The problem is, it costs just about as much today to make a 2 gig HD as it does to make a 20 gig HD. In fact, considering economies of scale, the 2 gig HD would probably cost more to make.
Re:Can development work without centralization?
on
SourceForge Drifting
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Imagine for a moment a world where the Linux kernel doesn't have Linux and thousands of people are all releasing their own little patches to the code in a thousand different places. Seems like total chaos.
The idea was that the checkin would have to be signed by the maintainer in order to be considered part of the official release. Likewise there would be a master key for the release itself, which would sign the keys of the maintainers of the individual files. You could start your own fork, with your own maintainers (or make yourself maintainer), but that would be a completely separate project.
Actually, a neat add-on feature could be that you could start your own fork, but leave the current maintainers for most of the code, and only put yourself as maintainer of your changes. Then you'd get automatic updates of most of the code, and as long as there weren't cross-file conflicts you wouldn't have to do any MFCing. But, that part I haven't really thought of all that much.
Of course I don't think this scales too well. If each patch has to keep track of patches it is dependent on then over time the patch files turn into huge lists of dependancies followed by a snippet of code.
It's funny you should mention that, because that is exactly how an unnamed company I used to work for managed their (binary) patch system. As a result, the patches would merge whenever files were changed in multiple patches, and the whole program would pretty much merge into a huge patch within a number of months. At which point we released a new version and started all over again.
I like the concept but I don't know if it's feasible...
I think the trick is to have a lot of "supernodes", sites with relatively high bandwidth and relatively static connections. Maybe you'd even need some kind of meta-super-nodes, with completely static connections (but not necessarily too high of bandwidth), to point you to those supernodes.
I think it could be done, but I personally don't have the time right now to do it (unless someone feel's like paying me at least $30K/year:))
Perhaps a system more like napster and less like gnutella could solve some of the synchronization problems. Adding a "supernodes" concept you wouldn't even need a central server. Mojo Nation is nice, but I doubt it supports CVS or website hosting. Freenet would be more what I'm looking for, but with a little bit less security and anonymity, since the files being distributed are legally. Hopefully focussing less on the anonymity aspects would be enough to make Freenet efficient enough to be usable.
Oh well, I shouldn't blabber so much about it when I know I have no time to actually implement it...
But the issue is that Software Hoarder would use SoftLock (before they went out of business), so your cracking program would also crack other locked programs, and would thus be illegal.
I don't know enough about the details of SoftLock to say for sure, but I'd imagine there must be a way to create a crack for one program without it cracking the rest. Actually, I'm positive there is a way, the question is how difficult it would be to implement. Software Hoarder must have a way to generate keys (and presumably can only generate keys for its own program). Well, that's all speculation since I don't know the details of SoftLock.
In any case, if there were software such as SoftLock which actually worked, I personally have no problem with someone using it to protect their software from "piracy". My big problem is with the government setting up laws which are impossible to enforce and which are broken by 90% of the population. I have no problem with companies who protect their copyrights through technological means, only when they spend my tax money enforcing it.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest, I'm afraid.
What if they use a standard commercial system to encrypt it? Then your software would have non-lawful uses.
The owner of the encryption system is meaningless. The permission you need is from "the copyright holder". I can only assume that means the copyright holder of the encrypted work. You agree with that, right?
Oh, I remembered the other reason your desires were silly -- it's no use to be able to modify a program when all you have is the binary.
The permission to create derivitive works is not very useful for those who choose to not redistribute source. But I by no means believe that will be the majority. Don't throw me into the goals of those supporting the GPL, my goals are probably closer to those supporting the BSD license. My major problem with the license is that companies like Apple can create completely proprietary software derived from BSD software. Under my license, if Apple did such a thing, anyone could download the OS, copy it, and distribute it for any price for any fee or for free. I'm not sure how that desire is silly.
Sure, there are decompilers, but they don't work very well.
But for the original creator of the work (which is my main concern, since I intend to use this licence mainly for my own original creations), decompilation of the entire source isn't necessary, only reverse engineering of the modified parts. For this reason, even the GPL is less beneficial to me. If minor changes (or major changes for which source is released) are made to the software, I do not have to obtain permission from the maker of those changes to incorporate them into my work, even if I license my work to others (for a fee) under less strict licenses. With the GPL, I would have to have the copyright of the changes signed over to me, or these changes would have to be incorporated through a clean room implementation. So besides the idealistic reasons, that I don't believe source should have to be distributed, there is this practical reason as well.
1201b doesn't mention permission, and that's what Sklyarov is charged with violating. So, your added clause would (unfortunately) be useless.
Which is what I said, that this wouldn't necessary protect against 1201b. I still think it could, since I find it hard to believe that a law banning trafficking in software which is designed solely for performing legal acts could possibly be constitutional. And even if it is, I think a judge and/or jury would throw it out anyway. But, even if this doesn't protect against 1201b (and I can't think of a way to definitively do that without breaking my rules for my licence), it still protects against 1201a, and therefore it isn't useless.
Only requiring the provision of source in a machine-readable format, and forbidding other restrictions (GPL 7, IIRC) will allow you to fully make derivative works of your software forever.
I don't see how providing the source in (I assume you mean human-readable) format makes any difference. Circumvention is circumvention, whether you do it by hacking the binary, or by modifying the source.
The movie Rear Window contained none of the story (AFAICS), not even the title, but was still derivative. The case shows that your contention is incorrect.
My assumption was that the movie contained the same basic story as the book (but not the same title).
Doing it multiple times would probably still be construed as violating 106 (3).
