People have asked me why I don't move Kit to OSCAR. This is why.
While AOL has gone and changed/broken the TOC standard, it doesn't happen often, and the changes are easily circumvented (since they always keep TiK, TNT, and QuickBuddy working).
AOL never even made a pretense of documenting OSCAR, though, so they can break it whenever they want. And when they break it, we don't have the source to their older OSCAR clients for comparison.
AOL will do what it wants with AIM. Like it, or start moving to Jabber, as I'm doing.
I thought the US was associated with television and movies.
On IRC, one man from Sweden put it to me like this: Thanks to US television, the average person in his country probably knows the US legal system better than their own!:-)
It seems to me that the whole point of dynamic linking is the fact that the library code doesn't have to be included in the executible, right? That's a major benefit of the technology, to make the binary executible smaller.
With my copy of libqt.so.2.1.1 weighing in at 5.5MB, I don't think it's fair to say that dynamic linking is being used to circumvent the GPL.
Rather, I think a loophole of the GPL is being used. Would you agree that it'd be nice for a GPL 3 to be released, that would finally put to rest this argument, to the satisfaction of all parties? A GPL 3 that would take into account all sorts of wierd situations (new linking, Application Service Providers, and other things)?
Also, I was wondering whether you have written, or know of someone else who has written, a detailed argument of how dynamic linking should be treated the same? I'd like to think that somebody who feels as you do has considered the issue enough to have written more than two sentences on it.:-)
5) Debian applies the "system library" exemption, since Qt is distributed with Debian, and just about every other Linux distribution. 6) Debian decides to see the light (it's only sarcasm, people) and interpret the GPL the way some other people do: that a dynamically linked executible does not actually included the non-GPL library code until runtime, and therefore is legal to distribute, as none of the non-GPL code is actually being distributed. 7) Debian can come out and admit that many of their core organizers don't want KDE, because they want to throw GNOME all the support possible.
First, make sure you're not confusing Troll Tech and KDE. KDE is a project that happens to use a (now free software, DFSG, Open Source compliant) library owned and distributed by Troll Tech.
Second, the "KDE crew" cannot be generalised. Some agree with Debian, some disagree, and some don't even use the GPL, choosing a more free license instead.
There's not an indifference on the side of KDE. There's just a real community, with the real disagreements that result. A consensus on whether a MacOS-style menubar should be the default can't be reached; how could anyone expect agreement on something as politically sensitive as licensing?
KDE is not a monolithic, hierarchial organisation with one voice. A glance at the Licensing discussions on kde-devel will show you that there are a multitude of opinions on the subject within the KDE project. A glance at the various licenses used by the applications (kdelibs is all LGPL, but the rest is mixed) will also show you that there is no consensus regarding licensing within KDE.
Some parts of the KDE community don't use the GPL, some use the GPL and apply the exemption, and yet others use the GPL and don't see the need for the exemption.
Oh, and that slashback you point to doesn't have any mention of what any KDE people say. It only has the commentary of someone who is clearly biased against KDE.
You're forgetting one thing DragonHawk: the hardcore GPL zealots don't care just what the GPL says. They don't want anyone violating the "spirit" of the GPL.
In short, the GPL means whatever Stallman says it means, to them. If Stallman says "all linking is the same, whether the code is actually merged at runtime or not", then that's how they'll do it.
No matter how many times you actually quote the GPL,you'll only get shouted down.
This won't get resolved until Armaggeddon (the day GPL 3 is released, and the "GPL 2 or any later version" nightmare happens), because GPL 2 is too vague to suit anyone.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
So, if you didn't read the license, then you had no right to redistribute the software, with or without modifications. Copyright law forbids you to, without getting permission.
Such a matrix could be useful, except that not everyone reads the licenses the same way.
Many licenses, like the GPL and Artistic licenses, are vague.
The only way to be sure of what you're doing, when you allow people to distribute your software with a certain license, or when you accept a license from someone else, is to actually READ the license involved. ALL of it. And if you're not sure, get a lawyer.
A license is a contract. The words are what get enforced, in the end.
Except that the strait-jacket goes both ways, according to some advocates.
Some KDE developers release GPL code, and Debian refuses to distribute it, because they're claiming to be unable to. Here, the copyright holder is saying "Here, take it" and the recipient is refusing.
That's the kind of madness that makes some people hate the GPL.
