hear! hear! Excellent comment with a point that is right on target.
The hidden agenda is the assimilation of the work of many thousands of people into a collective commune with communistic style propaganda, ideology and double speak (where free software does not mean being free to choose not distribute source for changes you make when you distribute the binary).
Linus seems to prefer the freedom to choose rather than the freedom to enslave oneself to the collective. Unfortunately Linus choose the GPLv2 for his kernel. Well, one can't be perfect can one?
The GPLv3 take the GPL-Commune-Collective further into Soviet style communism with more agressive totalitarian and agressive rules that limit what people can do with the so called free software under the GPL label.
Stallman is simply upping the political propaganda for his followers to get all worked up.
When the full horror of the GPL falls upon authors who use it and force it upon unsuspecting users the truth will be known.
Down with GPL, up with Truely Free Software. Stop the double speak Stallman, you know that GPL isn't about freedom it's about assimilation. All GPL-Cult members bow down to your Borg-GPL-Overlord-Stallman.
The Fifth Freedom is the freedom to publish the source code or NOT as one decides when one modifies a program and distributes the binary. This is the most important Freedom of them all overriding any of the first four freedoms.
As a background the "four freedoms of free software"; using, studying, copying, and distributing modifications of the code."
GPL prevents the user freedom in "distributing modifications of the code" and thus the GPL isn't Free-Software, it's Community-Software. True Free Software is software where the authors and developers have full freedom to choose how, what and when or if they distribute their changes to a program.
THE GPL DOES NOT QUALIFY AS FREE SOFTWARE: THE GPL IS COMMUNE OR COMMUNITY SOFTWARE.
To quote Stallman: "0. To run the program as you wish. 1. To study the source code and change it so the program does what you wish. 2. To redistribute exact copies when you wish, either giving them away or selling them. 3. To distribute copies of your modified versions when you wish." http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;211669437;pp;2
It sounds like Stallman is describing a variant of a BSD license since in (2) and (3) he says that you can distribute copies of your modified versions "when you wish". Ok, this statement is in direct contradiction to any GPL license that I've ever read! They require the distribution of your modified versions without choice, it's a requirement that you distribute the source with the binary. Thus Mr. Stallman is caught in a blatant distortion bordering on an outright lie and misrepresentation. At least it's disingenuous on his part.
The GNU-GPL license is communistic in political philosophy. It is anti-capitalistic and anti-freedom in intent and spirit. When you contribute or use software under a GPL license you are joining a communistic collective which has rather draconian rules. You must, if you modify the software and distirbute it, contribute your changes to the collective without any choice in the matter. This is designed to favor users over developers which reveals another distortion by the Supreme Leader of the GPL Commune when he claims that he "appreciates both the huge user base and its large developer base".
Any analysis of the GPL license terms that is honest will show that the license favors end users over developers since the license robs developers of the choice, the freedom of choice, to freely choose to modify the software and publish only the binary! The GPL clearly robs freedom from developers, and thus GPL software isn't "free software" it's "the illusion of freedom with chains attached". Welcome to the soviet inspired GPL-GNU-Collective, what was yours is now ours.
Here is the quote:
"What's more important to you, GNU's huge user base or its large developer base? Stallman: I appreciate them both, but neither is what matters most. We didn't develop GNU just to make it a technical triumph, or just to have a success. Our goal was to win freedom, for ourselves and for you." http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;211669437;pp;2
Now, many GPL-Cult members will attempt, vainly, to point out that they are not communists or that they are not members of a mind controlling cult or that the GPL isn't about politics and how dare one compare GPL with Communism. Well, Stallman himself says "Free software is a political movement". Since your politburo leader himself acknowledges that this he is leading a political movement it's valid to ask what kind of political movement is it? Since it requires end users and developers to conform to draconian anti-freedom rules such as being forced, yes forced, to ship modified source code with modified binaries freedom is lost. For this reason alone Stallman's much vaunted "GPL" isn't "free software" it's really "what is yours is ours now and forever"; and rather than "free software" it's "Collective-Software".
Yes, before you start screaming about it, I do intend the negative pejorative meanings of "collective", "commune", "communistic", "cult", "soviet", etc...
I support freedom of choice for all, end users and developers. Developers must have the right to take a "free" piece of software and modify it and distribute it as they "freely" see fit. If they want to distribute it without source then that should be their right. Any software license that prevents this freedom isn't a "free software" license, it's a blocking freedom license. The GPL is the worst of them all in this regards since it legally and politically mandates a "communistic" point of view where the property is collective and the collective imposes it's will, in this case w
Since you obviously have NO IDEA of the reality of the situation on the ground in Iraq let me tell you that you are describing the coalition men an women perfectly with this sentence. Ridiculous. You and your country have killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq over the decade or more. That is pure evil and bordering on genocidal. Certainly it is a crime against human beings and your leaders should be prosecuted for war crimes.
Every soldier I worked for was a huge target to the enemy, yet none of them reached for their gun first, nor did any of them go on a seek-and-destroy mission. That's not relevant. You went into Iraq illegally under false pretenses and lies told you your leaders and the neo-cons. Also, many people were killed by your side in this conflict which makes you evil killers and, in the eyes of those you killed, terrorists.
The average US/UK soldier in Iraq are the REAL heroes, exactly for the reason you described. Nonsense. You are there to use force by any means necessary. You are acting for big brother and are carrying out evil actions.
Do you think US troops are in Iraq to hunt down and kill people? No. Well, the casualty reports would dispute your statement.
Their rules of engagement are pretty clear. Irrelevant you are there to kill when needed. You are the invaders.
They are there to TRY to establish the idealistic peace that you so want. Then leave them alone.
The reason it is the US Military doing this is because the soft European countries don't have the balls or a better solution, and there is no real world organization that has the clout to pull it off. No, those countries are much like yourself; they'd rather sit around philosophizing about peace, letting the evil grow stronger, until the evil destroys them (or, as recent world history goes, the US bails them out). See, America doesn't want to have to save another European country's ass in World War III, so we are taking steps to prevent it now, as opposed to later. You are really so deep into the "cult" that you can't even see the evil that you are causing over there.
You call me evil? My soldiers and I were saving far more lives than we ever took in Iraq. So you admit to taking lives. Yes, if you took lives as part of your involvement over there then you are evil incarnate. You are a terrorist in the eyes of those you killed. You are anti-peace. You are an evil killer.
In stark opposition to the distorted view you get from the news, the average soldier spends 10 hours a day helping families get food, water, clothes and electricity. Multiply my last sentence by 100,000 troops, and that's the real picture in Iraq. You invaded under false pretenses. You took offensive action and killed. That is evil. Bringing death to people around the world is evil - no matter the purpose.