If I buy one copy of Windows, I can sell that one copy. If I buy two copies, I can sell both copies. If I buy 50,000 copies, I can sell all 50,000. Likewise, if I download one copy of Red Hat, I can sell that one copy, if I download 50,000 copies, I can sell 50,000 copies. Further, if my friend downloads one copy, modifies it, and lets me download 50,000 copies, I can sell those 50,000 copies, without distributing the source. My friend would only be required under the GPL to give the source to me. Nothing more. But again, that has little to do with the point that we were discussing (although, if my friend is I, and no one realizes that, well, I guess it is what we're discussing).
Since this must be of limited scope (see above), and since it only applies to unmodified binaries, it is not a major threat to the GPL.
Because of the scenario I outline above (with the friend), I believe it is a major threat to the GPL.
Speaking of which, I'm thinking about adding another sentence to my license. "Circumvention of any technological measure or measures which effectively control access to this work is permitted without restriction."
Unfortunately, you can't over-rule US law here -- Note that Dmitry Sklyarov is being prosecuted by the US government, not Adobe.
to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure,
without the authority of the copyright
owner; and
Emphasis mine. You are allowed to circumvent copyright protections with the permission of the copyright holder. Also, note that Dmitry's software was for circumventing the copyright of the book owners, not the copyright of Adobe. Also, he got permission, if you can call it that, after the fact, not before. And finally, he created circumvention software, which is perhaps not made legal by adding that clause to my license. Although, it would possibly make it legal to write the software to circumvent if the circumvention itself was not illegal. I haven't looked into that very deeply.
If there were more than 3 (now 5, which is really 4) choices, I'd be all for TLDs meaning something, but as it is now, I'm more of the opinion you put everything under.com and then let SLDs mean something.... but, that's just my opinion.
Why can't I get VHF, damnit (my antenna picks up WB and FOX, nothing else). I would have much rather been watching Survivor than the stupid Tick show. Yeah, I too wish TV was available by FTP (although a streaming multicast protocol would be much better).
If this domain is so important to you, why didn't you notice that it had been deactivated 40 days before anyone was given a chance to "steal" it from you?
The situation isn't the same -- we were talking about you producing and distributing the derivative work. You are Warner Brothers.
Maybe that's what you were talking about, but I have said over and over that I am not talking about the creator of the derivitive work, as that could fall under breach of contract (but not copyright), assuming the creator accepts the GPL (would fall under copyright if s/he doesn't).
"unless I see a case where a person who only distributed a derivitive work was successfully sued under copyright law by the maker of the original work (when that derivitive contained none of the original), I'm not going to buy that interpretation."
OK, here's Stewart v. Abend
Wow, that's a very good reference. Of course, I agree with it completely. In its essence it is saying "Therefore, if the author dies before the renewal period, then the assignee may continue to use the original work only if the author's successor transfers the renewal rights to the assignee. [...] Application of this rule to this case should end the inquiry" [emphasis mine]. It also states that "The aspects of a derivative work added by the derivative author are that author's property, but the element drawn from the pre-existing work remains on grant from the owner of the pre-existing work." But I think in this case we're both actually right...
Finally, in the GPL software universe, the case of a derivative work that doesn't include any of the original is *very* rare.
In fact, it seems that the court rules here that it is impossible to create a derivitive work which is independent of the original.
Section 6 of the 1909 Act, 17 U.S.C. 7 (1976 ed.) - which provides that derivative works when produced with the consent of the copyright proprietor of the pre-existing work "shall be regarded as new works subject to copyright . ..; but the publication of any such new works shall not affect the force or validity of any subsisting copyright upon the matter employed . ..," or be construed to affect the copyright status of the original work - does not, as the dissent contends, give the original author the power to sell the rights to make a derivative work that upon creation and copyright would be completely independent of the original work
So maybe in fact we're both right.
And if the creator accepted and followed the GPL, she has only distributed copies licensed under the GPL, so the third party who has recieved copies from her has also gotten them under the terms of the GPL.
That is the part where I disagree, because as I say, there is no restriction in the GPL from distributing copies which are licensed under the GPL and another license. The other license would only apply to the new parts of the work, but in this hypothetical we were asserting that all of the derivitive work was new. Perhaps that hypothetical is impossible, but I hope you at least can agree that the creator of a derivitive work has the right to license the new parts of that derivitive work under any license s/he sees fit (barring any contractual agreement not to do so).
Also, I would like to see this specific case that you mention, because I have never heard of it, and would be surprised if it were true -- there is no way the courts will respect "first sale" if the alternative is the end of digital copyright, which is more-or-less the case here. Basically, if you tried to tell a judge this, they would laugh you out of court.
As it turns out, I was misinformed that it was a court case, but it was in the U.S. Copyright office's report on the DMCA, page 78 (pdf page 120).
This is definately a different case, because it doesn't involve modification. Also, it
applies to any content that is sold electronically, not just GPL software. Yes, it even applies to your license.
Well, it applies to my license, but my license already permits distribution without restriction, so it's a moot point.
This scenario still doesn't allow relicensing , *modifying*, or renting.
I agree on relicensing and renting, which are pretty much unnecessary for something which is GPLed anyway. By modifying I assume you mean preparation of derivitive works, which is a much different thing. I only asserted that it allowed distribution of GPLed binaries without distribution of source code, which, hell, is what my license allows too.
Speaking of which, I'm thinking about adding another sentence to my license. "Circumvention of any technological measure or measures which effectively control access to this work is permitted without restriction." At least that would stop someone who added access control (maybe a serial number check) from suing someone who bypasses that serial number check. It would still allow the serial number check to be added, but that's intentional (the purpose of my license is to get the government out of copyright infringement, not to stop companies from adding copyright controls to their software). Actually, one of the main purposes is to ensure that I can never be sued for infringing on a derivitive of my own software.
If you don't get root, it's not a very big step above a shared host. I guess you can do long-running processes.