I can't resist.. shoot me if you must, moderators! That comment just screams for me to mention my app.
The Kit AIM client already exists, for linux as well as other Unixes, I believe (I have no access to other Unixes, so I can't say for certain how portable it is)
The most recent version is in the kdenetwork package, on the KDE cvs. The first stable version will be released with KDE 2.
Oh, yes.. and there's already Kaim, Gaim, laim, TiK (GPL for Tcl/Tk by AOL), TNT (GPL for emacs by AOL), QuickBuddy (binary-only for Java by AOL).
As the previous poster said, dynamic linking is a point of contention.
The GPL is full of little holes, that allow it to be used in deviation with the authors' intent, thanks to all sorts of advances in technology.
What's concerned me lately, is what licensing evils will come from the GPL 3. After all, not everyone grants the right to release "GPL 2 or any later version." The GPL 3 will almost certainly contain more restrictions than GPL 2, so the GPL 2 and GPL 3 will be incompatible.
I don't see who is being sacrificed here. The US is in a period of unparalled prosperity, due in part to forward looking immigration laws.
Oh, yes, and this growth will last forever, too! The economy will never, ever contract again! It's a New(TM) Economy! Let's just let everybody in, so everybody can join in on our fountain of eternal wealth!
Slashdot Mirror
People have asked me why I don't move Kit to OSCAR. This is why.
While AOL has gone and changed/broken the TOC standard, it doesn't happen often, and the changes are easily circumvented (since they always keep TiK, TNT, and QuickBuddy working).
AOL never even made a pretense of documenting OSCAR, though, so they can break it whenever they want. And when they break it, we don't have the source to their older OSCAR clients for comparison.
AOL will do what it wants with AIM. Like it, or start moving to Jabber, as I'm doing.
Flamebait?
I am now certain that I have better places to spend time on, than slashdot.
I'm out of here.
I thought the US was associated with television and movies.
:-)
On IRC, one man from Sweden put it to me like this: Thanks to US television, the average person in his country probably knows the US legal system better than their own!
http://www.gimp.org/~tml/gimp/win32/
Idiot.
I'm not criticizing the author; I'm criticizing Slashdot.
Is this linux, or just x86 linux? Oh, it's only x86 linux? I thought so.
I hate it when slashdot's acts as platform-ignorant as the mainstream press.
It seems to me that the whole point of dynamic linking is the fact that the library code doesn't have to be included in the executible, right? That's a major benefit of the technology, to make the binary executible smaller.
:-)
With my copy of libqt.so.2.1.1 weighing in at 5.5MB, I don't think it's fair to say that dynamic linking is being used to circumvent the GPL.
Rather, I think a loophole of the GPL is being used. Would you agree that it'd be nice for a GPL 3 to be released, that would finally put to rest this argument, to the satisfaction of all parties? A GPL 3 that would take into account all sorts of wierd situations (new linking, Application Service Providers, and other things)?
Also, I was wondering whether you have written, or know of someone else who has written, a detailed argument of how dynamic linking should be treated the same? I'd like to think that somebody who feels as you do has considered the issue enough to have written more than two sentences on it.
Actually, KDE could function without Qt. That's the beauty of shared libraries: the code is interchangeable, if you maintain binary compatibility.
5) Debian applies the "system library" exemption, since Qt is distributed with Debian, and just about every other Linux distribution.
6) Debian decides to see the light (it's only sarcasm, people) and interpret the GPL the way some other people do: that a dynamically linked executible does not actually included the non-GPL library code until runtime, and therefore is legal to distribute, as none of the non-GPL code is actually being distributed.
7) Debian can come out and admit that many of their core organizers don't want KDE, because they want to throw GNOME all the support possible.
First, make sure you're not confusing Troll Tech and KDE. KDE is a project that happens to use a (now free software, DFSG, Open Source compliant) library owned and distributed by Troll Tech.
Second, the "KDE crew" cannot be generalised. Some agree with Debian, some disagree, and some don't even use the GPL, choosing a more free license instead.
There's not an indifference on the side of KDE. There's just a real community, with the real disagreements that result. A consensus on whether a MacOS-style menubar should be the default can't be reached; how could anyone expect agreement on something as politically sensitive as licensing?
