To give up our principles is to give in to the terrorists. Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld and Blunkett are the most serious menace facing western democracy at the moment. I don't know the mind of Bin Laden and his evil helpers, but it is entirely possible that the World Trade Center would not have been attacked if signatories to the project for the new american century were not in control of the world's most powerful military and commercial machine.
If you want to 'own' the software you use, you'd best get started writing your own software. Otherwise you're just granted a license to use somebody else's software.
Perhaps it depends on your precise interpretation of the concept of ownership. The only thing that I can do with code I write myself that I can't do with code that I obtain under the terms of the GPL is distribute binaries without making the source code available. Given that I have no desire to withhold source code (as an engineer, programming is only incidental to my work - a means to an end), there is no effective difference between writing code myself and downloading GPL'd code. I "own" both, to all intents and purposes.
I don't think the original poster was talking about embedded products. The post was about preventing people from "stealing" code.
Regarding embedded software, I don't really have any significant experience of the embedded software market, but I wouldn't expect that releasing source code would be a major problem for manufacturers of toasters or video recorders. There is even significant co-operation and standardization in the highly competitive mobile phone market. Companies like Microsoft make their money from selling software, the source code is very precious to them; companies like Nokia make money selling products, why would it be a problem for them if consumers are able to get the code to their phones? - it's useless without the phone that it is designed to operate on.
program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution...
In other texts, RMS explicitly encourages the sale of GPL'd code. The key point about putting work under the GPL is that those who distribute it (for no fee or for a price) cannot prevent the recipient from also selling or giving away copies.
Whether or not they can enforce the patents in Europe is really dependent on what form the European Directive on Computer Implemented Inventions gets passed in (if at all). Lots of info about it available at the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure.
Regardless of the eventual European stance on software patents, manufacturers would still be hit by the patent when marketing in US or Japan.
In open source, the weaker attempts languish on, while the stronger attempts could sure use the extra effort to make them better.
Well, if you really think it is better that strong projects dilute their skill base by taking on the dregs of failed projects...
Seriously though, you are assuming that effort removed from one project can be directly carried across to another. This is generally not the case. If I work on my pet project, I work on the bits that interest me, to make the software do what I want it to do. Why would I put in as much effort doing something that doesn't interest me so much and doesn't work the way I want it to? Of course, I wouldn't.
Redistributing current effort would not solve many problems. A much more significant improvement would be to improve the ratio of providers to consumers. If we could get more users of free software to understand that they get back what they put into it, (as opposed to getting back what they pay for) by filing (useful) bug reports, tweaking documentation, etc., quality would improve dramatically in those places where it is lacking. If only,...
I've just started skimming through the amendments. I haven't come across the stuff prohibiting back up copies yet, but I did come across this section, which appears to explicitly allow reverse engineering, regardless of any terms or conditions attached to the product:
Observing, studying and testing of computer programs
15. - (1) After section 50B there shall be inserted -
50BA Observing, studying and testing of computer programs
(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to observe, study or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program if he does so while performing any of the acts of loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program which he is entitled to do.
(2) Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of section 296A, void).".
There's not even the slightest chance of GPL stuff being declared to be in the public domain by the courts - if the GPL fails (highly unlikely) the code will just revert to normal copyright. Even if the court did try this, it should be simple enough for any one of the thousands of contributers to GNU/Linux to challenge the decision in a US court. And even if that failed, a Utah court cannot invalidate the GPL across the globe. Non-US authors would definitely retain their rights (including the right to sue any non-GPL compliant distributers of their code) and probably in their own country. I don't have any worries at all about this case.
So how would you compile this GNU-less kernel?
Unless things have changed in 2.5.xx, Linux can't be compiled with any compiler but the GNU Compiler Collection (and GNU libc and GNU binutils and....)
Well, I'm certainly not an expert on US contract law, but I would be very surprised if you could get into trouble for breaching a contract by reporting a crime.
what do you do when the CVS server dies? CVS is not distributed.
True, but providing you have sufficient disk space elsewhere, it is trivial to set up a cron job to copy a tgz of the repository to a backup machine. Just unpack the copy, checkout with a new path and away you go.
IBM's license to use Unix has been Terminated by SCO.