Well, I'm currently using it for handling email and web on multiple domain names. I also get my own running copy of mysql (with unlimited databases) and unlimited pop accounts (which a few of my friends are using). What I don't get is multiple telnet accounts (only POP/IMAP/FTP) or the ability to bind to low ports (which I guess would imply multiple telnet accounts). In any case, I looked at the documentation for the link you gave (for verio) and it looks like the same thing I already have, for a jacked up price. Also, I've used superb in the past and they were very rude and would not give me any refund after their servers were down for something like 3 days straight. So it looks for now like I'm going to have to wait until my dsl comes in (a month or two) before I can do any fun root access things. Even then I'll keep my verio around until I can find a suitable backup for my main mail domain. Even if I have to pay $95 a month (which I won't), I absolutely refuse to lose mail.
I'm currently using the verio product here. It doesn't allow me to bind to low ports, or have root access. You get one IP address. Also it is now $95/month. Maybe the product you were referring to was something different, though. I couldn't get your link to work.
Does your VSP allow you to write your own DNS server and bind it to your static IP address? I've been using iserver, and it is good but it doesn't let me bind to low ports. If you can do that, could you please send me an email with the url of your provider, or reply to this?
"Distribution of a legally created derivitive work (such as one created under part 2 of the GPL) is not restricted by copyright law, unless that derivitive contains the original work in it."
Incorrect. Consider a movie made from a novel. Even if it has no lines from the original novel in it, it is still derivative of the novel, and is infringing unless licensed.
Consider a movie made from a novel. Consider that Steven King owns the novel copyright, and Warner Brothers owns the movie copyright (made under a legal agreement with SK). Now consider that I want to distribute the movie. Are you saying that I have to get permission from Steven King? I don't think that's true. Section 106 only gives exclusive rights to the preparation of derivitive works, not the distribution of them. I guess you could interpret Section 106(3) otherwise, but unless I see a case where a person who only distributed a derivitive work was successfully sued under copyright law by the maker of the original work (when that derivitive contained none of the original), I'm not going to buy that interpretation.
"In any case, the GPL does not restrict dual licensing."
It restricts adding or removing license terms by anyone other than the sole copyright holder(s).
Where? A quick search for "add" and "remov" didn't show anything that says that. Actually, the GPL doesn't even require you to license a derivitive work under the GPL unless you distribute or publish it, but that's a whole different story. Actually, "publication" is probably what the U.S. code means when it says "preparation" of a derivitive work. But again that's one where I know no legal precedent, and it's also one where I'm not too sure which way the courts will go if it ever came into place.
"distribution on the other hand would be problematic once you agreed to give up your rights (including possibly the right to first sale) by accepting the GPL."
I can't understand this statement. What does first sale have to do with any of this?
Well, I argue above that a third party has a right to distribute a derivitive of a GPLed work which does not contain any of the original work itself without regard to the wishes of the copyright holder of that original work. This arguably may not apply to the actual creator of the derivitive work, because that creator must have accepted the GPL.
First sale doesn't directly apply in this case, but the courts have ruled that if you legally download software directly to your CD-R, you have a first sale right to resell that CD-R in any way you see fit (including without offering source code). Again, a completely different story, but one which applies to the GPL and indeed any software which is distributed for free (beer) over the internet. Basically, all those license agreements not to redistribute the software are essentially unenforcible since you can download and burn 50,000 CDs and redistribute them (though the courts have ruled that first sale does not apply to electronically redistributing the downloaded software). I'm not even sure how we got into this discussion, but the point I'm asserting is that there is no exclusive right given to the original copyright holder for distribution of a derivitive work (when that derivitive work does not contain any of the original).
Could this be used to give every remotely downloaded app a virtual machine, sort of like a java VM? As an advantage to java, with IPv6, you could give every app its own class C network off your 1 billion IP block.
The derivative writer has no right to distribute her derivative at all unless the original copyright holder consents.
Only to the extent that distribution of that derivitive work infringes upon the original work. For instance, if I create software which uses a GPLed library, and I have created that derivitive work under the terms of the GPL part 2, I now own the copyright to that work, and can license it under any terms I see fit. In order to have created the work under part 2 I must have already given all third parties a GPL license for the work, but that does not preclude me from also licensing the derivitive work under other licenses. Now say I GPLed and BSD licensed my derivitive work, and a third party wanted to create a derivitive of my work, and that derivitive was not in and of itself a derivitive of the original GPLed work (say another completely different library). In that case that third party would not have to distribute the source.
If my derivitive contained any of the original work, then any third party would have to receive a license from the original party to create a derivitive of that derivitive.
Distribution of a legally created derivitive work (such as one created under part 2 of the GPL) is not restricted by copyright law, unless that derivitive contains the original work in it. Now it could be argued that when you created the derivitive you became bound to a contractual relationship with the original copyright holder, as you accepted the terms of the GPL, but that's out of the scope of copyright law and would vary from state to state (it's essentially an EULA in that case). In any case, the GPL does not restrict dual licensing, so that I would say is perfectly legit, distribution on the other hand would be problematic once you agreed to give up your rights (including possibly the right to first sale) by accepting the GPL.
What do you do when it isn't fun any more, but you'd like it to be?
I usually find someone new. After a while she becomes old and boring as well though, and I try to go back to my wife, but she's pissed off about the cheating and has filed for divorce by then. Fortunately careers don't take things personally. You can fool around on them and they let you come back every time.
"Private modifications which are not released are permitted without restriction under fair use."
False. See American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc.
That case was about copying, not creation of derivitive works. Further, the court specifically states my point of view, that a transformative use falls under fair use, at least as to the first factor.
