. The qmail vs sendmail comparison clearly shows that design remains an important element of software development. But all that "better methodology" stuff comes from the Open Source folks - you're actually quoting OSI founder ESR. The Free Software folks just think Free is morally superior - which, in my opinion, is a matter of opinion, and not subject to formal debate, whether you agree or disagree.
No, it's not. In fact, I know several people who find this usage really irritating.
Which proves nothing expect, possibly, that you have some really anal-retentive friends.
It is a common usage
If it's common enough, then it is by definition correct. In fact, it was considered completely acceptable and formally correct up until about the middle of the 1800s, when some misguided grammarians decided that English needed to be more Latinized. That's also when split infinitives were declared incorrect by fiat. However, more recent linguistic theory says that English is defined by how it's actually used, not by how some other, unrelated language is defined. Thus, split infinitives are once again acceptable (though with a caution flag, as they easily become awkward), and "them" as an ungendered singular non-dehumanizing pronoun is a fait accompli, and is not incorrect.
On the other hand, over a century of deprecation has caused "them" to look awkward in such uses, and has managed to drive it out of most formal writing, so it is reasonable to call it "colloquial". Only time will tell if it ever regains its former glory as a fully acceptable term in this context. For now, one should avoid singular-them in formal writing, but people who are bothered by it are probably going to have to learn to live with it, as a century+ of brutal suppression has not made it go away. And there's a strong contingent of Jane Austin fans (among others) who are actively lobbying for its return to acceptability.
Sure, it may solve your problem, but there are plenty of people out there who cannot use whitelisting. No business can afford to annoy or obstruct potential customers. Otherwise, they'll never turn into actual customers. Even free software developers are going to be pretty reluctant to put obstacles between themselves and their users - as a Debian developer, I've considered trying whitelists, but I get too many mails from newbies who need help, and I'm not willing to put barriers in the way of those who are most likely to be unable to get past those barriers.
I don't see why so many people at /. cheer Gov't getting involved in the spam problem.
Maybe because we're not all paranoid anti-government freaks? I cheer when anyone helps in the fight against spam!
Before we cheer legal solutions (which will have their fair share of downsides) maybe more people should take technological measures.
We've been working on technological solutions for a decade and a half, and the problem is worse now than when we started. And many of the more drastic technological solutions that have been proposed have pretty serious downsides too. And, unless you're the type who goes around with a tinfoil hat all day, you have to admit that sensible legal solutions are possible. Not necessarily likely, but definitely possible.
So, assuming that I don't buy the thesis that "any government involvement in anything is evil" (which I don't), what reason do I have to object to this law?
Technically, this will involve very little suing of actual spammers. What this will involve is going after the spammer's customers - those businesses that are foolish enough to purchase spamming services. The thing is that spamming doesn't make you any money directly. You have to find someone willing to pay you to spam for them. And, while it's pretty easy to set up a spam box somewhere offshore, it's not so easy to set up an entire penis-enlargement firm or "herbal viagra" firm offshore, especially if you still want to do business in the US. So, if the people actually trying to sell products find themselves at legal risk, they're much less likely to avail themselves of a spammer's services, even if the spammer has minimized his own legal risks.
Shouldn't the survey have been sent out to 400 randomly chosen developers?
:)
No, it was a survey of Linux developers. Sending it to randomly chosen developers would be like trying to find out what women think by asking men! (Or by asking slashdot.)
I mean, they (seem to me to) have a virtual monopoly on the business router market
Nothing virtual about it, the courts have ruled that they have a genuine, honest monopoly. However, there's nothing illegal about having a monopoly; what's illegal is abusing that monopoly, and so far, Cisco hasn't (or at least, not in any major way).
and are now seem to be trying to extend it to the consumer market.
It's always a matter of concern when a company with a monopoly moves into a new, related market, as that's where the greatest opportunities for abuse of the monopoly exist. I hope that the Justice Dept. will be watching this move closely. On the other hand, it's seems pretty unlikely that Cisco will do something like modifying Linksys equip to only talk to Cisco equip. They could, and that would definitely qualify as anti-competitive behavior IMO, but it doesn't seem to be their style, in general.
What do you guys think of Cisco, as a corporation?
In general, they seem remarkably sane to me. Success in the business world so often seems to require a dangerous degree of megalomania, paranoia, and sociopathy, but Cisco seems to have done pretty well without, to date.
This move scares me a little, because it seems to have serious opportunity for abuse, but Cisco's past record is pretty reassuring. I think this is something we should be concerned about, but I don't think we have any reason to actually worry. Yet. Time will tell.