The other 20,000 are fighting troops that are there to protect our mission, to find bad people, and yes, KILL them if necessary. Yes, an evil killing force men and women. From the bad people's point of view you are the bad people that they are there to find and get rid of. It's a vicious circle and you are completing it for the next spin of death.
We were establishing security and trying to setup a basic infrastructure so those people can live the idealistic life you keep going on about. Not relevant.
However, the ignorantly evil segment of that society keeps bringing the fight to us. Yes, they are evil for their actions as well. All the groups fighting over there are evil if they kill towards their aims - and they are all terrorists.
Stop poking the US military with a stick, and we'd be out of there in 6 months, with a somewhat functional government and society in place. I'm not poking anyone with a stick. I'm simply pointing out the observation that your actions over there won't solve the problems you think they will. It will just make things worse, and at
"Appeal for Authority" is the opposite of Ad Hominem attack. I was merely pointing out that you are on the opposite extreme. The difference is, my comment is satirical, yet yours is trying to be serious. Nonsense, I'm not appealing to any authority.
The fact that you are oversimplifying the entire topic of "conflict" by saying all killing is the same, tells me you do not have a strong grasp of logic. You are an idealist. Yes, ideally no one would kill anyone else. However, I'm not suggesting an oversimplification of conflict. I'm getting at the "cult" of killing which you support with your views. Will it ever be possible for there to be no human deaths at the hand of another human being for a period of time even as short as a year? Certainly not with people thinking like you do, that is for sure. It's not about idealism, it's about embracing the reality that the root cause of many conflicts is that people are killed and others seek revenge. It's the reptilian emotional brain that we inherited from our ancestors - it worked for them, why not us? Modern life is now complex with the web of communications and global travel small conflicts can be taken afar and impact the whole world. It's asymmetric warfare where David hits home in an all to real manner even against the so called powers.
That is the reality. I embrace reality in it's full horror with no snuggles or soft emotions. As has been said, "Life is a harsh mistress" and "the universe doesn't care". If the universe doesn't care who does? Only we. It's obvious that you'd rather shoot first and ask questions later; the only problem with that approach is that the people you kill have friends, families, country men, and yes, fellow delusional believers in God (it doesn't matter which God they believe in) ready to kill you back now or in the future after time has tempered their resolve and asymmetric warfare has amplified their capabilities beyond what you've done to them.
As a realist, I understand, and fully accept the fact that the US is on the correct side of this conflict. First off you're not a realist but a member of a cult that thinks it's on the "correct" side of the conflict. I hate to break it to you but in the full horror of the universe there is no "correct" side of anything - unless we say what is correct it ain't correct. Learn some basic philosophy and how to think critically with your own brain independent of your culture, your family, your tribe; learn to think about all life on Earth not just those in your cult or country. The only realism in your point of view is how real it echoes the propaganda machine of your leaders who want sheep.
In other words, there are perfect legitimate reasons for killing people, such as religious zealots who want to destroy all of western society. To think otherwise is living in a fantasy world much like yours. In your view that may well be the case. It also means that you are a supporter of killers and the process of killing. It means that you are a killer by proxy and maybe even a direct killer of your fellow human beings. You are an evil person.
You've bought the State and Media propaganda line, hook and sinker. You are not an independent human being committed to life on this planet.
Free your mind, free your thinking from the propaganda machine. Think for yourself.
It's your line of thinking that got us to where we are now.
The solutions to this conflict do not exist at the same level of thinking as the conflict is at. It will take ingenuity to come up with solutions that keep the peace for all.
How about taking up the challenge of asking how can this be solved in a peaceful way by asking questions each day of people around you. How can you solve this peacefully? How can your leaders solve this peacefully?
Real heroes are the ones who don't shoot when given the opportunity. Real heroes are those that save lives rather than take even a single life. Peace is the way of security for all, and have no doubt that if you want security and peace your enemies must also have security and peace. Greater men than I have said this. I simply and humbly stand on their shoulders.
History is irrelevant...like I said. Middle schooler! Another ad hominem attack. Your so attack happy that's all you and your culture knows.
You classify people, for example "middle schooler", as a way of not having to actually argue and debate in real terms. Grow up and learn to think for yourself outside of your collective.
If you think you are any less an enemy of islam because you are bent over, greased up and ready for them you are crazy. True self defense is perfectly fine. Offensive attacks aren't since they make things worse.
Civilizations can only afford to be so 'civilized'. You need someone to watch over you or the first uncivilized fellow with a funny 'stash will own you. Nonsense. Racism. Cultism. You are so embedded in your own culture that you can't see the evil in your own thoughts.
I don't wounder why they are after us at all. They want what we got (read money and all that can be bought with it, especially power). At the end of the day it's that simple. That's fine, we've taken down far tougher foes then Islamic religious nuts. You mention history, how about reading it! The USA has been attacking many countries and controlling throughout the middle east. Your enemies want you to stop killing them. They have said so. As for wealth, they've got oil wealth so your argument is flawed propaganda from the noe-conservative nuts and you've bought and eaten it so you can't see it.
Once MTV owns their kids it's all over. Same M.O. as brought down the iron curtain. Now you are beginning to make some sense. MTV is a cult of it's own. It's also a disruptive influence upon their cult-ure. Another reason that they attack which they have also stated. Western culture was working until the noe-conservatives went on their revenge based retaliation. Revenge is never the answer and always breeds counter-revenge and counter-counter-revenge and so on and so on and so on for potentially hundreds of years or in this case potentially thousands of years as long as we have people who think like you. Change your thinking to peace based ways forward. Each person is a step towards progress. Peace is the answer.
Ah yes, your appeal to authority by using big words is the true cowardice. Yes, because we are the ones who randomly kill Israeli/American/Iraqi/fill-in-the-country citizens on a daily basis without provocation. You win.
Eh? The meaning of your statements is not clear, except that it sounds like an emotional rant of some sort.
It's also another ad hominem attack. Look it up if you don't know what it means. It's not that big of a word.
I don't get the second sentence at all. Whether or not someone is killed by another randomly or on purpose is irrelevant, they are still killed dead!
Your country kills people. Those people don't like being killed so they kill you back. What part of that don't you get? It's a cycle. Break it for peace. Keep it going and it will simply escalate till a major city is vaporized - yours or theirs. That's the natural progression that you're looking at. It's simple primitive emotional brain reaction to protect oneself and one's "cult-ture", with emphasis on cult. Break the cycle.
God is a delusion that you and other humans have invented. Grow up and get over it.
I promote true self defense as strength is important. I do not support offensive actions that kill people.
Yes, there are lots of problems in the world. Killing people is never the answer to them as it simply breeds more killing (of members of your cultural group) by their friends and loved ones.
Only strategies that promote peaceful coexistence are viable human and life centered for the long term survival of our species.