Relying largely on the Supreme Court's discussion of fair use in Sony, the District Court suggested that a secondary user will "win" this first factor by showing a "transformative (or productive) nonsuperseding use of the original, or [a] noncommercial use, generally for a socially beneficial or widely accepted purpose." 802 F. Supp. at 12.
In contrast, to the extent that the secondary use "adds something new, with a further purpose or different character," the value generated goes beyond the value that inheres in the original and "the goal of copyright, to promote science and the arts, is generally furthered." Campbell, ___ U.S. at ___, 114 S.Ct. at 1171
Further, Texaco's use caused "a substantial harm to the value of [American Geophysical Union's] copyrights". This is utterly untrue in the case of my license, and less true than in the Texaco case in any instance of modification, since the modified copies were legally obtained, and it is only the market for the modifications which is being subverted.
I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you here. Private modifications are fair use. Especially and certainly private modifications of source code which is otherwise obtained legally.
"If you don't release a modified work, you have not created a derivitive work."
False. See US Code title 17.
To be honest, I have no idea what I was thinking when I made that statement. You are right.
"If you haven't released it, no one can use it anyway."
If it's licensed to third parties, they can.
Here I just meant physically, not legally. If no one has your changes, no one can use them. Better explained I guess by my next point.
Employees could not be forbidden to release modifications -- they would have a license to them automatically. So, it's a loophole in your license, not the GPL.
Employees could certainly be forbidden to release modifications - through their employment contracts or other contracts. But if those modifications were somehow leaked out, third parties could not be sued, only the employees found responsible, for breach of contract. This is intentional, and not a loophole, because I don't want companies to be able to intentionally leak modifications (anonymously) and then claim copyright on them. Whether or not RMS intends for the GPL to allow that and this is a loophole or not I'm not going to argue any more.
It doesn't say without restriction. You require granting a copyright license, not patent licenses. This is a loophole the GPL fixes.
It most certainly does say without restriction. "Copying, distribution, and use of this work is permitted without restriction." I do not require granting a copyright license, I require granting a license. Since copyright doesn't restrict use, the use part is obviously talking about patent and DMCA restrictions. How does the GPL address this issue? I find part 7 of the GPL to be obvious. If you can't satisfy the terms of the license, you can't use the license. I think that goes without saying. I'd certainly be willing to add part 7 of the GPL to my license though, since it wouldn't hurt my license (other than to make it more complicated to licensees and/or judges and/or juries).
I do not believe that the government should be involved in copyright law."
Then why are you using a copyright license?
My use of copyright law only prevents a prosecution from winning a case against a defendant over copyright law, it will never enable someone to initiate a case against another. This is sharply in contrast to the GPL, over which lawsuits are threatened all the time. I'm not sure I answered your question, but I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. You seem to imply that my being opposed to government involvement in copyright law would somehow preclude me from using copyright law. I disagree with that.
"and the purpose of this license is to cause all creators of derivitive works to abandon all rights under copyright law for the derivitive work."
It doesn't mention public performance rights.
Because there is no public performance right for software.
And if you oppose copyrights, why don't you oppose patents?
I certainly oppose all software patents. I haven't really thought enough about non-software patents to take a stance either way.
If you do oppose patents, then why leave the patent loophole?
I don't believe there is a patent loophole which can be solved within copyright law. If I had the time and money I'd certainly patent all my software and offer a patent license with similar wording, but patents cost a lot and take a lot of time to create.
Finally, you keep mentioning loopholes in the GPL. You clearly don't know much about copyright law, so I don't see how you're qualified to judge.
Like I said earlier, I am just going to drop the whole GPL loophole debate, because without a definitive definition of what the GPL is trying to accomplish, it's impossible for me to say whether or not it accomplishes it.
The GPL's record speaks for itself -- nobody has ever exploited a loophole.
That is both arguable and moot. Arguable because there are certainly those who have subverted the spirit of the GPL through obfuscation, and moot because the GPL has never been tested in court.
Your license is not a Free Software license, and I hope you will reconsider using it.
If you respond to nothing else in this post, please respond to this: how is my license not a Free Software license? It gives the freedom to run the program for any purpose, the freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to your needs, the freedom to redistribute copies, and the freedom to improve the program and release those improvements to the public. It is not copyleft under the definition of GNU, because it does not require derivitive works to be free software, but it most certainly is a free software license.
All derivatives of GPL'd works must be licensed under the GPL exclusively.
Where does the GPL state this? I don't even see the work exclusive or exclusively in the GPL. How can you explain mozilla code being licensed under multiple licenses?
Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. I am not saying that licensing a derivitive work under a non-GPL license gives anyone any extra priviliges, but that is only because copying or distribution of the derivitive work almost always constitutes a direct infringement of the original work.
The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.
U.S. Code Title 17, Section 103(b). Are you telling me that the copyright holder of a derivitive work is not allowed to license his own work under any license he wishes? Not only does he have that right, he exclusively has that right. Now, he is restricted under the GPL that he must cause the work to be licensed under the GPL, but I see no mention that that license must be exclusively given. In fact, the GPL specifically states that "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works." which is precisely what I am saying.
I "borrowed" that terminology from the GPL. The idea is that you must license the derivitive work to everyone, this is in place so that you can't say that the third party obtained the work without your permission, and therefore was not given a license. I guess I could say "everyone" but whatever lawyer-people looked over the GPL seemed to like "all third parties". IANAL, though, so I'm not sure...
If the first party is the originating author and the second party is the creator of the derivative work the the creator of the derivative work could presumably licence it to the originating author under any licence.