AFAIK, IBM have not ceased any part of their business opertations in response to Darl's ranting. The contracts that IBM signed for rights to UNIX included specific termination clauses; Darl ranting was not one of them. In order to strip any rights from IBM, SCO is going to have to prove in court that IBM has violated the contract. I can't see that happening.
What would happen to Linux if MS owned the rights to UNIX?
Development would cease while al the Linux developers chatted on Slashdot about the impending anti-trust cases against Microsoft launched across the globe.
Seriously, there isn't the remotest possibility that Microsoft could buy SCO if it would actually have a measurable effect. Of course, that is all predicated on the notion that SCO and its "IP" does actually count for something. Personally, I don't think it would make the slightest difference. IBM/SGI/SUN/etc. already have the rights to the stuff that matters and any new owners of SCO would not be able to withdraw those rights on a whim.
Are you sure? I don't really know what "real quality stuff" you are referring to, so it would be premature for me to jump to conclusions but it'd like to know what "real quality stuff" you have free and unhindered access to, which don't feature at least some form of advertising.
Just flicking through the sites listed in my URL bar,
Free with no ads:
bbc.co.uk
debian.org
ffii.org
fsf.org
kernel.org
mathworks.com
nr.com
octave.org
various university sites
virgin.com
Non-free, no ads
various academic journals and databases
Free, with ads
my bank
dictionary.com
dict.leo.org
leo.org
newscientist.com
slashdot.org
sourceforge.net
Looking at the sites which contain banner ads, I have no doubt whatsoever that my bank and newscientist.com would continue without ads if they were removed. I'm fairly certain that slashdot and sourceforge would continue (or something would take their place). I don't know about the three dictionary sites.
Overall I conclude (in my utterly unscientific survey) that banner ads do not support a significant proportion of a typical day on the net for me and I would not miss them.
The internet may be in its teens, but banner ads are younger still. Content on the net was free before the ads, it will be free after the ads. There may not be as much free content, but I sincerely doubt that the real quality stuff will disappear.
They have not been convicted of anything - they haven't even been charged yet. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty". If there is evidence against them, it should be presented to a court.
And just who the fuck do you think you are to decide who is entitled to human rights?
An honorable country would not pack 19 men onto airplanes to crash into civilian buildings.
Agreed. What country does the US administration accuse of this act? The US government blames Al Queda, a terrorist organization, not a state.
We are in Iraq right no (sic) doing something that hasn't been done in a long time -- brought what is naturally coming to a terrible, terrible cockroach and his friends their just desserts.
And do you think that the 10,000 (maybe, no one bothered to count) murderered Iraqis are getting "their just desserts". How about those who were maimed? How about their families? How about the orphans who no longer have a family?
Just like when you stand up to a bully
How was Saddam Hussein bullying you? Even the Whitehouse does not claim that he had anything to do with 9/11:
We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks
-- President Bush
when we step into a country like Iraq and unleash the wrath of justice
Would that be the justice of murdering Iraqi civilians, selling off their state assests and appointing a puppet government for them?
You'll remember the Japs (as I intentionally refer to them)
Racism does not add value to your arguments
we could've ethically justified a cleansing of their leadership
In the case of Iraq, of course, the US have spectacularly failed to capture the former leader - Saddam Hussein is still at large. Meanwhile, many Iraqis are without the peace, security, water and electricity that they had before the invasion.
Turn around and stop pointing your finger at our country
Certainly not! I would condemn this illegal invasion if it were anyone else who had led it. Why should the fact that it is your government that is terrorizing the world make it immune from criticism?
You'll see that we are treating the people in Guantanamo more like men than they've been treated their entire lives.
What a ridiculous statement. They are being denied their basic human rights.
Yes, I DO question your patriotism
Your notion of patriotism disturbs me, but please explain why I should have any sense of patriotism towards the US, a country of which I am neither a citizen nor a resident.
To be a POW you have to have been captured wearing a recognisable uniform, and be part of an established fighting force of a government. I suspect that many of the people captured met neither condition.
In which case they should be charged with something, either spying (unlikely if they were in their own country) or something else. They should then have the opportunity to defend themselves in open court with the ability to avail themselves of all the rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which the US has signed up to. If US soldiers in Britain arrested me, I would not be wearing a recognisable uniform because I am not part of the military or any recognisable fighting force of government. That does not give them the right to forcibly remove me from my home country and lock me up without ever even charging me with anything! The actions of Bush and his cohorts in the Whitehouse are absolutely disgusting.
