I'd imagine a courts decision would be based on knowledge of the offending party. But actually awarding damages due to copyright violation would be tricky, because generally the damages are what are the calculated value. What damages have been incurred financially if you've given the software away, and if the party HAD conformed, you STILL would have allowed it to be given away?
Perhaps if company A had paid software engineers to add functionality that B had already added, but redistributed without the GPL there would be a financial measure.
But you're right, it'd be two steps. First, proving breach of contract. THEN copyright violation.
A contract is an acceptance of both parties of an agreement.
A license agreement is technically a contract.
A written contract for services is a different KIND of contract. But technically, they are both contracts.
Contracts should be signed, as they provides 'proof' that the acceptance was there. But a contract does not specifically require positive notification on the acceptance of a contract.
Umm, USING and observing are two totally different things. One could argue that fair use allows us to quote your copyrighted matrials, as well as the ability to download it for our own personal reading onto our computers, as your have provided it without stipulating restrictions.
Now, I can do whatever I like in terms of myself with your work. I can draw a little stick figure of you flipping the original poster off, no problem. The MINUTE I show someone else what I have done with your work, if I didn't HAVE a license to do that, and it doesn't specifically fall under fair use, you could sue me for copyright.
Now, let me ask you this. Unless you can actually physically see the electron charge on the bits that where transmitted when he posted it, how did you GET it without copying it?:-)
If it where a book, you would be correct, but..
I know, it's a reach, but I suspect that's what his original meaning was.
A license with conditions IS a contract. You ARE granted the license automagically, simply by downloading it. There is no, 'I don't accept that license'. You simply can abide by the terms OF the license. In my opinion, the act of distributing the given work is an act of accepting the conditions of the contractual limitations presented within the license agreement.
There are *2* legal definitions of a contract. The most people don't seem to remember is a contract is "v. to enter into an agreement.".
But it's stickier then that. You have a license to distribute the source for your applications. The end result of the source, after being compiled, is no longer the source. So you have used to source, in conjunction with a compiler, to produce a binary, which is specifically an implementation of the logic presented in the source.
If it is not a contract, or an EULA, then you could not dictate the USE, MERELY your distribution.
Personally, and IANAL, but it smells of BOTH a license AND a contract, but accepting the license infers you enter into a contract on how you may use the licensed work.
It should be pointed that Linux on a cell isn't using the Linux kernel for it's process management. The run the Linux kernel under ANOTHER real time kernel.
Aka, they completely bypass the kernel scheduler all together. (simplified, but basically, true)
When I want a task scheduler who can decide to give a video player more priority.
And I can't do it because Linus 'doesnt see the point'.
He doesn't see the point because it isn't a fair task scheduler. And beside's, you can always nice the process, right?
Well, I could also always use a task scheduler that does that for me as well, they are both potential solutions. But one of them was outright rejected and refused to be made available to the general public as part of the mainline kernel.
What was the crushing blow to the end developer ISN'T the existence of modules for big iron. It was that Linus *REJECTED* the task scheduler from the mainline kernel *ALLTOGETHER*.
How great would it feel is Linus decided your 'UberCard 3000' driver wouldn't be included simply because he didn't like the Ubercard device itself?
Basically, your point is perfectly valid. But so is his. If modules simply don't get included because 'So-and-So didn't like the idea at all, and didn't FEEL it made a difference for him', then the process breaks down.
Linus, and most Linux users, don't consider desktop performance the 'most important thing'. For instance, these same class of users find it 'absolutely inexusable' that Vista constrains network activity while playing video files. But at the same time, that very solution solves the solution (granted, in a rather draconian way).
The same desktop patches that most major Linux distributions actually incorporate will no longer exist or be supported by their author, because they couldn't make it into the mainline kernel.
The modularity that Linux *HAS* could allow for these very patches to co-exist. There was really no reason to NOT include them, so what was the original author to do?
The reasoning that I've read was, 'It just didn't seem to make a noticeable difference to me'. But it DID make a difference to the people who used these patches, so why not include them, unless, of course, the original contributor of those patches was right?
- * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the - * GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free - * Software Foundation.