Let me see if I understand this. Let's say, hypothetically, that one were to link to a GPL-licensed library without fully understanding all the obligations that the GPL placed on one. You're saying that there is no requirement whatsoever that this individual place his program under the GPL. He has the option, you're saying, of simply rejecting the GPL, in which case he becomes guilty of copyright infringement.
Exactly. Furthermore, this happens quite frequently, and most companies that find themselves in this situation choose to remedy the situation by fixing the copyright violation! I've been involved in a case like this myself -- and yes, dealing with it as infringement was by far the preferable option. It helped that the copyright holder was a nice guy, and simply asked us to stop using the code, but even if he'd tried to sue us to recover damages, we would much rather have paid a reasonable amount than GPL our whole product.
The other case, where the company decides to go ahead and GPL their derivate work is extremely rare, and usually makes slashdot headlines.
Let me say that again: most cases that involve the improper use of GPL'd code are dealt with as copyright violation cases!
If you think the GPL is the greatest thing...
I don't think it's the greatest thing or the worst thing. I simply think it's a thing. An interesting thing, but not always an appropriate thing. However, I reiterate that I've never (before) seen anyone call the GPL "viral" who wasn't trying to prove that it was evil.
Of course, as you so helpfully pointed out, you're under no obligation. You could simply ignore the GPL and choose to break the law instead. That was very helpful, thanks.
I would hope that it would be helpful -- most people/companies who find themselves in that situation find it extremely helpful! You can wax sarcastic all you like, but most companies would much rather deal with a small violation of civil law than give away all their code. Especially given the extreme likelihood that the violatee will be more concerned with stopping the violation than with damages.
> There is no way to accidentally create a derivative work.
Bullshit. I've been involved with a company that did it; you are completely wrong about this.
I'm sorry, I was unclear. It is obviously possible to accidentally get involved in a GPL conflict. I've done that too. But it is not possible to accidentally create a derivate work of any code, no matter what. Code doesn't write itself. So, if you're using someone else's code, that's a deliberate act, and if you do so without understanding the terms under which you are or aren't allowed to use that code, then that's an act of stupidity. (Speaking from experience here.) Doesn't matter if it's GPL'd or not, if you're going to use someone else's code, you'd better know what the terms are.
My program is not a derivative work of the Readline library;
Oh piffle. If your work is not a derivative work, then the GPL is irrelevent, and you can ignore it. The GPL only has power over you through the application of copyright law. If you're not potentially violating copyright, then the GPL is of no concern to you.
On the other hand, if your program is a derivative work (which seems a more plausible interpretation of copyright law to me, though IANAL), then your argument that libraries should be special because code that uses the libraries doesn't constitute a derivative work is, quite simply, wrong.
Those options are exclusive, you can't argue both at once.
Now, if the API is not exclusive to a particular implementation of a library (as, for example, the readline API, now that there is a bsd-licensed version of readline out there), then you can build against the version of the library whose license you prefer, and that's the license that will apply, even if one of your customers replaces the bsd-readline with the API-compatible original gpl'd-readline library. But that's another matter.
If you link your program with a GPL-licensed library, then the GPL attaches itself to your program.
Once again you have it backwards: if you want to make a GPL'd program, then you should feel free to link against a GPL'd library. If you didn't want to make a GPL'd program, then you shouldn't have been using GPL'd code!
Furthermore, the GPL in no way "attaches itself to your code!" If you don't comply with the license of the code you've linked to, then you have a simple case of copyright violation. There is absolutely no requirement that you GPL your code, if you "accidentally" link with GPL'd code. That's just the only way you can get a free defense against a copyright infringement suit. If you don't want to GPL your derivative work, then you don't have to -- you simply have to deal with the fact that you made a mistake, and used code you had no legal right to use. You deal with it the same way you would if you'd used code you found on a tape somewhere that you later discovered was the proprietary work of XYZ corp.
And with libraries, the GPL is only an issue if the only library that provides the API you use is GPL'd -- in which case, your intent to create a derivative work is pretty clear. In the case of readline, for example, there are now other versions of the library that are API-compatible, so merely linking with readline would not constitute making a derivative work, as long as you stick to the common API.
Nobody in this thread wants to have a "GPL sucks/GPL rocks" debate.
Ok, fair enough. I've never seen someone argue that the GPL was viral who wasn't trying to prove that there was something wrong with it before, but I'm willing to concede that you may be the first.
So, back to the genetic analogy. You cannot get "infected" with the GPL unless you deliberately "infect" yourself. There is no way to accidentally create a derivative work. Calling the GPL "viral" is like injecting plasmids into a cell and then claiming that the plasmids are "viral" because there's new genetic material in the cell now. It's just plain ridiculous.