They've already learnt that lesson. New aircraft are now developed in close liason with the chip manufacturers so that it is understood exactly what will be available when the plane goes into service. Technology refresh is also an integral part of the design process.
The bit that worries me about this, is that it means we will have planes flying overhead running chips that haven't had many years of testing before being cleared for flight .
Damn.. I'll have to remember that for my next program. "You must not use this program to kill people."
It would probably be impossible to enforce anyway. If they put it in a weapon, it becomes a national security issue. How would you go about proving that your software was being used? They are hardly going to publish the source code (even if it is GPL).
Slashdot Mirror
To give up our principles is to give in to the terrorists. Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld and Blunkett are the most serious menace facing western democracy at the moment. I don't know the mind of Bin Laden and his evil helpers, but it is entirely possible that the World Trade Center would not have been attacked if signatories to the project for the new american century were not in control of the world's most powerful military and commercial machine.
It's certainly better than destroying freedom in the name of national security.
You're clearly new here. If you are going to bash the GPL, at least *try* to justify your statements.
You're not very clear here. Formats for what?
Ah, I see. IHBT.
Perhaps it depends on your precise interpretation of the concept of ownership. The only thing that I can do with code I write myself that I can't do with code that I obtain under the terms of the GPL is distribute binaries without making the source code available. Given that I have no desire to withhold source code (as an engineer, programming is only incidental to my work - a means to an end), there is no effective difference between writing code myself and downloading GPL'd code. I "own" both, to all intents and purposes.
Regarding embedded software, I don't really have any significant experience of the embedded software market, but I wouldn't expect that releasing source code would be a major problem for manufacturers of toasters or video recorders. There is even significant co-operation and standardization in the highly competitive mobile phone market. Companies like Microsoft make their money from selling software, the source code is very precious to them; companies like Nokia make money selling products, why would it be a problem for them if consumers are able to get the code to their phones? - it's useless without the phone that it is designed to operate on.
That's another GPL misconception. The GPL does not prevent anyone from selling GPL'd work:
In other texts, RMS explicitly encourages the sale of GPL'd code. The key point about putting work under the GPL is that those who distribute it (for no fee or for a price) cannot prevent the recipient from also selling or giving away copies.
Regardless of the eventual European stance on software patents, manufacturers would still be hit by the patent when marketing in US or Japan.
Well, if you really think it is better that strong projects dilute their skill base by taking on the dregs of failed projects ...
Seriously though, you are assuming that effort removed from one project can be directly carried across to another. This is generally not the case. If I work on my pet project, I work on the bits that interest me, to make the software do what I want it to do. Why would I put in as much effort doing something that doesn't interest me so much and doesn't work the way I want it to? Of course, I wouldn't.
Redistributing current effort would not solve many problems. A much more significant improvement would be to improve the ratio of providers to consumers. If we could get more users of free software to understand that they get back what they put into it, (as opposed to getting back what they pay for) by filing (useful) bug reports, tweaking documentation, etc., quality would improve dramatically in those places where it is lacking. If only, ...
There's not even the slightest chance of GPL stuff being declared to be in the public domain by the courts - if the GPL fails (highly unlikely) the code will just revert to normal copyright. Even if the court did try this, it should be simple enough for any one of the thousands of contributers to GNU/Linux to challenge the decision in a US court. And even if that failed, a Utah court cannot invalidate the GPL across the globe. Non-US authors would definitely retain their rights (including the right to sue any non-GPL compliant distributers of their code) and probably in their own country. I don't have any worries at all about this case.
So how would you compile this GNU-less kernel? ....)
Unless things have changed in 2.5.xx, Linux can't be compiled with any compiler but the GNU Compiler Collection (and GNU libc and GNU binutils and
Well, I'm certainly not an expert on US contract law, but I would be very surprised if you could get into trouble for breaching a contract by reporting a crime.
Maybe Microsoft are about to engage in a bit of "downsizing" and don't want disgruntled ex-employees shopping them to SCO.
I think the desire to fund an anti-Linux, anti-GPL campaign is more likely though.
True, but providing you have sufficient disk space elsewhere, it is trivial to set up a cron job to copy a tgz of the repository to a backup machine. Just unpack the copy, checkout with a new path and away you go.