Oh, and by the way, doesn't your God order you to: "Thou shall not kill"? Kinda hypocritical of you and your leads isn't it? They are going to hell if the bible has anything to do with reality (which is doesn't but that is an entirely different conversation).
The real trick is recognizing when someone just needs killing.
With a mentality like that it's no wonder that they think the same about you.
Yes, history is irrelevant since it's just a memory of the past. If you project your future out of your past all you'll get is further events mirroring past events. There are alternatives that are based in peace. You just aren't even thinking in terms of peace as you and your culture are too busy deciding who "needs killing". Sign, and you wonder why they are after you.
You have one flawed assumption at the core of your argument. You assume that other cultures value life on Earth as much as you do. I don't assume that. It is your assumption that I assume that and a mistaken assumption on your part.
Purely as an intellectual exercise, you might think about how utterly vain that is. Can you not put your culture ahead of your personal well-being? Can you understand that both your beliefs and the generations to come could possibly be of more value than your life? Of course I wouldn't put my "culture" ahead of my personal well-being! I'm not a "cult-member"! I'm an individual. The problem is people who do in fact put their "culture" ahead of their own well being. They are generally called suicide-bombers by their friends and terrorists by their enemies and many others, although they are also known as freedom fighters. Beliefs have no value at all as all beliefs are suspect and have little to do with reality. The generations to come don't exist yet, they are a fantasy in your mind. They will only exist if people aren't killed and if they have children who aren't killed by "cult-ure" driven fanatics who believe killing is ok.
Well, some pretty couragous people outside the US believe that their individual lives do not count for much of anything and are clearly willing to sacrifice them in order to achieve goals which may not be realized for generations. You think you can negotiate with these people? Your petty self-centered world view isn't going to change their minds. Courage exists on all sides in a conflict. Courage isn't honorable. Yes there are people outside the US that believe that as there are US people who most certainly believe that - some of them are implementing their beliefs with actions that result in people being killed. Your justification for killing them is that they want to kill you? I don't think that your leaders have even tried to negotiate with those that want to cause harm. It's apparent that many in the US have allowed the killing by their leads to proceed. This fact is what gives much of the justification for your enemies to launch attacks against your country (and others). Your justification for killing them is exactly the same justification that they use to kill back. It's a no win situation and they have the numbers willing to put their "culture" before themselves as suicide bombers, er, terrorists. Just as each of you who goes over there and kills and is killed may be a hero back home over there you are a terrorist in their minds. That is the nature of war and the way to break it is to break the cycle. That starts with YOU. Then it's a process, not easy by any means, of allowing them to break the cycle too. That's the beginning of peace. Alternatively you support a thousands year war of civilizations. That's really foolish.
My view isn't self centered. It's centered on preserving ALL human life everywhere. That's the least self centered viewpoint possible. In fact it's your view that you, or at least your culture, is more important than the people you kill that is self centered!
The threat of economic sanctions, war, and even nuclear destruction is immaterial to people with beliefs. They will achieve their goals without question if people aren't willing to stand up for what they believe in. Apparently you believe in your life and expect others to have the same courtesy. I expect you to have but one expression on your face when they kill you - astonishment. Standing up for "beliefs" is pure cult member behavior. Beliefs control you like a mind virus (look it up on the net). Standing up and defending yourself is one thing, but invading other countries 6,000 miles from yours is quite another that has nothing to do with self defense! That's pure offensive thinking. It's interesting that that word has "offense" in it, and that's not a coincidence since to the receiving party it is an offense and a crime against humanity to all.
I don't believe in life. Life doesn't need me to believe in it. In fac
Ah yes, reducing yourself to ad hominem attacks is the true cowardice.
If you give the people in your government the power to kill then what's to stop them from killing you? If you give them the power to kill then you are killing by proxy which makes you an evil terrorist to those who you kill via your government.
Naturally, if those you kill have people who retaliate then they are also terrorists just like you. Method and motivation are irrelevant; the reality is all that matters; if you kill you are the terrorists and the anti peace people. You are the mad men of our era - if you kill or support killing.
You limit your options and thus become the killer terrorists to others in the world. When you realize that all the people of the Earth are the same you'll realize that to kill is to terrorize. You have a choice, you can choose an alternative path than killing.
The facts of history that you quote are irrelevant and an easy way out. The hard thing is to find the way to peace without killing.
Real heroes avoid killing like they would avoid the plague. Real heroes solve problems with others by negotiation, by discussion, not using a gun, bombs, or stealth planes to sneak up on people with no honor.
Once you kill you are no longer hero material, you are a killer forever.
It's easy to destroy. What's hard is not fighting the fight that kills. Peace is hard and it's the kind of heroes we need, those that strive for peace without the use of violence and killing.
The problem with killing is that those you kill may have loved ones, or brothers, who will come and do the same to you. As is said, do unto others as you'd have they do unto you. If you want peace, spread that around the world and create real heroes for peace.
Your count is incorrect. I have referenced a number of other items in the many postings that I've made to this Slashdot article thread.
Which statement are you referring to where I'm referring to myself in the third person? By the way, there is nothing wrong with referring to oneself in the first, second or third person so I don't know what you are going on about.
It's not bluster; it's an analysis of the responsibilities of using software licensed under the BSD license. The impact of a dual BSD+GPL license (still in question if it really is dual licensed) is that the BSD license must be taken into consideration SINCE the changes were not a "derivative work" and thus no new copyright was created under copyright laws; this means that the work is in a gray area under the original authors control. Legal advice has suggested that the enhanced work be given to the original authors as a gift under the terms of their original license. To fail to do so would be to violate the original authors rights and intent of their license and copyright.
It is illegal! The work has a BSD license and it can't be removed!!! That's copyright law.
The impacts of dual BSD + GPL licenses is clearly an area that people have trouble interpreting what to do.
Another area that people have trouble with is understanding that their changes to a project are usually not copyrightable by them even though they authored the changes! It's when the merging into another's work where the question of whether or not a derivative work is created that determines if you gain any copyrights in the new work. As a separate work it may the changes may well be copyrightable but you loose that when it's merged into most projects unless it alters the project differently enough or the change is significantly large enough to pass the copyright test for derivative works.
People are just playing loose with their changes and assuming that they own what they've in fact "gifted" to another by the act of merging and publishing.
Thinking is a skill that takes skill to develop. Work on it and you can improve, as can anyone who works at it. That's my observational two cents for the day.
Remember the discovery process in this case hasn't occurred yet so the fact findings may not be what you assume. With that said it makes it more difficult to analyze.
Yes, really GPLers are always ranting about "freedom" and "enforcement". They never get that their license only provides a narrow corridor of "freedom" for users to walk up and down at the expense of the freedom of authors. On the other hand the BSD license provides full freedom to move in many directions. Both are backed by the teeth of copyright laws and the Berne Convention.
