Personally I think anyone who claims that the GPL means anything is misleading people, because I believe that there are loopholes galore with it.
Right. So no laws mean anything until the court determines what they mean, right?
No, I didn't say that the GPL doesn't mean anything, I said that "neither I nor you nor RMS" knows what that meaning is, and I meant by that that no one knows what it means, and anyone to claims to is lying.
The whole point of legalese is to ensure the least amount of ambiguity.
And I feel that the GPL fails at that point.
Of course, the interpretation is done by the courts, but a well-written law (or license) allows only for a very narrow interpretation.
I don't think it's possible to do what RMS intends for the GPL to do without an End User Licence Agreement.
Now, with regard to the GPL, if there are so many loopholes in it, why don't you show us a real one instead of bringing up all this irrelevant bullshit?
I'm tired for tonight, but I'll be sure to try again another time. Not because of people like you who will respond with assanine responses like "You're wrong. Read the GPL" though.
And if there are loopholes in the GPL, why has nobody ever successfully exploited one?
Firstly, because they are afraid to. Secondly, because they don't have the money to. Thirdly, because of the mob rule that goes along with the GPL. Finally, because there would be little advantage of exploiting the GPL anyway.
The GPL's meaning is clear.
Perhaps I'm just dense, but I sure as hell can't understand it. I think if you showed 5 lawyers who knew nothing about the GPL the GPL and asked them to define the meaning, you'd get 5 different answers.
You just screwed up and don't want to admit it.
Yes, I screwed up, and I have admitted it. But it wasn't for the reasons that most of the people were saying.
Section 2 doesn't allow distribution of binary code.
Hello? That's the whole point here, troll. If they're distributing binaries based on GPL'd source code (as they are), then Section 3 applies. Sheesh.
If that was the point an answer such as that would have been much better than your answer of "Read the GPL", something which I obviously have done.
Because it's assholes like you that deliberately mislead people as to the meaning of the GPL. Loser.
I had no intention of misleading people as to the meaning of the GPL. I think it's obvious that neither I nor you nor RMS know the meaning of the GPL, since its meaning has never been determined by a court of law. Personally I think anyone who claims that the GPL means anything is misleading people, because I believe that there are loopholes galore with it.
Ah... That's the key... Section 2 allows creation of derivitive works and distribution of the source code of the derivitive work. Section 3 allows binary distribution of the derivitive work (under its terms which include source distribution).
2.
You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a)
You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b)
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
c)
If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
Where in the GPL does it say "We were just kidding about section 2, you have to distribute the source code, too"?
*If* they make alterations to the source *and* distribute the resulting binaries, they *must* make an offer to the receiver of those binaries to provide the source code - including their changes.
Where does it say that? What if they are the copyright owner of the source? What if they got permission from the copyright owner of the source? What if their distribution falls under fair use? What if the copyright is expired? What I read is that they may distribute the source (or derivitive works of the source) provided they also distribute the source.
Perhaps you're the one who has completely misunderstood the GPL.
Well, I fail to see how the concert example is analogous to our previous discussion.
Because it showed that "provided" and "if" mean the same thing. It also showed that "you may do X provided you do Y" does not imply "you may not do X if you do not do Y".
"provided" has conotations of "if you do X then you must do Y"
Can you provide any backup to that assertion? I disagree, and so does dictionary.com (not that either is authoritative). Further, wouldn't your interpretation negate all dual licenses?
Explain to me how "You may go to a concert if you do your homework on Thursday. You may go to the Monday concert if you do your homework on Friday."
is different from "You may go to a concert provided you do your homework on Thursday. You may go to the Monday concert provided you do your homework on Friday."
In both instances you do not have to do your Thurday homework to be permitted to go to the Monday concert, even though going to the Monday concert implies going to a concert. There is no difference between "You may do X if you do Y" and "You may do X provided you do Y".
Not necessarily. Section 1 is of the form "you may do X if you do Y". Just because they did X doesn't mean they have to do Y. Interestingly, if they did make changes, then they don't have to release the source. Look at section 2, of the form "you may do B if you do C". It allows you to modify the Program and distribute copies as long as you provide prominent notices and relicense the derivitive work under the GPL. There is absolutely no requirement to release the source code.
In order to get the rights of section 3, you must follow both sections 1 and 2, but in order to get the rights of section 2 there is no requirement to follow section 1.
The Constitution says that the Government can't pass laws impeding freedom of the press
Actually, the Constitution doesn't even say that. It says that congress shall make no law impeeding freedom of the press. You are right that it doesn't say "Microsoft shall make no law..." though.
What's different about encryption is that even if they do get a warrant to look at the data contained in an encrypted file, they can't break the encryption with current technology (at least in a reasonable timeframe).