Just as with the GPL, the creator of the derivative work can license it to anyone under any license, as long as s/he also licenses it under the "whatever I call my license". If s/he licenses it under a more restricive license, this license would still give those additional freedoms for the derivitive. If s/he licenses it under a less restrictive license, this license would still apply in most cases to a derivitive of the derivitive, since that in itself would usually be a derivitive. It might not be a derivitive if it only modifies the modifications, but in that case there is nothing copyright law (notwithstanding state EULA laws) can do anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, it costs just about as much today to make a 2 gig HD as it does to make a 20 gig HD. In fact, considering economies of scale, the 2 gig HD would probably cost more to make.
Imagine for a moment a world where the Linux kernel doesn't have Linux and thousands of people are all releasing their own little patches to the code in a thousand different places. Seems like total chaos.
The idea was that the checkin would have to be signed by the maintainer in order to be considered part of the official release. Likewise there would be a master key for the release itself, which would sign the keys of the maintainers of the individual files. You could start your own fork, with your own maintainers (or make yourself maintainer), but that would be a completely separate project.
Actually, a neat add-on feature could be that you could start your own fork, but leave the current maintainers for most of the code, and only put yourself as maintainer of your changes. Then you'd get automatic updates of most of the code, and as long as there weren't cross-file conflicts you wouldn't have to do any MFCing. But, that part I haven't really thought of all that much.
Of course I don't think this scales too well. If each patch has to keep track of patches it is dependent on then over time the patch files turn into huge lists of dependancies followed by a snippet of code.
It's funny you should mention that, because that is exactly how an unnamed company I used to work for managed their (binary) patch system. As a result, the patches would merge whenever files were changed in multiple patches, and the whole program would pretty much merge into a huge patch within a number of months. At which point we released a new version and started all over again.
I like the concept but I don't know if it's feasible...
I think the trick is to have a lot of "supernodes", sites with relatively high bandwidth and relatively static connections. Maybe you'd even need some kind of meta-super-nodes, with completely static connections (but not necessarily too high of bandwidth), to point you to those supernodes.
I think it could be done, but I personally don't have the time right now to do it (unless someone feel's like paying me at least $30K/year :))
Perhaps a system more like napster and less like gnutella could solve some of the synchronization problems. Adding a "supernodes" concept you wouldn't even need a central server. Mojo Nation is nice, but I doubt it supports CVS or website hosting. Freenet would be more what I'm looking for, but with a little bit less security and anonymity, since the files being distributed are legally. Hopefully focussing less on the anonymity aspects would be enough to make Freenet efficient enough to be usable.
Oh well, I shouldn't blabber so much about it when I know I have no time to actually implement it...
But the issue is that Software Hoarder would use SoftLock (before they went out of business), so your cracking program would also crack other locked programs, and would thus be illegal.
I don't know enough about the details of SoftLock to say for sure, but I'd imagine there must be a way to create a crack for one program without it cracking the rest. Actually, I'm positive there is a way, the question is how difficult it would be to implement. Software Hoarder must have a way to generate keys (and presumably can only generate keys for its own program). Well, that's all speculation since I don't know the details of SoftLock.
In any case, if there were software such as SoftLock which actually worked, I personally have no problem with someone using it to protect their software from "piracy". My big problem is with the government setting up laws which are impossible to enforce and which are broken by 90% of the population. I have no problem with companies who protect their copyrights through technological means, only when they spend my tax money enforcing it.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the rest, I'm afraid.
I agree (that we should agree to disagree) :).
Of course if you want to set up your own Source fFrge you have to have the money to run all of the servers, bandwidth, etc.
What about a peer to peer source forge? If it works for mp3s, why not for code?
has anyone thought about what will happen to Freshmeat [freshmeat.net] and Source Forge [sourceforge.net] if (or is it when) VA goes under?
The same thing that happened to excite. Someone will buy them out, for some rediculously small amount (in comparison to previous valuations).
What if they use a standard commercial system to encrypt it? Then your software would have non-lawful uses.
The owner of the encryption system is meaningless. The permission you need is from "the copyright holder". I can only assume that means the copyright holder of the encrypted work. You agree with that, right?
Oh, I remembered the other reason your desires were silly -- it's no use to be able to modify a program when all you have is the binary.
The permission to create derivitive works is not very useful for those who choose to not redistribute source. But I by no means believe that will be the majority. Don't throw me into the goals of those supporting the GPL, my goals are probably closer to those supporting the BSD license. My major problem with the license is that companies like Apple can create completely proprietary software derived from BSD software. Under my license, if Apple did such a thing, anyone could download the OS, copy it, and distribute it for any price for any fee or for free. I'm not sure how that desire is silly.
Sure, there are decompilers, but they don't work very well.
But for the original creator of the work (which is my main concern, since I intend to use this licence mainly for my own original creations), decompilation of the entire source isn't necessary, only reverse engineering of the modified parts. For this reason, even the GPL is less beneficial to me. If minor changes (or major changes for which source is released) are made to the software, I do not have to obtain permission from the maker of those changes to incorporate them into my work, even if I license my work to others (for a fee) under less strict licenses. With the GPL, I would have to have the copyright of the changes signed over to me, or these changes would have to be incorporated through a clean room implementation. So besides the idealistic reasons, that I don't believe source should have to be distributed, there is this practical reason as well.
1201b doesn't mention permission, and that's what Sklyarov is charged with violating. So, your added clause would (unfortunately) be useless.
Which is what I said, that this wouldn't necessary protect against 1201b. I still think it could, since I find it hard to believe that a law banning trafficking in software which is designed solely for performing legal acts could possibly be constitutional. And even if it is, I think a judge and/or jury would throw it out anyway. But, even if this doesn't protect against 1201b (and I can't think of a way to definitively do that without breaking my rules for my licence), it still protects against 1201a, and therefore it isn't useless.