Please cite me any source of information that says dual license means you are bound by two separate and distinct licenses. All definitions of Dual License I have seen are an either license context, not BOTH licenses. A good example is MySQL. Dual licensed under a commercial license where anyone can do what they want for a fee. They in no way are required to redistribute the code if they choose a commercial license.
But the entire package comes with license information that states it is covered under both. Even though the individual source files may not include the individual license headers, an explicit license on the entire package would include files where the license is not specifically stated.
It was not a violation. HE'S using and redistributing it under the terms of the GPLv2. Granted, it would seem a bit rude, but, not a violation of the gplv2 at all. Dual license doesn't mean BOTH.
There is no violation. They modified some lines of text which had no bearing to their use of the license which granted them. The GPL doesn't state, 'Oh, and you have to keep any other alternate license headers as well'.
Granted, I think it's poor form. But to label it a violation as opposed to a poke in the BSD license face is an assumption.
I am not sure why there is confusion. The original code was available under EITHER the BSD license, and the GPL license. They have decided to use the GPL license, which does not bind them to the BSD license.
So they removed mention. The provided the code back, under the gplv2, which the original authors could then include into theirs.
AVAILABLE under dual license doesn't mean you accept both. They abided by the terms of the GPL.
Slashdot Mirror
Not saying it's right, but, if they really, really wanted it, then they'd hypothetically toss you in jail if you didn't hand over the keys.
Oh yea, totally.
After all, everyone knows that white women, black men and women, reds, yellows, browns, oranges all live in non states, right?
Oh, wait.. Are you suggesting they have representation on the national level, but not the state level? I'm confused. What's your point?
Oh, wait..
There isn't one...
mem'oriz'able adj., mem'oriza'tion (-r-z'shn) n., mem'oriz'er n.
It's in the American Heritage dictionary, 4th edition.
I'd imagine a courts decision would be based on knowledge of the offending party. But actually awarding damages due to copyright violation would be tricky, because generally the damages are what are the calculated value. What damages have been incurred financially if you've given the software away, and if the party HAD conformed, you STILL would have allowed it to be given away?
Perhaps if company A had paid software engineers to add functionality that B had already added, but redistributed without the GPL there would be a financial measure.
But you're right, it'd be two steps. First, proving breach of contract. THEN copyright violation.
A contract is an acceptance of both parties of an agreement.
A license agreement is technically a contract.
A written contract for services is a different KIND of contract. But technically, they are both contracts.
Contracts should be signed, as they provides 'proof' that the acceptance was there. But a contract does not specifically require positive notification on the acceptance of a contract.
Umm, USING and observing are two totally different things. One could argue that fair use allows us to quote your copyrighted matrials, as well as the ability to download it for our own personal reading onto our computers, as your have provided it without stipulating restrictions.
:-)
Now, I can do whatever I like in terms of myself with your work. I can draw a little stick figure of you flipping the original poster off, no problem. The MINUTE I show someone else what I have done with your work, if I didn't HAVE a license to do that, and it doesn't specifically fall under fair use, you could sue me for copyright.
Now, let me ask you this. Unless you can actually physically see the electron charge on the bits that where transmitted when he posted it, how did you GET it without copying it?
If it where a book, you would be correct, but..
I know, it's a reach, but I suspect that's what his original meaning was.
A license with conditions IS a contract. You ARE granted the license automagically, simply by downloading it. There is no, 'I don't accept that license'. You simply can abide by the terms OF the license. In my opinion, the act of distributing the given work is an act of accepting the conditions of the contractual limitations presented within the license agreement.
There are *2* legal definitions of a contract. The most people don't seem to remember is a contract is "v. to enter into an agreement.".
Look it up in any first year legal dictionary.
But it's stickier then that. You have a license to distribute the source for your applications. The end result of the source, after being compiled, is no longer the source. So you have used to source, in conjunction with a compiler, to produce a binary, which is specifically an implementation of the logic presented in the source.
If it is not a contract, or an EULA, then you could not dictate the USE, MERELY your distribution.
Personally, and IANAL, but it smells of BOTH a license AND a contract, but accepting the license infers you enter into a contract on how you may use the licensed work.
It should be pointed that Linux on a cell isn't using the Linux kernel for it's process management. The run the Linux kernel under ANOTHER real time kernel.