50% of the time if they broke in the key would be right there unencrypted on the computer. 45% of the time the key would be protected by an easy to crack password. The other 5% of the time the police could plant a key capture device and get the password.
Key escrow is much much worse than the government having a key to your apartment. It is equivalent to having a ban on possessing private thoughts. Consider a simple encryption scheme which could be done in your head. This plan would make it illegal to memorize a number without telling it to the government. It's that scary.
This is a necessary condition, but it is certainly not sufficient. It's quite easy to interpolate a set of points from past data and create a curve which fits them all exactly.
Doctors in the United States removed a gall bladder from a patient in eastern France by remotely operating a surgical robot arm.
What we need is remote control firefighters, that can enter burning buildings and put out fires from the safety of the command center a couple blocks away. A much harder problem, due to the necessity to climb stairs and all, but maybe you could make a helicopter version which could break through the upper story windows?
I want to see a more rigorous poll conducted regarding this. If the results are anything close to these, I want to see a major educational campaign started to inform people about the true details of encryption. I want people to understand that the encryption code is already out there, and it will be impossible to stop criminals from using it. I want people to understand how vulnerable their emails and credit card numbers are without encryption. I want people to know the details about DeCSS, so they can see how easy it is for these backdoors to be leaked or cracked.
If people know the facts, and they still choose to support bans on encryption, then I guess I'll have to give up and become a criminal. But there's still time to educate the public before such issues get passed by congress, and the money we spend now will be save 1000 times over if we don't have to send lawyers to the supreme court to fight this.
I'll put $50 into an organization if it is used for such educational purposes. If you know of one, reply to this, or email me.
I would doubt that a site that receives as many hits as Yahoo would deliver their news stories "served up dynamically". More reasonable to assume is that this "web-based content control system" is some sort of template which allows the news editors, or journalists the ability to pull up a web page, and submit or edit their stories via a web form.
The original directory was completely dynamic, but it used a proprietary server which they wrote themselves. Dynamic content is not necessarily any slower or more intensive than static content. If done properly it can actually be faster (since smaller disks have faster seek times, for instance).
I would think you can license MPL as LGPL as well, since using it as a library would necessarily involve creating new files... Of course, I think the slashdot article is wrong (what a rare occurance), and that the triple license is NPL/GPL/LGPL, not MPL/GPL/LGPL...
Even though it is more expensive to deliver the second letter, the consumer's price is the same. Subsidy!
Yes, this is true of the postal service, but there are two reasons for that. 1) The postal service is a guaranteed monopoly - you're not allowed to compete with it. 2) The postal service is a national organization. The idea is that the "ISP service" (for lack of a better name) would not be guaranteed a monopoly, and would not be national, but local. Of course, anyone could set up the same system by simply setting up an NPO, and you'd probably have fewer people you'd have to convince before it could be set up. The biggest advantage of having the government doing it would be the possibility of funding it with bonds, but your local Small Business Association might be able to provide you with loans if you go the NPO route.
ISPs that run Linux/*BSD/Solaris are being hurt by the traffic, too.
Why stop there? The end users are being hurt by the ISPs. The ISPs should be catching these exploits and shutting down traffic from those servers. And the end users' dogs are being hurt by the end users. When I spend more time on the internet, I have less time to feed my dog. Not to mention that when I don't feed my dog my dog sometimes goes out and bites my next door neighbor. And that in turn causes her to call 911. And when 911 is busy people die. Every one of those people should be suing Microsoft, damnit.
The FSF does not determine copyright law. If your program is not already a derivitive work, then linking to a library does not make it one. On the other hand, if your program requires a specific library to work, then it would probably be considered a derivitive work of that library. Either way you still are under no obligation to release source code, you only have to release source code if you distribute the work without creating a derivitive work.
RMS can say whatever he wants, but the mere act of linking to a library dynamically is not covered under copyright law. To be honest, I think the FSF would agree on that point.
Our goal is to raise $100 million within 100 days. Your contributions ? through buying, selling, or donating cash directly ? will go to benefit work of organizations like the September 11th Fund. No matter how you contribute, eBay and eBay Online Payments will waive 100% of all related listing, final value, and processing fees to help maximize the impact of your participation. In order to ensure that 100% of your contribution goes to the Auction for America effort, eBay Online Payments, VISA, MasterCard, Wells Fargo and Discover have come together to offer something truly unprecedented for this effort: fee-free transaction processing online. This extraordinary contribution will ensure that millions of extra dollars go to relief charities rather to pay processing fees.
I hope this is something they keep even after the 100 days, for other charities as well.
Slashdot Mirror
The word is "asinine", and I feel it describes your comments on the GPL perfectly. Troll.
Damn, I had that first too, but then I changed it. Troll.