For citations and references to the laws and legal opinions please see the other postings by itsybitsy on this topic. Google is also a good tool for finding out about copyright laws. Use it.
The fact is that the original authors in a work have rights in the derived works; it takes a considerable amount of changes for a work to be copyrightable by another. Read the copyright laws of your country to find out. Also read the Berne Convention on copyrights.
If any changes made to an original work by a new author are merged into the original work and are published the original authors own the new changes by default per copyright laws and the Berne Convention. The original authors may at their discretion republish those changes if they so wish. Since the original authors own the changes to the derived work their original license applies. Any license terms the new author put on his/her changes are null and void when the changes are merged with the original work.
How does this apply and protect BSD code from the hungry maw of the GPL beast? Any BSD licensed code is protected as in the above paragraph. In essence the copyright law and Berne Convention make BSD code viral in that minor changes, even large changes resulting in a derived work are protected and under the control of the original authors. If the original authors say you have to publish under BSD then that's what you must do with your derivative work. It's that simple. Original authors own the derivative works of their work and control who can and can't make derivative works.
If you want permission to alter the terms of the license of a derivate work you must obtain that from the original authors. I would suggest that you get that in writing.
This is basic copyright law on who controls and own derivative works. Basic. Read the law and find out.
While legal enforcement isn't unique to the GPL license by any means, the endless ranting about it is.
Yes, once you choose a license you are committed if you wish to remain in compliance with it's terms and the law.
Once you have chosen you are not free anymore. The point is that one remains much more free with BSD style licenses. That's a fact that the GPLers keep denying since "freedom" is one of their "central dogmas" and points that they "evangelize" to the world.
The point is that GPL code can in some situations pollute code from other systems. The point is that some in the GPL community inappropriately alter the licenses of BSD licensed code as may be the case with the driver. The point is that those in the GPL community seem to fail to comprehend copyright laws and misrepresent them with extreme interpretations that have reached beyond the pale of any breaking point of reason. These assertions are evident in the responses from those supporting the GPL over the last week.
I see that you've now gone further than simply taking what I wrote and responding as if I was implying the GPL and BSD license were the "same", and gone completely overboard. Now, apparently, I was making some deep philosophical point and fighting the good fight for the GPL, rather than making an observation about what Theo was apparently claiming and pointing out that Theo's comments almost certainly not what he intended to mean, and were compromised by his anti-GPL stance.
That's not the case and is a mis-characterization on top of being inaccurate. I didn't say or imply that you were saying that the GPL and BSD, or portions thereof, were the "same". You do in fact seem to be "fighting the good fight for the GPL" eloquently making my point about calling people "trolls" as an ad hominem attack when in fact that isn't what my intention was about - even after I stated my intention you reiterated your ad hominem attack as if that would make your accusations about my intent true. Yours is a typical denial response by a member of a group that is defending the group to any length. That's fine you are allowed to be that way since I'll grant you that freedom as it's every human's right. Just be clear that that is how you are perceived.
Let me iterate clearly: it isn't my intention to "troll". Honestly it is my intention to engage in a serious debate on these issues. It's too bad that many (possibly a majority) of those representing the GPL side of the debate simply yell "troll" and back down slithering away yelling for their friends to squash the debate (with "+5 troll" moderation) whenever they hear valid criticism of their cherished GPL. Your responses clearly show that happening. I've seen it with others as well. It's an effective "social control" technique used by groups such as Scientology for control of their group members. Please snap out of it and engage in a serious debate, I beg of you.
I assert to that the the "social phenomenon" of the "culture" of the GPL has a direct relevancy to this debate. Let's state it clearly: the "social phenomenon" of the group of people who promote the GPL zealously impacts their thinking. How else would it be that every time that this debate happens the pattern is the same with the GPL members? Clearly many people "promoting" the GPL think in the same regimented manner and respond in the same ways. Regimented thinking or "group think" is a sure sign of a "culture" which has "social control" and the hallmarks of a "cult" or "commune" where membership is obtained by conforming to the particular though pattern matrix of the set by the leaders. The promotion of GPL is evidently as successful a mind virus, or if you prefer "social phenomenon", as Java or Microsoft in the market place of ideas. By being a member of the group with it's well rehearsed thought patterns and arguments of defense and means of stifling discussion with claims of "troll" you are "fighting the good fight for the GPL". I accuse you of attempting to stifle discussion by your baseless accusations and mis-characterization of my intent. I told you what my intention is and was fairly careful in stating it clearly - isn't it possible that that really is my intent? Who would know better than I?
It wasn't my intention to debate you on whether or not the GPL or BSD is better. Obviously the GPL is better for you and you've made up your mind. My point is to show the flaws in the GPL and how the BSD license doesn't have this. All I get back is the GPL "party line" - another reason that the "communistic" simile works so well as a descriptive term with members of the "social phenomenon" or "culture" known as the GPL. It's simply accurate give the regimented group think that is evident.
If you were or are an independent thinker and free of the "social phenomenon" of the GPL you'd be able to have a real discourse regarding the issues without resorting to childish accusations.
The fact remains that Theo's comments are deadly on target and backed up by law and legal opinions. Furthermore it
Since the changes to the path do not constitute a new derivative work as defined by copyright law it doesn't not become copyrightable when merged with the original work. IF the original work is dual licensed with BSD and GPL then changes must be shared as required by GPL. Since the work doesn't qualify as a new derived work as defined by copyright law the changes fall in a gray area where the courts would side with the original authors. Thus the new work is best considered a gift to the original authors and is under their copyright and license or licenses. Since their original work is under the BSD license the changes must be published under the BSD license and the GPL license simultaneously. I checked this with a lawyer and he suggests that rather than fight it in court that the authors of the new "patch" or change additions simply gift their copyrighted work to the original authors. Remember that copyright law has teeth in these matters; it's not just three or four paragraphs in the BSD license, it's the entire copyright laws and court decisions in your country that make the difference and that apply here.
Once the facts have been discovered in the case of the BSD Driver Linux Patch without BSD license mentioned escapade we'll know better how the cookie crumbles in this case.
Remember your code isn't copyrightable when merged with another's original work unless you have significant changes (in volume) or you alter the code so that it is different enough to be classified as a derivative work by copyright laws. This has significant implications for all software projects, open, free or closed. It also has serious issues and implications for forks of open or free software projects no matter which license is involved. Furthermore the original authors are always in bed with you as long as you have any portion of their code in your system beyond fair use. Be warned that they may have more rights in your derived work than you can even imagine now.
Yes you are correct you can take it or leave it. That point is valid but misses the point of valid criticism that is often raised about the GPL and it's method of restrictions.