AFAIK, IBM have not ceased any part of their business opertations in response to Darl's ranting. The contracts that IBM signed for rights to UNIX included specific termination clauses; Darl ranting was not one of them. In order to strip any rights from IBM, SCO is going to have to prove in court that IBM has violated the contract. I can't see that happening.
Development would cease while al the Linux developers chatted on Slashdot about the impending anti-trust cases against Microsoft launched across the globe.
Seriously, there isn't the remotest possibility that Microsoft could buy SCO if it would actually have a measurable effect. Of course, that is all predicated on the notion that SCO and its "IP" does actually count for something. Personally, I don't think it would make the slightest difference. IBM/SGI/SUN/etc. already have the rights to the stuff that matters and any new owners of SCO would not be able to withdraw those rights on a whim.
Just flicking through the sites listed in my URL bar,
Free with no ads:
bbc.co.uk
debian.org
ffii.org
fsf.org
kernel.org
mathworks.com
nr.com
octave.org
various university sites
virgin.com
Non-free, no ads
various academic journals and databases
Free, with ads
my bank
dictionary.com
dict.leo.org
leo.org
newscientist.com
slashdot.org
sourceforge.net
Looking at the sites which contain banner ads, I have no doubt whatsoever that my bank and newscientist.com would continue without ads if they were removed. I'm fairly certain that slashdot and sourceforge would continue (or something would take their place). I don't know about the three dictionary sites.
Overall I conclude (in my utterly unscientific survey) that banner ads do not support a significant proportion of a typical day on the net for me and I would not miss them.
The internet may be in its teens, but banner ads are younger still. Content on the net was free before the ads, it will be free after the ads. There may not be as much free content, but I sincerely doubt that the real quality stuff will disappear.
google might help
Stripped or Striped? Just wondering if this is a YRO or an XXX post.
They have not been convicted of anything - they haven't even been charged yet. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty". If there is evidence against them, it should be presented to a court.
And just who the fuck do you think you are to decide who is entitled to human rights?
Agreed. What country does the US administration accuse of this act? The US government blames Al Queda, a terrorist organization, not a state.
We are in Iraq right no (sic) doing something that hasn't been done in a long time -- brought what is naturally coming to a terrible, terrible cockroach and his friends their just desserts.
And do you think that the 10,000 (maybe, no one bothered to count) murderered Iraqis are getting "their just desserts". How about those who were maimed? How about their families? How about the orphans who no longer have a family?
Just like when you stand up to a bully
How was Saddam Hussein bullying you? Even the Whitehouse does not claim that he had anything to do with 9/11:
when we step into a country like Iraq and unleash the wrath of justice
Would that be the justice of murdering Iraqi civilians, selling off their state assests and appointing a puppet government for them?
You'll remember the Japs (as I intentionally refer to them)
Racism does not add value to your arguments
we could've ethically justified a cleansing of their leadership
In the case of Iraq, of course, the US have spectacularly failed to capture the former leader - Saddam Hussein is still at large. Meanwhile, many Iraqis are without the peace, security, water and electricity that they had before the invasion.
Turn around and stop pointing your finger at our country
Certainly not! I would condemn this illegal invasion if it were anyone else who had led it. Why should the fact that it is your government that is terrorizing the world make it immune from criticism?
You'll see that we are treating the people in Guantanamo more like men than they've been treated their entire lives.
What a ridiculous statement. They are being denied their basic human rights.
Yes, I DO question your patriotism
Your notion of patriotism disturbs me, but please explain why I should have any sense of patriotism towards the US, a country of which I am neither a citizen nor a resident.
In which case they should be charged with something, either spying (unlikely if they were in their own country) or something else. They should then have the opportunity to defend themselves in open court with the ability to avail themselves of all the rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which the US has signed up to. If US soldiers in Britain arrested me, I would not be wearing a recognisable uniform because I am not part of the military or any recognisable fighting force of government. That does not give them the right to forcibly remove me from my home country and lock me up without ever even charging me with anything! The actions of Bush and his cohorts in the Whitehouse are absolutely disgusting.
The bit that worries me about this, is that it means we will have planes flying overhead running chips that haven't had many years of testing before being cleared for flight .
It would probably be impossible to enforce anyway. If they put it in a weapon, it becomes a national security issue. How would you go about proving that your software was being used? They are hardly going to publish the source code (even if it is GPL).