Aka, they completely bypass the kernel scheduler all together. (simplified, but basically, true)
And yet, he didn't include a module which many people DO find makes a difference, simply because he didn't see the point.
There's caring for ya..
Yes, I can.
When I want a task scheduler who can decide to give a video player more priority.
And I can't do it because Linus 'doesnt see the point'.
He doesn't see the point because it isn't a fair task scheduler. And beside's, you can always nice the process, right?
Well, I could also always use a task scheduler that does that for me as well, they are both potential solutions. But one of them was outright rejected and refused to be made available to the general public as part of the mainline kernel.
The right to choose was removed.
What was the crushing blow to the end developer ISN'T the existence of modules for big iron. It was that Linus *REJECTED* the task scheduler from the mainline kernel *ALLTOGETHER*.
How great would it feel is Linus decided your 'UberCard 3000' driver wouldn't be included simply because he didn't like the Ubercard device itself?
Basically, your point is perfectly valid. But so is his. If modules simply don't get included because 'So-and-So didn't like the idea at all, and didn't FEEL it made a difference for him', then the process breaks down.
Linus, and most Linux users, don't consider desktop performance the 'most important thing'. For instance, these same class of users find it 'absolutely inexusable' that Vista constrains network activity while playing video files. But at the same time, that very solution solves the solution (granted, in a rather draconian way).
The same desktop patches that most major Linux distributions actually incorporate will no longer exist or be supported by their author, because they couldn't make it into the mainline kernel.
The modularity that Linux *HAS* could allow for these very patches to co-exist. There was really no reason to NOT include them, so what was the original author to do?
The reasoning that I've read was, 'It just didn't seem to make a noticeable difference to me'. But it DID make a difference to the people who used these patches, so why not include them, unless, of course, the original contributor of those patches was right?
No, it doesn't. It locks them out from using the BSD license, not from using the code in any way they see fit.
- * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
- * GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
- * Software Foundation.
Alternatively generally infers a choice.
Not the way it was worded, but then again, IANAL.
No where have I ever seen mention that a dual license requires acceptance of BOTH licenses. It allows you to accept and use either license.
Please cite me any source of information that says dual license means you are bound by two separate and distinct licenses. All definitions of Dual License I have seen are an either license context, not BOTH licenses. A good example is MySQL. Dual licensed under a commercial license where anyone can do what they want for a fee. They in no way are required to redistribute the code if they choose a commercial license.
But the entire package comes with license information that states it is covered under both. Even though the individual source files may not include the individual license headers, an explicit license on the entire package would include files where the license is not specifically stated.
To what license? The one they where using, aka, the GPL v2?
Or the one that they wheren't using, which the GPL v2 makes no mention of.
Dual license isn't licensing under BOTH licenses, it's EITHER license.
Show me one place where it states that both license headers shall be retained in gplv2?
He was granted the right to change the code under the gplv2. He released it. Duel license means use either, NOT both.
In a long list of corrections, he did NOT change the license. He was using the code UNDER the GPL, and released his changes, per the GPL requirement.
Bad tact perhaps, but not a violation.
What exactly would be the point of using the GPL *AND* the BSD license together? Then you'd just use BSD, right?
IT ISN'T BSD LICENSED SOURCE.
The BSD project has it available under EITHER license. EITHER/OR.
If a menu says you can have fries OR mashed potatoes, *YOU DON'T GET BOTH* unless you ASK for them.
It was not a violation. HE'S using and redistributing it under the terms of the GPLv2. Granted, it would seem a bit rude, but, not a violation of the gplv2 at all. Dual license doesn't mean BOTH.
There is no violation. They modified some lines of text which had no bearing to their use of the license which granted them. The GPL doesn't state, 'Oh, and you have to keep any other alternate license headers as well'.
Granted, I think it's poor form. But to label it a violation as opposed to a poke in the BSD license face is an assumption.
I am not sure why there is confusion. The original code was available under EITHER the BSD license, and the GPL license. They have decided to use the GPL license, which does not bind them to the BSD license.
So they removed mention. The provided the code back, under the gplv2, which the original authors could then include into theirs.
AVAILABLE under dual license doesn't mean you accept both. They abided by the terms of the GPL.