The point is that once you "commit" to extending a GPL'd piece of software you give up your choice to choose at any time in the future for that software to be not shipped with source. As we all know this is one of the defining characteristics of GPL'd software - you must publish or make available the source code of your changes that you distribute. You agreed to that and must obey if you intend to follow your agreements. The community even enforces this point legally. The "commune" also promotes this aggressively in many ways such as your non-relevant point which I hear all the time from GPL advocates.
Compare two software projects, one GPL'd and one BSD licensed. They both have similar features and capabilities. If you choose the GPL you've effectively joined a commune that will enforce your adherence to their restrictive covenants, including their over zealous restriction on sharing source code which you author. By choosing the BSD licensed software you have freedom now or in the future to choose to distribute the source for your changes or not assuming that your changes are a new derivative work. If your changes are not a derivative work and you choose to distribute them you must keep the BSD license. See earlier analysis comments by itsybitsy in this thread for the in depth analysis on these points. Yes you are free to do what you want but you are still bound by copyright law and the BSD license terms.
Once you commit to the GPL there is no going back! That binds your hands in the future as many have found out the hard way.
Also, as many have also found out, the GPL attempts to infect other software that co-exists with it in a system in sneaky ways that are just downright tasteful and overly restrictive. This is often called the viral nature of the GPL.
I'd rather choose a license that keeps my options open for the future so that I as a developer can choose at any point in the future to ship or not ship the source code modifications that I create for others original works under the BSD or other license. That's the freedom of choice that GPL takes away at the time you commit to using GPL. That's why GPL is less free than BSD. That is a major reason for the GPL license being considered "restrictive" and the BSD license is considered "permissive".
If you don't like this assessment then that's simply too bad for you.
Obviously your freedom to choose at anytime isn't important to you. Obviously you have chosen the path of joining the GPL commune - if it works for you all the more power to you - just don't enforce your communistic and socialistic ways upon us freedom lovers.
That also means don't steal BSD software and attempt to change it into GPL'd software.
That also means sharing non-derivative software changes with BSD software authors under the BSD license if you choose to share them as you must with dual BSD and GPL'd software. Thank you.
Let's go through the logic of that one more time just so you and everyone is clear. Software that is both GPL'd and BSD licensed has some unique interactions. For example, if you make a change to said software the GPL license requires that you share the source code (if you distribute the binary). Since you are sharing the source code you must publish it under the BSD license as well IF it doesn't qualify as a derived work as defined by copyright law. Why? Once minor changes are merged you don't have a copyright in it and the original authors rights and license take priority. Even if your changes do qualify as a derived work the original licensed code embedded within the derived work must retain the BSD license per the BSD terms and per copyright law. Also the original authors retain their rights in derived works even with BSD terms as a result of copyright law.
It's often better to ask for permission than to beg for forgiveness. Th
Slashdot Mirror
hear! hear! Excellent comment with a point that is right on target.
The hidden agenda is the assimilation of the work of many thousands of people into a collective commune with communistic style propaganda, ideology and double speak (where free software does not mean being free to choose not distribute source for changes you make when you distribute the binary).
Linus seems to prefer the freedom to choose rather than the freedom to enslave oneself to the collective. Unfortunately Linus choose the GPLv2 for his kernel. Well, one can't be perfect can one?
The GPLv3 take the GPL-Commune-Collective further into Soviet style communism with more agressive totalitarian and agressive rules that limit what people can do with the so called free software under the GPL label.
Stallman is simply upping the political propaganda for his followers to get all worked up.
When the full horror of the GPL falls upon authors who use it and force it upon unsuspecting users the truth will be known.
Down with GPL, up with Truely Free Software. Stop the double speak Stallman, you know that GPL isn't about freedom it's about assimilation. All GPL-Cult members bow down to your Borg-GPL-Overlord-Stallman.
The Fifth Freedom is the freedom to publish the source code or NOT as one decides when one modifies a program and distributes the binary. This is the most important Freedom of them all overriding any of the first four freedoms.
As a background the "four freedoms of free software"; using, studying, copying, and distributing modifications of the code."
GPL prevents the user freedom in "distributing modifications of the code" and thus the GPL isn't Free-Software, it's Community-Software. True Free Software is software where the authors and developers have full freedom to choose how, what and when or if they distribute their changes to a program.
THE GPL DOES NOT QUALIFY AS FREE SOFTWARE: THE GPL IS COMMUNE OR COMMUNITY SOFTWARE.
To quote Stallman: "0. To run the program as you wish. 1. To study the source code and change it so the program does what you wish. 2. To redistribute exact copies when you wish, either giving them away or selling them. 3. To distribute copies of your modified versions when you wish."
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;211669437;pp;2
It sounds like Stallman is describing a variant of a BSD license since in (2) and (3) he says that you can distribute copies of your modified versions "when you wish". Ok, this statement is in direct contradiction to any GPL license that I've ever read! They require the distribution of your modified versions without choice, it's a requirement that you distribute the source with the binary. Thus Mr. Stallman is caught in a blatant distortion bordering on an outright lie and misrepresentation. At least it's disingenuous on his part.
The GNU-GPL license is communistic in political philosophy. It is anti-capitalistic and anti-freedom in intent and spirit. When you contribute or use software under a GPL license you are joining a communistic collective which has rather draconian rules. You must, if you modify the software and distirbute it, contribute your changes to the collective without any choice in the matter. This is designed to favor users over developers which reveals another distortion by the Supreme Leader of the GPL Commune when he claims that he "appreciates both the huge user base and its large developer base".
Any analysis of the GPL license terms that is honest will show that the license favors end users over developers since the license robs developers of the choice, the freedom of choice, to freely choose to modify the software and publish only the binary! The GPL clearly robs freedom from developers, and thus GPL software isn't "free software" it's "the illusion of freedom with chains attached". Welcome to the soviet inspired GPL-GNU-Collective, what was yours is now ours.
Here is the quote:
"What's more important to you, GNU's huge user base or its large developer base? Stallman: I appreciate them both, but neither is what matters most. We didn't develop GNU just to make it a technical triumph, or just to have a success. Our goal was to win freedom, for ourselves and for you."
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;211669437;pp;2
Now, many GPL-Cult members will attempt, vainly, to point out that they are not communists or that they are not members of a mind controlling cult or that the GPL isn't about politics and how dare one compare GPL with Communism. Well, Stallman himself says "Free software is a political movement". Since your politburo leader himself acknowledges that this he is leading a political movement it's valid to ask what kind of political movement is it? Since it requires end users and developers to conform to draconian anti-freedom rules such as being forced, yes forced, to ship modified source code with modified binaries freedom is lost. For this reason alone Stallman's much vaunted "GPL" isn't "free software" it's really "what is yours is ours now and forever"; and rather than "free software" it's "Collective-Software".