Personally I think anyone who claims that the GPL means anything is misleading people, because I believe that there are loopholes galore with it.
Right. So no laws mean anything until the court determines what they mean, right?
No, I didn't say that the GPL doesn't mean anything, I said that "neither I nor you nor RMS" knows what that meaning is, and I meant by that that no one knows what it means, and anyone to claims to is lying.
The whole point of legalese is to ensure the least amount of ambiguity.
And I feel that the GPL fails at that point.
Of course, the interpretation is done by the courts, but a well-written law (or license) allows only for a very narrow interpretation.
I don't think it's possible to do what RMS intends for the GPL to do without an End User Licence Agreement.
Now, with regard to the GPL, if there are so many loopholes in it, why don't you show us a real one instead of bringing up all this irrelevant bullshit?
I'm tired for tonight, but I'll be sure to try again another time. Not because of people like you who will respond with assanine responses like "You're wrong. Read the GPL" though.
And if there are loopholes in the GPL, why has nobody ever successfully exploited one?
Firstly, because they are afraid to. Secondly, because they don't have the money to. Thirdly, because of the mob rule that goes along with the GPL. Finally, because there would be little advantage of exploiting the GPL anyway.
The GPL's meaning is clear.
Perhaps I'm just dense, but I sure as hell can't understand it. I think if you showed 5 lawyers who knew nothing about the GPL the GPL and asked them to define the meaning, you'd get 5 different answers.
You just screwed up and don't want to admit it.
Yes, I screwed up, and I have admitted it. But it wasn't for the reasons that most of the people were saying.
Section 2 doesn't allow distribution of binary code.
Hello? That's the whole point here, troll. If they're distributing binaries based on GPL'd source code (as they are), then Section 3 applies. Sheesh.
If that was the point an answer such as that would have been much better than your answer of "Read the GPL", something which I obviously have done.
Because it's assholes like you that deliberately mislead people as to the meaning of the GPL. Loser.
I had no intention of misleading people as to the meaning of the GPL. I think it's obvious that neither I nor you nor RMS know the meaning of the GPL, since its meaning has never been determined by a court of law. Personally I think anyone who claims that the GPL means anything is misleading people, because I believe that there are loopholes galore with it.
Very nice selective quote there... it might pay to look at Section 3 as well, though:
Section 3 is irrelavent if Section 2 allows it. But Section 2 doesn't allow distribution of binary code.
And you're still a trollish jerk.
Why, because I disagree with you, or because I point out when you are wrong?
Section 1 only allows source distribution.
Ah... That's the key... Section 2 allows creation of derivitive works and distribution of the source code of the derivitive work. Section 3 allows binary distribution of the derivitive work (under its terms which include source distribution).
Go read the GPL.
Where in the GPL does it say "We were just kidding about section 2, you have to distribute the source code, too"?*If* they make alterations to the source *and* distribute the resulting binaries, they *must* make an offer to the receiver of those binaries to provide the source code - including their changes.
Where does it say that? What if they are the copyright owner of the source? What if they got permission from the copyright owner of the source? What if their distribution falls under fair use? What if the copyright is expired? What I read is that they may distribute the source (or derivitive works of the source) provided they also distribute the source.
Perhaps you're the one who has completely misunderstood the GPL.
"Provided" is closer to "if and only if" -- "You may do x if and only if you do y"
Interesting. Is that a legal convention, because I have never seen provided used that way in regular conversational english...
Well, I fail to see how the concert example is analogous to our previous discussion.
Because it showed that "provided" and "if" mean the same thing. It also showed that "you may do X provided you do Y" does not imply "you may not do X if you do not do Y".
"provided" has conotations of "if you do X then you must do Y"
Can you provide any backup to that assertion? I disagree, and so does dictionary.com (not that either is authoritative). Further, wouldn't your interpretation negate all dual licenses?
Big difference between "if" and "provided".
Explain to me how "You may go to a concert if you do your homework on Thursday. You may go to the Monday concert if you do your homework on Friday."
is different from "You may go to a concert provided you do your homework on Thursday. You may go to the Monday concert provided you do your homework on Friday."
In both instances you do not have to do your Thurday homework to be permitted to go to the Monday concert, even though going to the Monday concert implies going to a concert. There is no difference between "You may do X if you do Y" and "You may do X provided you do Y".
Yes. Section 1 of the GPL applies here.
Not necessarily. Section 1 is of the form "you may do X if you do Y". Just because they did X doesn't mean they have to do Y. Interestingly, if they did make changes, then they don't have to release the source. Look at section 2, of the form "you may do B if you do C". It allows you to modify the Program and distribute copies as long as you provide prominent notices and relicense the derivitive work under the GPL. There is absolutely no requirement to release the source code.