Only requiring the provision of source in a machine-readable format, and forbidding other restrictions (GPL 7, IIRC) will allow you to fully make derivative works of your software forever.
I don't see how providing the source in (I assume you mean human-readable) format makes any difference. Circumvention is circumvention, whether you do it by hacking the binary, or by modifying the source.
The movie Rear Window contained none of the story (AFAICS), not even the title, but was still derivative. The case shows that your contention is incorrect.
My assumption was that the movie contained the same basic story as the book (but not the same title).
Doing it multiple times would probably still be construed as violating 106 (3).
If I buy one copy of Windows, I can sell that one copy. If I buy two copies, I can sell both copies. If I buy 50,000 copies, I can sell all 50,000. Likewise, if I download one copy of Red Hat, I can sell that one copy, if I download 50,000 copies, I can sell 50,000 copies. Further, if my friend downloads one copy, modifies it, and lets me download 50,000 copies, I can sell those 50,000 copies, without distributing the source. My friend would only be required under the GPL to give the source to me. Nothing more. But again, that has little to do with the point that we were discussing (although, if my friend is I, and no one realizes that, well, I guess it is what we're discussing).
Since this must be of limited scope (see above), and since it only applies to unmodified binaries, it is not a major threat to the GPL.
Because of the scenario I outline above (with the friend), I believe it is a major threat to the GPL.
Speaking of which, I'm thinking about adding another sentence to my license. "Circumvention of any technological measure or measures which effectively control access to this work is permitted without restriction."
Unfortunately, you can't over-rule US law here -- Note that Dmitry Sklyarov is being prosecuted by the US government, not Adobe.
Emphasis mine. You are allowed to circumvent copyright protections with the permission of the copyright holder. Also, note that Dmitry's software was for circumventing the copyright of the book owners, not the copyright of Adobe. Also, he got permission, if you can call it that, after the fact, not before. And finally, he created circumvention software, which is perhaps not made legal by adding that clause to my license. Although, it would possibly make it legal to write the software to circumvent if the circumvention itself was not illegal. I haven't looked into that very deeply.
If there were more than 3 (now 5, which is really 4) choices, I'd be all for TLDs meaning something, but as it is now, I'm more of the opinion you put everything under .com and then let SLDs mean something.... but, that's just my opinion.
Why can't I get VHF, damnit (my antenna picks up WB and FOX, nothing else). I would have much rather been watching Survivor than the stupid Tick show. Yeah, I too wish TV was available by FTP (although a streaming multicast protocol would be much better).
If this domain is so important to you, why didn't you notice that it had been deactivated 40 days before anyone was given a chance to "steal" it from you?
This particular domain name is very easily for me to remember.
Easier than kdhxfm88.com (it's available)?
The situation isn't the same -- we were talking about you producing and distributing the derivative work. You are Warner Brothers.
Maybe that's what you were talking about, but I have said over and over that I am not talking about the creator of the derivitive work, as that could fall under breach of contract (but not copyright), assuming the creator accepts the GPL (would fall under copyright if s/he doesn't).
"unless I see a case where a person who only distributed a derivitive work was successfully sued under copyright law by the maker of the original work (when that derivitive contained none of the original), I'm not going to buy that interpretation."
OK, here's Stewart v. Abend
Wow, that's a very good reference. Of course, I agree with it completely. In its essence it is saying "Therefore, if the author dies before the renewal period, then the assignee may continue to use the original work only if the author's successor transfers the renewal rights to the assignee. [...] Application of this rule to this case should end the inquiry" [emphasis mine]. It also states that "The aspects of a derivative work added by the derivative author are that author's property, but the element drawn from the pre-existing work remains on grant from the owner of the pre-existing work." But I think in this case we're both actually right...
Finally, in the GPL software universe, the case of a derivative work that doesn't include any of the original is *very* rare.
In fact, it seems that the court rules here that it is impossible to create a derivitive work which is independent of the original.
So maybe in fact we're both right.
And if the creator accepted and followed the GPL, she has only distributed copies licensed under the GPL, so the third party who has recieved copies from her has also gotten them under the terms of the GPL.
That is the part where I disagree, because as I say, there is no restriction in the GPL from distributing copies which are licensed under the GPL and another license. The other license would only apply to the new parts of the work, but in this hypothetical we were asserting that all of the derivitive work was new. Perhaps that hypothetical is impossible, but I hope you at least can agree that the creator of a derivitive work has the right to license the new parts of that derivitive work under any license s/he sees fit (barring any contractual agreement not to do so).
Also, I would like to see this specific case that you mention, because I have never heard of it, and would be surprised if it were true -- there is no way the courts will respect "first sale" if the alternative is the end of digital copyright, which is more-or-less the case here. Basically, if you tried to tell a judge this, they would laugh you out of court.
As it turns out, I was misinformed that it was a court case, but it was in the U.S. Copyright office's report on the DMCA, page 78 (pdf page 120).
This is definately a different case, because it doesn't involve modification. Also, it applies to any content that is sold electronically, not just GPL software. Yes, it even applies to your license.
Well, it applies to my license, but my license already permits distribution without restriction, so it's a moot point.
This scenario still doesn't allow relicensing , *modifying*, or renting.
I agree on relicensing and renting, which are pretty much unnecessary for something which is GPLed anyway. By modifying I assume you mean preparation of derivitive works, which is a much different thing. I only asserted that it allowed distribution of GPLed binaries without distribution of source code, which, hell, is what my license allows too.
Speaking of which, I'm thinking about adding another sentence to my license. "Circumvention of any technological measure or measures which effectively control access to this work is permitted without restriction." At least that would stop someone who added access control (maybe a serial number check) from suing someone who bypasses that serial number check. It would still allow the serial number check to be added, but that's intentional (the purpose of my license is to get the government out of copyright infringement, not to stop companies from adding copyright controls to their software). Actually, one of the main purposes is to ensure that I can never be sued for infringing on a derivitive of my own software.