Yes, before you start screaming about it, I do intend the negative pejorative meanings of "collective", "commune", "communistic", "cult", "soviet", etc...
I support freedom of choice for all, end users and developers. Developers must have the right to take a "free" piece of software and modify it and distribute it as they "freely" see fit. If they want to distribute it without source then that should be their right. Any software license that prevents this freedom isn't a "free software" license, it's a blocking freedom license. The GPL is the worst of them all in this regards since it legally and politically mandates a "communistic" point of view where the property is collective and the collective imposes it's will, in this case w
That bureaucrats think at all is news!!!
Since you obviously have NO IDEA of the reality of the situation on the ground in Iraq let me tell you that you are describing the coalition men an women perfectly with this sentence.
Ridiculous. You and your country have killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq over the decade or more. That is pure evil and bordering on genocidal. Certainly it is a crime against human beings and your leaders should be prosecuted for war crimes.
Every soldier I worked for was a huge target to the enemy, yet none of them reached for their gun first, nor did any of them go on a seek-and-destroy mission.
That's not relevant. You went into Iraq illegally under false pretenses and lies told you your leaders and the neo-cons. Also, many people were killed by your side in this conflict which makes you evil killers and, in the eyes of those you killed, terrorists.
The average US/UK soldier in Iraq are the REAL heroes, exactly for the reason you described.
Nonsense. You are there to use force by any means necessary. You are acting for big brother and are carrying out evil actions.
Do you think US troops are in Iraq to hunt down and kill people? No.
Well, the casualty reports would dispute your statement.
Their rules of engagement are pretty clear.
Irrelevant you are there to kill when needed. You are the invaders.
They are there to TRY to establish the idealistic peace that you so want.
Then leave them alone.
The reason it is the US Military doing this is because the soft European countries don't have the balls or a better solution, and there is no real world organization that has the clout to pull it off. No, those countries are much like yourself; they'd rather sit around philosophizing about peace, letting the evil grow stronger, until the evil destroys them (or, as recent world history goes, the US bails them out). See, America doesn't want to have to save another European country's ass in World War III, so we are taking steps to prevent it now, as opposed to later.
You are really so deep into the "cult" that you can't even see the evil that you are causing over there.
You call me evil? My soldiers and I were saving far more lives than we ever took in Iraq.
So you admit to taking lives. Yes, if you took lives as part of your involvement over there then you are evil incarnate. You are a terrorist in the eyes of those you killed. You are anti-peace. You are an evil killer.
In stark opposition to the distorted view you get from the news, the average soldier spends 10 hours a day helping families get food, water, clothes and electricity. Multiply my last sentence by 100,000 troops, and that's the real picture in Iraq.
You invaded under false pretenses. You took offensive action and killed. That is evil. Bringing death to people around the world is evil - no matter the purpose.
The other 20,000 are fighting troops that are there to protect our mission, to find bad people, and yes, KILL them if necessary.
Yes, an evil killing force men and women. From the bad people's point of view you are the bad people that they are there to find and get rid of. It's a vicious circle and you are completing it for the next spin of death.
We were establishing security and trying to setup a basic infrastructure so those people can live the idealistic life you keep going on about.
Not relevant.
However, the ignorantly evil segment of that society keeps bringing the fight to us.
Yes, they are evil for their actions as well. All the groups fighting over there are evil if they kill towards their aims - and they are all terrorists.
Stop poking the US military with a stick, and we'd be out of there in 6 months, with a somewhat functional government and society in place.
I'm not poking anyone with a stick. I'm simply pointing out the observation that your actions over there won't solve the problems you think they will. It will just make things worse, and at
It's bullshit. Move along, nothing to see.
"Appeal for Authority" is the opposite of Ad Hominem attack. I was merely pointing out that you are on the opposite extreme. The difference is, my comment is satirical, yet yours is trying to be serious.
Nonsense, I'm not appealing to any authority.
The fact that you are oversimplifying the entire topic of "conflict" by saying all killing is the same, tells me you do not have a strong grasp of logic. You are an idealist.
Yes, ideally no one would kill anyone else. However, I'm not suggesting an oversimplification of conflict. I'm getting at the "cult" of killing which you support with your views. Will it ever be possible for there to be no human deaths at the hand of another human being for a period of time even as short as a year? Certainly not with people thinking like you do, that is for sure. It's not about idealism, it's about embracing the reality that the root cause of many conflicts is that people are killed and others seek revenge. It's the reptilian emotional brain that we inherited from our ancestors - it worked for them, why not us? Modern life is now complex with the web of communications and global travel small conflicts can be taken afar and impact the whole world. It's asymmetric warfare where David hits home in an all to real manner even against the so called powers.
That is the reality. I embrace reality in it's full horror with no snuggles or soft emotions. As has been said, "Life is a harsh mistress" and "the universe doesn't care". If the universe doesn't care who does? Only we. It's obvious that you'd rather shoot first and ask questions later; the only problem with that approach is that the people you kill have friends, families, country men, and yes, fellow delusional believers in God (it doesn't matter which God they believe in) ready to kill you back now or in the future after time has tempered their resolve and asymmetric warfare has amplified their capabilities beyond what you've done to them.
As a realist, I understand, and fully accept the fact that the US is on the correct side of this conflict.
First off you're not a realist but a member of a cult that thinks it's on the "correct" side of the conflict. I hate to break it to you but in the full horror of the universe there is no "correct" side of anything - unless we say what is correct it ain't correct. Learn some basic philosophy and how to think critically with your own brain independent of your culture, your family, your tribe; learn to think about all life on Earth not just those in your cult or country. The only realism in your point of view is how real it echoes the propaganda machine of your leaders who want sheep.
In other words, there are perfect legitimate reasons for killing people, such as religious zealots who want to destroy all of western society. To think otherwise is living in a fantasy world much like yours.
In your view that may well be the case. It also means that you are a supporter of killers and the process of killing. It means that you are a killer by proxy and maybe even a direct killer of your fellow human beings. You are an evil person.
You've bought the State and Media propaganda line, hook and sinker. You are not an independent human being committed to life on this planet.
Free your mind, free your thinking from the propaganda machine. Think for yourself.
It's your line of thinking that got us to where we are now.
The solutions to this conflict do not exist at the same level of thinking as the conflict is at. It will take ingenuity to come up with solutions that keep the peace for all.
How about taking up the challenge of asking how can this be solved in a peaceful way by asking questions each day of people around you. How can you solve this peacefully? How can your leaders solve this peacefully?
Real heroes are the ones who don't shoot when given the opportunity. Real heroes are those that save lives rather than take even a single life. Peace is the way of security for all, and have no doubt that if you want security and peace your enemies must also have security and peace. Greater men than I have said this. I simply and humbly stand on their shoulders.
Peace.