Bad choice of words: "KDE admitted"
KDE is not a monolithic, hierarchial organisation with one voice. A glance at the Licensing discussions on kde-devel will show you that there are a multitude of opinions on the subject within the KDE project. A glance at the various licenses used by the applications (kdelibs is all LGPL, but the rest is mixed) will also show you that there is no consensus regarding licensing within KDE.
Some parts of the KDE community don't use the GPL, some use the GPL and apply the exemption, and yet others use the GPL and don't see the need for the exemption.
Oh, and that slashback you point to doesn't have any mention of what any KDE people say. It only has the commentary of someone who is clearly biased against KDE.
Don't waste your breath. I've argued this many times before, and got shouted down every time. :-)
You're forgetting one thing DragonHawk: the hardcore GPL zealots don't care just what the GPL says. They don't want anyone violating the "spirit" of the GPL.
In short, the GPL means whatever Stallman says it means, to them. If Stallman says "all linking is the same, whether the code is actually merged at runtime or not", then that's how they'll do it.
No matter how many times you actually quote the GPL,you'll only get shouted down.
This won't get resolved until Armaggeddon (the day GPL 3 is released, and the "GPL 2 or any later version" nightmare happens), because GPL 2 is too vague to suit anyone.
Who hasn't seen the VA Linux adds on slashdot
I haven't seen any advertising on slashdot. The combination of not loading images, and running the junkbuster proxy, is very successful.
The trick is, in the words of the GPL:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
So, if you didn't read the license, then you had no right to redistribute the software, with or without modifications. Copyright law forbids you to, without getting permission.
Such a matrix could be useful, except that not everyone reads the licenses the same way.
Many licenses, like the GPL and Artistic licenses, are vague.
The only way to be sure of what you're doing, when you allow people to distribute your software with a certain license, or when you accept a license from someone else, is to actually READ the license involved. ALL of it. And if you're not sure, get a lawyer.
A license is a contract. The words are what get enforced, in the end.
Except that the strait-jacket goes both ways, according to some advocates.
Some KDE developers release GPL code, and Debian refuses to distribute it, because they're claiming to be unable to. Here, the copyright holder is saying "Here, take it" and the recipient is refusing.
That's the kind of madness that makes some people hate the GPL.
I can't resist.. shoot me if you must, moderators! That comment just screams for me to mention my app.
The Kit AIM client already exists, for linux as well as other Unixes, I believe (I have no access to other Unixes, so I can't say for certain how portable it is)
The most recent version is in the kdenetwork package, on the KDE cvs. The first stable version will be released with KDE 2.
Oh, yes.. and there's already Kaim, Gaim, laim, TiK (GPL for Tcl/Tk by AOL), TNT (GPL for emacs by AOL), QuickBuddy (binary-only for Java by AOL).
I don't think I implied that it was some sort of X extension...
:-)
That's just the name. XDND. I spelled out Drag and Drop, for those who don't instantly think Drag and Drop when they see DND.
Compatibility is a nifty thing to have.
.kdelnk files have been replaced with a .desktop file standard, being used by GNOME and KDE now.
That's why with KDE 2, KDE has dropped a bunch of KDE-specific things in favor of more general standards:
KDE Drag and drop --> X Drag and Drop
KDE Window manager hints --> NET WM-SPEC
KDE Session Management --> X Session Management
These three things can allow for many apps to work with KDE, and vice-versa, without even requiring the use of KDE libraries.
As far as GNOME-KDE compatibility, the
As the previous poster said, dynamic linking is a point of contention.
The GPL is full of little holes, that allow it to be used in deviation with the authors' intent, thanks to all sorts of advances in technology.
What's concerned me lately, is what licensing evils will come from the GPL 3. After all, not everyone grants the right to release "GPL 2 or any later version." The GPL 3 will almost certainly contain more restrictions than GPL 2, so the GPL 2 and GPL 3 will be incompatible.
What, and get a reputation for being such a stickler for paperwork?
Slashdot has the hidden discussions.
If you want to be careful, try this:
Ask someone else (preferably not a coder for your project) to browse the code, and take some notes on the algorithm for the thing you want to do.
Then, do your work using only that second hand information.
That way, you can't accidentally duplicate sections of code from memory.
I don't see who is being sacrificed here. The US is in a period of unparalled prosperity, due in part to forward looking immigration laws.
Oh, yes, and this growth will last forever, too! The economy will never, ever contract again! It's a New(TM) Economy! Let's just let everybody in, so everybody can join in on our fountain of eternal wealth!