If you don't get root, it's not a very big step above a shared host. I guess you can do long-running processes.
Well, I'm currently using it for handling email and web on multiple domain names. I also get my own running copy of mysql (with unlimited databases) and unlimited pop accounts (which a few of my friends are using). What I don't get is multiple telnet accounts (only POP/IMAP/FTP) or the ability to bind to low ports (which I guess would imply multiple telnet accounts). In any case, I looked at the documentation for the link you gave (for verio) and it looks like the same thing I already have, for a jacked up price. Also, I've used superb in the past and they were very rude and would not give me any refund after their servers were down for something like 3 days straight. So it looks for now like I'm going to have to wait until my dsl comes in (a month or two) before I can do any fun root access things. Even then I'll keep my verio around until I can find a suitable backup for my main mail domain. Even if I have to pay $95 a month (which I won't), I absolutely refuse to lose mail.
I'm currently using the verio product here. It doesn't allow me to bind to low ports, or have root access. You get one IP address. Also it is now $95/month. Maybe the product you were referring to was something different, though. I couldn't get your link to work.
Does your VSP allow you to write your own DNS server and bind it to your static IP address? I've been using iserver, and it is good but it doesn't let me bind to low ports. If you can do that, could you please send me an email with the url of your provider, or reply to this?
"Distribution of a legally created derivitive work (such as one created under part 2 of the GPL) is not restricted by copyright law, unless that derivitive contains the original work in it."
Incorrect. Consider a movie made from a novel. Even if it has no lines from the original novel in it, it is still derivative of the novel, and is infringing unless licensed.
Consider a movie made from a novel. Consider that Steven King owns the novel copyright, and Warner Brothers owns the movie copyright (made under a legal agreement with SK). Now consider that I want to distribute the movie. Are you saying that I have to get permission from Steven King? I don't think that's true. Section 106 only gives exclusive rights to the preparation of derivitive works, not the distribution of them. I guess you could interpret Section 106(3) otherwise, but unless I see a case where a person who only distributed a derivitive work was successfully sued under copyright law by the maker of the original work (when that derivitive contained none of the original), I'm not going to buy that interpretation.
"In any case, the GPL does not restrict dual licensing."
It restricts adding or removing license terms by anyone other than the sole copyright holder(s).
Where? A quick search for "add" and "remov" didn't show anything that says that. Actually, the GPL doesn't even require you to license a derivitive work under the GPL unless you distribute or publish it, but that's a whole different story. Actually, "publication" is probably what the U.S. code means when it says "preparation" of a derivitive work. But again that's one where I know no legal precedent, and it's also one where I'm not too sure which way the courts will go if it ever came into place.
"distribution on the other hand would be problematic once you agreed to give up your rights (including possibly the right to first sale) by accepting the GPL."
I can't understand this statement. What does first sale have to do with any of this?
Well, I argue above that a third party has a right to distribute a derivitive of a GPLed work which does not contain any of the original work itself without regard to the wishes of the copyright holder of that original work. This arguably may not apply to the actual creator of the derivitive work, because that creator must have accepted the GPL.
First sale doesn't directly apply in this case, but the courts have ruled that if you legally download software directly to your CD-R, you have a first sale right to resell that CD-R in any way you see fit (including without offering source code). Again, a completely different story, but one which applies to the GPL and indeed any software which is distributed for free (beer) over the internet. Basically, all those license agreements not to redistribute the software are essentially unenforcible since you can download and burn 50,000 CDs and redistribute them (though the courts have ruled that first sale does not apply to electronically redistributing the downloaded software). I'm not even sure how we got into this discussion, but the point I'm asserting is that there is no exclusive right given to the original copyright holder for distribution of a derivitive work (when that derivitive work does not contain any of the original).
Could this be used to give every remotely downloaded app a virtual machine, sort of like a java VM? As an advantage to java, with IPv6, you could give every app its own class C network off your 1 billion IP block.
The derivative writer has no right to distribute her derivative at all unless the original copyright holder consents.
Only to the extent that distribution of that derivitive work infringes upon the original work. For instance, if I create software which uses a GPLed library, and I have created that derivitive work under the terms of the GPL part 2, I now own the copyright to that work, and can license it under any terms I see fit. In order to have created the work under part 2 I must have already given all third parties a GPL license for the work, but that does not preclude me from also licensing the derivitive work under other licenses. Now say I GPLed and BSD licensed my derivitive work, and a third party wanted to create a derivitive of my work, and that derivitive was not in and of itself a derivitive of the original GPLed work (say another completely different library). In that case that third party would not have to distribute the source.
If my derivitive contained any of the original work, then any third party would have to receive a license from the original party to create a derivitive of that derivitive.
Distribution of a legally created derivitive work (such as one created under part 2 of the GPL) is not restricted by copyright law, unless that derivitive contains the original work in it. Now it could be argued that when you created the derivitive you became bound to a contractual relationship with the original copyright holder, as you accepted the terms of the GPL, but that's out of the scope of copyright law and would vary from state to state (it's essentially an EULA in that case). In any case, the GPL does not restrict dual licensing, so that I would say is perfectly legit, distribution on the other hand would be problematic once you agreed to give up your rights (including possibly the right to first sale) by accepting the GPL.
What do you do when it isn't fun any more, but you'd like it to be?
I usually find someone new. After a while she becomes old and boring as well though, and I try to go back to my wife, but she's pissed off about the cheating and has filed for divorce by then. Fortunately careers don't take things personally. You can fool around on them and they let you come back every time.
"Private modifications which are not released are permitted without restriction under fair use."