This link is pretty good and expresses some of the points I'm making.
e d&search=
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yZ4IW0Y_7WY
As does this one.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8&mode=relat
History is irrelevant...like I said. Middle schooler!
Another ad hominem attack. Your so attack happy that's all you and your culture knows.
You classify people, for example "middle schooler", as a way of not having to actually argue and debate in real terms. Grow up and learn to think for yourself outside of your collective.
If you think you are any less an enemy of islam because you are bent over, greased up and ready for them you are crazy.
True self defense is perfectly fine. Offensive attacks aren't since they make things worse.
Civilizations can only afford to be so 'civilized'. You need someone to watch over you or the first uncivilized fellow with a funny 'stash will own you.
Nonsense. Racism. Cultism. You are so embedded in your own culture that you can't see the evil in your own thoughts.
I don't wounder why they are after us at all. They want what we got (read money and all that can be bought with it, especially power). At the end of the day it's that simple. That's fine, we've taken down far tougher foes then Islamic religious nuts.
You mention history, how about reading it! The USA has been attacking many countries and controlling throughout the middle east. Your enemies want you to stop killing them. They have said so. As for wealth, they've got oil wealth so your argument is flawed propaganda from the noe-conservative nuts and you've bought and eaten it so you can't see it.
Once MTV owns their kids it's all over. Same M.O. as brought down the iron curtain.
Now you are beginning to make some sense. MTV is a cult of it's own. It's also a disruptive influence upon their cult-ure. Another reason that they attack which they have also stated. Western culture was working until the noe-conservatives went on their revenge based retaliation. Revenge is never the answer and always breeds counter-revenge and counter-counter-revenge and so on and so on and so on for potentially hundreds of years or in this case potentially thousands of years as long as we have people who think like you. Change your thinking to peace based ways forward. Each person is a step towards progress. Peace is the answer.
Ah yes, your appeal to authority by using big words is the true cowardice. Yes, because we are the ones who randomly kill Israeli/American/Iraqi/fill-in-the-country citizens on a daily basis without provocation. You win.
e lection&search=Search
Eh? The meaning of your statements is not clear, except that it sounds like an emotional rant of some sort.
It's also another ad hominem attack. Look it up if you don't know what it means. It's not that big of a word.
I don't get the second sentence at all. Whether or not someone is killed by another randomly or on purpose is irrelevant, they are still killed dead!
Your country kills people. Those people don't like being killed so they kill you back. What part of that don't you get? It's a cycle. Break it for peace. Keep it going and it will simply escalate till a major city is vaporized - yours or theirs. That's the natural progression that you're looking at. It's simple primitive emotional brain reaction to protect oneself and one's "cult-ture", with emphasis on cult. Break the cycle.
A few of your own politicians have the guts to say similar thoughts as I'm expressing. Watch these videos of Ron Paul. http://youtube.com/results?search_query=ron+paul+
God is a delusion that you and other humans have invented. Grow up and get over it.
I promote true self defense as strength is important. I do not support offensive actions that kill people.
Yes, there are lots of problems in the world. Killing people is never the answer to them as it simply breeds more killing (of members of your cultural group) by their friends and loved ones.
Only strategies that promote peaceful coexistence are viable human and life centered for the long term survival of our species.
Oh, and by the way, doesn't your God order you to: "Thou shall not kill"? Kinda hypocritical of you and your leads isn't it? They are going to hell if the bible has anything to do with reality (which is doesn't but that is an entirely different conversation).
The real trick is recognizing when someone just needs killing.
With a mentality like that it's no wonder that they think the same about you.
Yes, history is irrelevant since it's just a memory of the past. If you project your future out of your past all you'll get is further events mirroring past events. There are alternatives that are based in peace. You just aren't even thinking in terms of peace as you and your culture are too busy deciding who "needs killing". Sign, and you wonder why they are after you.
You have one flawed assumption at the core of your argument. You assume that other cultures value life on Earth as much as you do.
I don't assume that. It is your assumption that I assume that and a mistaken assumption on your part.
Purely as an intellectual exercise, you might think about how utterly vain that is. Can you not put your culture ahead of your personal well-being? Can you understand that both your beliefs and the generations to come could possibly be of more value than your life?
Of course I wouldn't put my "culture" ahead of my personal well-being! I'm not a "cult-member"! I'm an individual. The problem is people who do in fact put their "culture" ahead of their own well being. They are generally called suicide-bombers by their friends and terrorists by their enemies and many others, although they are also known as freedom fighters. Beliefs have no value at all as all beliefs are suspect and have little to do with reality. The generations to come don't exist yet, they are a fantasy in your mind. They will only exist if people aren't killed and if they have children who aren't killed by "cult-ure" driven fanatics who believe killing is ok.
Well, some pretty couragous people outside the US believe that their individual lives do not count for much of anything and are clearly willing to sacrifice them in order to achieve goals which may not be realized for generations. You think you can negotiate with these people? Your petty self-centered world view isn't going to change their minds.
Courage exists on all sides in a conflict. Courage isn't honorable. Yes there are people outside the US that believe that as there are US people who most certainly believe that - some of them are implementing their beliefs with actions that result in people being killed. Your justification for killing them is that they want to kill you? I don't think that your leaders have even tried to negotiate with those that want to cause harm. It's apparent that many in the US have allowed the killing by their leads to proceed. This fact is what gives much of the justification for your enemies to launch attacks against your country (and others). Your justification for killing them is exactly the same justification that they use to kill back. It's a no win situation and they have the numbers willing to put their "culture" before themselves as suicide bombers, er, terrorists. Just as each of you who goes over there and kills and is killed may be a hero back home over there you are a terrorist in their minds. That is the nature of war and the way to break it is to break the cycle. That starts with YOU. Then it's a process, not easy by any means, of allowing them to break the cycle too. That's the beginning of peace. Alternatively you support a thousands year war of civilizations. That's really foolish.
My view isn't self centered. It's centered on preserving ALL human life everywhere. That's the least self centered viewpoint possible. In fact it's your view that you, or at least your culture, is more important than the people you kill that is self centered!
The threat of economic sanctions, war, and even nuclear destruction is immaterial to people with beliefs. They will achieve their goals without question if people aren't willing to stand up for what they believe in. Apparently you believe in your life and expect others to have the same courtesy. I expect you to have but one expression on your face when they kill you - astonishment.
Standing up for "beliefs" is pure cult member behavior. Beliefs control you like a mind virus (look it up on the net). Standing up and defending yourself is one thing, but invading other countries 6,000 miles from yours is quite another that has nothing to do with self defense! That's pure offensive thinking. It's interesting that that word has "offense" in it, and that's not a coincidence since to the receiving party it is an offense and a crime against humanity to all.