Here's a quick quiz for you. Is there any possible relationship between the fact that the GPL only grants permission to do things you could not do by default, which I reluded to in my earlier post, and the fact that calling the GPL viral is preposterous?
I tell you what: I'll post some of the code I've written over the last 20+ years, without any license, and you can just use that in one of your projects, and I'll sue you for copyright infringement, and then you can explain to me how the GPL is so much worse.
The whole "if I use GPL'd code, then I have to GPL my derivate work, so it's viral" argument is completely specious. it's precisely backwards. If you want to GPL your derivate work, then you can use someone else's GPL'd code in your work. Otherwise, DON'T USE IT! It's really that simple!
Of course, given your nick, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you start with a faulty premise and derive ridiculous conclusions from it. Original Twirlip: "Given that humans are six-limbed, it therefore follows that..."; new Twirlip: "given that the GPL is viral, it therefore follows that..."
First of all, "genetic" is not a good word to describe something that affects derivative works.
No, you're right. The best term for something like that is "copyright law". And indeed, if there's anything "viral" around here, it's copyright law.
Here's a quick quiz for you. What's the difference between GPL'd code and unlicensed code? (I.e. just some random code of mine I posted on a web site, with no license information.) What happens if you take the unlicensed code and use it in your project without permission? For bonus points, explain why it's so much better to not be able to use something at all than only to be able to use something under certain limited conditions. (I threw that last in because it seems to be what you've been trying (and failing) to explain for the last several posts.)
Soooo, let me see if I get this right - your argument is basically that the GPL is not viral so long as I don't use GPL code the way it's supposed to be used?
What do you mean, "the way it's supposed to be used?" The purpose of emacs or gcc is to edit text or compile source code, respectively.
Taking someone else's code and sticking it in your project is by default illegal! If Oracle were to post their entire code base on the web, but omitted any license, you would be breaking the law if you took some of that code and stuck it in your project. If you don't like that, negotiate terms with Oracle.
How is the GPL different? Well, the GPL gives you permission to take some of the code and use it in your project under certain conditions. (Those conditions are, of course, that you release your derivative work under the same terms.) How is that viral? It's giving you permission to do something you wouldn't otherwise be allowed to do. It's not giving you carte blanche to do anything you want to do, but it's permission to do more that you ordinarily could not, by default. What's viral about that? Hell, if that isn't good enough for you, you can try to negotiate terms with the copyright holder, so you're no worse off than you were with the Oracle code.
Sheesh, this whole "GPL is viral" thing is as stupid as anything coming out of the "information wants to be free; so copyrights want to be violated" crowd.
The GPL, on the other hand, spreads. If you link GPL-licensed code in with your project, poof! Your project is now GPL-licensed as well, for better or for worse. Some people will argue it's better, some worse, but all agree that it's viral.
No, you're simply wrong. I'll ignore the better/worse argument, and simply focus on the part where you are incredibly wrong. To Wit: acceptance of the GPL is always entirely voluntary! If you link GPL-licensed code in with your project, then your code is NOT GPL'd unless you choose to make it that way. The catch, of course, is that if you don't make it GPL'd, then the rights granted to you to use that code disappear, and you're guilty of copyright violation. But if you prefer that (and some people have), then that is all that happens, and you merely have to address the issue: remove the copyrighted code which you did not have the right to use, make reparations to the copyright owner if necessary, then replace the copyrighted code with your own code, and go on your merry way.
It's really no different than using any other copyrighted code you might stumble across, without permission from the copyright owner. The only thing that makes it seem different is that there is an optional out, if you want: make the whole work GPL'd, thereby gaining the implicit permission to use the code granted by the GPL.
Spam legislation will never work.
The junk fax laws haven't been 100% either. But it would certainly result in a huge reduction in spam.
A lot of my spam already comes from overseas. Either someone has found an open relay in Asia
Which is irrelevent; a red herring. If a junk fax is sent from a company with a business presence in the US, that company can be sued, even if they actually sent the junk fax from their Tokyo offices. Granted, they wouldn't because of long-distance charges, but the point is that if they did it still wouldn't help 'em.
or the spammers themselves are international.
That's more of a problem, but as I said above, if the company has a US presence, then they can be held liable in US courts. So we'd be limiting spam to companies which are entirely outside the US. And since most spam comes from the US (whether or not it's bounced off of asian relays - something they do only because asia has more open relays), and anti-spam law could cause a huge reduction in spam.
Note that I'm not advocating that we only use a legal approach here. I simply think it's a good idea to use a multipronged attack.