False. See American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc.
That case was about copying, not creation of derivitive works. Further, the court specifically states my point of view, that a transformative use falls under fair use, at least as to the first factor.
Further, Texaco's use caused "a substantial harm to the value of [American Geophysical Union's] copyrights". This is utterly untrue in the case of my license, and less true than in the Texaco case in any instance of modification, since the modified copies were legally obtained, and it is only the market for the modifications which is being subverted.
I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you here. Private modifications are fair use. Especially and certainly private modifications of source code which is otherwise obtained legally.
"If you don't release a modified work, you have not created a derivitive work."
False. See US Code title 17.
To be honest, I have no idea what I was thinking when I made that statement. You are right.
"If you haven't released it, no one can use it anyway."
If it's licensed to third parties, they can.
Here I just meant physically, not legally. If no one has your changes, no one can use them. Better explained I guess by my next point.
Employees could not be forbidden to release modifications -- they would have a license to them automatically. So, it's a loophole in your license, not the GPL.
Employees could certainly be forbidden to release modifications - through their employment contracts or other contracts. But if those modifications were somehow leaked out, third parties could not be sued, only the employees found responsible, for breach of contract. This is intentional, and not a loophole, because I don't want companies to be able to intentionally leak modifications (anonymously) and then claim copyright on them. Whether or not RMS intends for the GPL to allow that and this is a loophole or not I'm not going to argue any more.
It doesn't say without restriction. You require granting a copyright license, not patent licenses. This is a loophole the GPL fixes.
It most certainly does say without restriction. "Copying, distribution, and use of this work is permitted without restriction." I do not require granting a copyright license, I require granting a license. Since copyright doesn't restrict use, the use part is obviously talking about patent and DMCA restrictions. How does the GPL address this issue? I find part 7 of the GPL to be obvious. If you can't satisfy the terms of the license, you can't use the license. I think that goes without saying. I'd certainly be willing to add part 7 of the GPL to my license though, since it wouldn't hurt my license (other than to make it more complicated to licensees and/or judges and/or juries).
I do not believe that the government should be involved in copyright law."
Then why are you using a copyright license?
My use of copyright law only prevents a prosecution from winning a case against a defendant over copyright law, it will never enable someone to initiate a case against another. This is sharply in contrast to the GPL, over which lawsuits are threatened all the time. I'm not sure I answered your question, but I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. You seem to imply that my being opposed to government involvement in copyright law would somehow preclude me from using copyright law. I disagree with that.
"and the purpose of this license is to cause all creators of derivitive works to abandon all rights under copyright law for the derivitive work."
It doesn't mention public performance rights.
Because there is no public performance right for software.
And if you oppose copyrights, why don't you oppose patents?
I certainly oppose all software patents. I haven't really thought enough about non-software patents to take a stance either way.
If you do oppose patents, then why leave the patent loophole?
I don't believe there is a patent loophole which can be solved within copyright law. If I had the time and money I'd certainly patent all my software and offer a patent license with similar wording, but patents cost a lot and take a lot of time to create.
Finally, you keep mentioning loopholes in the GPL. You clearly don't know much about copyright law, so I don't see how you're qualified to judge.
Like I said earlier, I am just going to drop the whole GPL loophole debate, because without a definitive definition of what the GPL is trying to accomplish, it's impossible for me to say whether or not it accomplishes it.
The GPL's record speaks for itself -- nobody has ever exploited a loophole.
That is both arguable and moot. Arguable because there are certainly those who have subverted the spirit of the GPL through obfuscation, and moot because the GPL has never been tested in court.
Your license is not a Free Software license, and I hope you will reconsider using it.
If you respond to nothing else in this post, please respond to this: how is my license not a Free Software license? It gives the freedom to run the program for any purpose, the freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to your needs, the freedom to redistribute copies, and the freedom to improve the program and release those improvements to the public. It is not copyleft under the definition of GNU, because it does not require derivitive works to be free software, but it most certainly is a free software license.
All derivatives of GPL'd works must be licensed under the GPL exclusively.
Where does the GPL state this? I don't even see the work exclusive or exclusively in the GPL. How can you explain mozilla code being licensed under multiple licenses?
Perhaps you are misunderstanding me. I am not saying that licensing a derivitive work under a non-GPL license gives anyone any extra priviliges, but that is only because copying or distribution of the derivitive work almost always constitutes a direct infringement of the original work.
U.S. Code Title 17, Section 103(b). Are you telling me that the copyright holder of a derivitive work is not allowed to license his own work under any license he wishes? Not only does he have that right, he exclusively has that right. Now, he is restricted under the GPL that he must cause the work to be licensed under the GPL, but I see no mention that that license must be exclusively given. In fact, the GPL specifically states that "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works." which is precisely what I am saying.
I "borrowed" that terminology from the GPL. The idea is that you must license the derivitive work to everyone, this is in place so that you can't say that the third party obtained the work without your permission, and therefore was not given a license. I guess I could say "everyone" but whatever lawyer-people looked over the GPL seemed to like "all third parties". IANAL, though, so I'm not sure...
If the first party is the originating author and the second party is the creator of the derivative work the the creator of the derivative work could presumably licence it to the originating author under any licence.
Just as with the GPL, the creator of the derivative work can license it to anyone under any license, as long as s/he also licenses it under the "whatever I call my license". If s/he licenses it under a more restricive license, this license would still give those additional freedoms for the derivitive. If s/he licenses it under a less restrictive license, this license would still apply in most cases to a derivitive of the derivitive, since that in itself would usually be a derivitive. It might not be a derivitive if it only modifies the modifications, but in that case there is nothing copyright law (notwithstanding state EULA laws) can do anyway.
hence the word directly