In order to get the rights of section 3, you must follow both sections 1 and 2, but in order to get the rights of section 2 there is no requirement to follow section 1.
The Constitution says that the Government can't pass laws impeding freedom of the press
Actually, the Constitution doesn't even say that. It says that congress shall make no law impeeding freedom of the press. You are right that it doesn't say "Microsoft shall make no law..." though.
What's different about encryption is that even if they do get a warrant to look at the data contained in an encrypted file, they can't break the encryption with current technology (at least in a reasonable timeframe).
50% of the time if they broke in the key would be right there unencrypted on the computer. 45% of the time the key would be protected by an easy to crack password. The other 5% of the time the police could plant a key capture device and get the password.
Key escrow is much much worse than the government having a key to your apartment. It is equivalent to having a ban on possessing private thoughts. Consider a simple encryption scheme which could be done in your head. This plan would make it illegal to memorize a number without telling it to the government. It's that scary.
This is a necessary condition, but it is certainly not sufficient. It's quite easy to interpolate a set of points from past data and create a curve which fits them all exactly.
Doctors in the United States removed a gall bladder from a patient in eastern France by remotely operating a surgical robot arm.
What we need is remote control firefighters, that can enter burning buildings and put out fires from the safety of the command center a couple blocks away. A much harder problem, due to the necessity to climb stairs and all, but maybe you could make a helicopter version which could break through the upper story windows?
I want to see a more rigorous poll conducted regarding this. If the results are anything close to these, I want to see a major educational campaign started to inform people about the true details of encryption. I want people to understand that the encryption code is already out there, and it will be impossible to stop criminals from using it. I want people to understand how vulnerable their emails and credit card numbers are without encryption. I want people to know the details about DeCSS, so they can see how easy it is for these backdoors to be leaked or cracked.
If people know the facts, and they still choose to support bans on encryption, then I guess I'll have to give up and become a criminal. But there's still time to educate the public before such issues get passed by congress, and the money we spend now will be save 1000 times over if we don't have to send lawyers to the supreme court to fight this.
I'll put $50 into an organization if it is used for such educational purposes. If you know of one, reply to this, or email me.
I would doubt that a site that receives as many hits as Yahoo would deliver their news stories "served up dynamically". More reasonable to assume is that this "web-based content control system" is some sort of template which allows the news editors, or journalists the ability to pull up a web page, and submit or edit their stories via a web form.
The original directory was completely dynamic, but it used a proprietary server which they wrote themselves. Dynamic content is not necessarily any slower or more intensive than static content. If done properly it can actually be faster (since smaller disks have faster seek times, for instance).
I would think you can license MPL as LGPL as well, since using it as a library would necessarily involve creating new files... Of course, I think the slashdot article is wrong (what a rare occurance), and that the triple license is NPL/GPL/LGPL, not MPL/GPL/LGPL...
Even though it is more expensive to deliver the second letter, the consumer's price is the same. Subsidy!
Yes, this is true of the postal service, but there are two reasons for that. 1) The postal service is a guaranteed monopoly - you're not allowed to compete with it. 2) The postal service is a national organization. The idea is that the "ISP service" (for lack of a better name) would not be guaranteed a monopoly, and would not be national, but local. Of course, anyone could set up the same system by simply setting up an NPO, and you'd probably have fewer people you'd have to convince before it could be set up. The biggest advantage of having the government doing it would be the possibility of funding it with bonds, but your local Small Business Association might be able to provide you with loans if you go the NPO route.
When government does stuff private businesses do, everyone pays for it, even the people who don't want it.
Think post office. Only people who use it pay for it.
ISPs that run Linux/*BSD/Solaris are being hurt by the traffic, too.
Why stop there? The end users are being hurt by the ISPs. The ISPs should be catching these exploits and shutting down traffic from those servers. And the end users' dogs are being hurt by the end users. When I spend more time on the internet, I have less time to feed my dog. Not to mention that when I don't feed my dog my dog sometimes goes out and bites my next door neighbor. And that in turn causes her to call 911. And when 911 is busy people die. Every one of those people should be suing Microsoft, damnit.
The FSF does not determine copyright law. If your program is not already a derivitive work, then linking to a library does not make it one. On the other hand, if your program requires a specific library to work, then it would probably be considered a derivitive work of that library. Either way you still are under no obligation to release source code, you only have to release source code if you distribute the work without creating a derivitive work.
RMS can say whatever he wants, but the mere act of linking to a library dynamically is not covered under copyright law. To be honest, I think the FSF would agree on that point.
If the library is released under the GPL, then you may not *use* that library except to link to other GPLd code.
You can *use* the library all you want, you just can't create a derivitive work of the library.
Wow... Well, Ebay has made it official.
I hope this is something they keep even after the 100 days, for other charities as well.