Obviously anti-spam laws aren't going to stop people who are already breaking the law (frauds and scams), but it will kill the business of the professional spammers (who lure small companies into believing that spam will earn them tons of money), and that can be nothing but a Good Thing. The amateurs aren't anywhere near as good at disguising the origin of the spam, or devising ways around filters and blocks.
Junk mail is paid for by the sender; spam, like junk faxes, is paid for by the receiver (directly or indirectly, though higher ISP bills). This is why junk faxes were made illegal, and its why spamming should be illegal.
I'm always glad to see junk mail, because I know it means that someone out there is helping to fund the post office, and making it cheaper for me when I want to send snail-mail myself. I'm furious as hell when I see spam, because I know it means that someone out there is costing my ISP money, making it more expensive for me to be able to send email.
You had it lucky. Where I was stationed, we didn't have any newfangled interactive terminals. We had to punch our URLs onto cards and mail them to headquarters
No joke, many years back, I worked for a company that had an Internet e-mail gateway, but no other Internet access, and I discovered a service that you could use: you email them an URL, and they email you back a copy of the web page.
Of course, "clicking" on a link was a non-trivial process with this sort of "browser", but I actually found it useful once or twice....
1."Make spam illegal out right."
:)
Problem: OK, this is a bit extreme.
Why is it extreme? Junk faxes were made illegal, and the justification for that (cost to receiver, not sender) is just as valid for spam.
Even if you did manage to do that, companies from outside the US
Companies from outside the US are still subject to US laws and regulations if they do business in the US. And if they don't do business in the US, then it would be pretty silly of them to advertise to people in the US.
or companies/people can hide where the e-mails are coming from
Who cares where it's coming from? If a company sends you a junk fax, you can sue them. The location of the fax machine has no bearing on the matter. They can have the fax machine located in the Bahamas, but if they're a US company (or do business in the US), they will still be just as liable. Why should it be any different for spam?
Or do you think companies will send you messages saying, "Hi, would you like to buy a penis enlarger? Well, I'd love to sell you one, but I can't, because if I told you where to send the money, then you'd know how to sue me, so I guess you'll just have to go on living with your small penis"? I'll grant you that it might be pretty hard to track down the sender of a message like that, but somehow, I doubt that very many people, no matter how evil, would feel motivated to send such a silly message.
after all, you're already indenting your code properly, right?
:)
No, I'm not. My editor does a fine job of keeping track of such tedious details for me. (At least when I'm working in C/C++/Java/Perl/Tcl/Lisp/etc.) Of course, my editor also does a fairly good job of handling proper indentation for python too; in effect, I use TAB and BS as my block delimiters, and it all mostly just works.
Basically, with C/Perl/whatever, if my indenting is messed up, then I know my block delimiters are messed up somewhere, so I look, and fix the problem. With python, if my indenting is messed up, then I know my indenting is messed up somewhere, so I look and fix the problem. It can be a little more tedious to fix in python sometimes, since the editor can't just automatically re-indent the section properly, but most of the time (say, 99.9%), it's just a matter of sliding a chuck of code left or right, which is no problem.
What I think it boils down to is: if you're using decent tools, python is really neither better nor worse (as far as the whole indent/whitespace matter is concerned) -- merely different. As with many technical matters, this one is given far too much importance both by python's fans and its detractors.
with no explicit block delimiters in the language, you can no longer use % to jump betwen block start/endpoints in vi.
Yup. Although I'd like to say that anyone using vi for programming should be beaten severely until they switch to vim!
Gladly: 192.168.0.33
:)
Hack away.
"Linux is only free if your time has no value"
And conversely, Windows is only <whatever the sticker price happens to be> if your time has no value. Both systems have costs above and beyond the purchase price, not just Linux. And going from Win95 to XP would involve retraining as well. Things change -- I've still got a copy of MSWord 1.0 (for DOS and OS/2), and it bears little or no resemblance to the MSWord of today.
There are a lot of people involved in KDE and Gnome, not just Havoc and Waldo. I'm sure that some of them have or will be looking at XP. Surely there's no need for every single developer in both projects to go off and buy, install and test a system they have no plans to use on a regular basis.
my copy of Windows was free too.
:)
Windows is only free if your time is free.
As MS likes to remind us (foolishly, since they lose by this measure), maintenance and admin costs have to be considered too. I used to have a dual-boot system, and after a year, I'd had constant problems with Windows, and had been forced to reinstall 5 times, while Linux had worked flawlessly the entire time. So I dumped the Windows partition and bought myself a Playstation (and a copy of GTA, to keep this oh-so-vaguely on topic:).