I don't believe in life. Life doesn't need me to believe in it. In fac
Ah yes, reducing yourself to ad hominem attacks is the true cowardice.
If you give the people in your government the power to kill then what's to stop them from killing you? If you give them the power to kill then you are killing by proxy which makes you an evil terrorist to those who you kill via your government.
Naturally, if those you kill have people who retaliate then they are also terrorists just like you. Method and motivation are irrelevant; the reality is all that matters; if you kill you are the terrorists and the anti peace people. You are the mad men of our era - if you kill or support killing.
You limit your options and thus become the killer terrorists to others in the world. When you realize that all the people of the Earth are the same you'll realize that to kill is to terrorize. You have a choice, you can choose an alternative path than killing.
The facts of history that you quote are irrelevant and an easy way out. The hard thing is to find the way to peace without killing.
The problem is that when you kill you become the terrorist.
Real heroes avoid killing like they would avoid the plague. Real heroes solve problems with others by negotiation, by discussion, not using a gun, bombs, or stealth planes to sneak up on people with no honor.
Once you kill you are no longer hero material, you are a killer forever.
It's easy to destroy. What's hard is not fighting the fight that kills. Peace is hard and it's the kind of heroes we need, those that strive for peace without the use of violence and killing.
The problem with killing is that those you kill may have loved ones, or brothers, who will come and do the same to you. As is said, do unto others as you'd have they do unto you. If you want peace, spread that around the world and create real heroes for peace.
Your count is incorrect. I have referenced a number of other items in the many postings that I've made to this Slashdot article thread.
Which statement are you referring to where I'm referring to myself in the third person? By the way, there is nothing wrong with referring to oneself in the first, second or third person so I don't know what you are going on about.
It's not bluster; it's an analysis of the responsibilities of using software licensed under the BSD license. The impact of a dual BSD+GPL license (still in question if it really is dual licensed) is that the BSD license must be taken into consideration SINCE the changes were not a "derivative work" and thus no new copyright was created under copyright laws; this means that the work is in a gray area under the original authors control. Legal advice has suggested that the enhanced work be given to the original authors as a gift under the terms of their original license. To fail to do so would be to violate the original authors rights and intent of their license and copyright.
It is illegal! The work has a BSD license and it can't be removed!!! That's copyright law.
The impacts of dual BSD + GPL licenses is clearly an area that people have trouble interpreting what to do.
Another area that people have trouble with is understanding that their changes to a project are usually not copyrightable by them even though they authored the changes! It's when the merging into another's work where the question of whether or not a derivative work is created that determines if you gain any copyrights in the new work. As a separate work it may the changes may well be copyrightable but you loose that when it's merged into most projects unless it alters the project differently enough or the change is significantly large enough to pass the copyright test for derivative works.
People are just playing loose with their changes and assuming that they own what they've in fact "gifted" to another by the act of merging and publishing.
Thinking is a skill that takes skill to develop. Work on it and you can improve, as can anyone who works at it. That's my observational two cents for the day.
Remember the discovery process in this case hasn't occurred yet so the fact findings may not be what you assume. With that said it makes it more difficult to analyze.
Yes, really GPLers are always ranting about "freedom" and "enforcement". They never get that their license only provides a narrow corridor of "freedom" for users to walk up and down at the expense of the freedom of authors. On the other hand the BSD license provides full freedom to move in many directions. Both are backed by the teeth of copyright laws and the Berne Convention.
For citations and references to the laws and legal opinions please see the other postings by itsybitsy on this topic. Google is also a good tool for finding out about copyright laws. Use it.
The fact is that the original authors in a work have rights in the derived works; it takes a considerable amount of changes for a work to be copyrightable by another. Read the copyright laws of your country to find out. Also read the Berne Convention on copyrights.
If any changes made to an original work by a new author are merged into the original work and are published the original authors own the new changes by default per copyright laws and the Berne Convention. The original authors may at their discretion republish those changes if they so wish. Since the original authors own the changes to the derived work their original license applies. Any license terms the new author put on his/her changes are null and void when the changes are merged with the original work.
How does this apply and protect BSD code from the hungry maw of the GPL beast? Any BSD licensed code is protected as in the above paragraph. In essence the copyright law and Berne Convention make BSD code viral in that minor changes, even large changes resulting in a derived work are protected and under the control of the original authors. If the original authors say you have to publish under BSD then that's what you must do with your derivative work. It's that simple. Original authors own the derivative works of their work and control who can and can't make derivative works.
If you want permission to alter the terms of the license of a derivate work you must obtain that from the original authors. I would suggest that you get that in writing.
This is basic copyright law on who controls and own derivative works. Basic. Read the law and find out.
While legal enforcement isn't unique to the GPL license by any means, the endless ranting about it is.
Yes, once you choose a license you are committed if you wish to remain in compliance with it's terms and the law.
Once you have chosen you are not free anymore. The point is that one remains much more free with BSD style licenses. That's a fact that the GPLers keep denying since "freedom" is one of their "central dogmas" and points that they "evangelize" to the world.
The point is that GPL code can in some situations pollute code from other systems. The point is that some in the GPL community inappropriately alter the licenses of BSD licensed code as may be the case with the driver. The point is that those in the GPL community seem to fail to comprehend copyright laws and misrepresent them with extreme interpretations that have reached beyond the pale of any breaking point of reason. These assertions are evident in the responses from those supporting the GPL over the last week.
I see that you've now gone further than simply taking what I wrote and responding as if I was implying the GPL and BSD license were the "same", and gone completely overboard. Now, apparently, I was making some deep philosophical point and fighting the good fight for the GPL, rather than making an observation about what Theo was apparently claiming and pointing out that Theo's comments almost certainly not what he intended to mean, and were compromised by his anti-GPL stance.
That's not the case and is a mis-characterization on top of being inaccurate. I didn't say or imply that you were saying that the GPL and BSD, or portions thereof, were the "same". You do in fact seem to be "fighting the good fight for the GPL" eloquently making my point about calling people "trolls" as an ad hominem attack when in fact that isn't what my intention was about - even after I stated my intention you reiterated your ad hominem attack as if that would make your accusations about my intent true. Yours is a typical denial response by a member of a group that is defending the group to any length. That's fine you are allowed to be that way since I'll grant you that freedom as it's every human's right. Just be clear that that is how you are perceived.
Let me iterate clearly: it isn't my intention to "troll". Honestly it is my intention to engage in a serious debate on these issues. It's too bad that many (possibly a majority) of those representing the GPL side of the debate simply yell "troll" and back down slithering away yelling for their friends to squash the debate (with "+5 troll" moderation) whenever they hear valid criticism of their cherished GPL. Your responses clearly show that happening. I've seen it with others as well. It's an effective "social control" technique used by groups such as Scientology for control of their group members. Please snap out of it and engage in a serious debate, I beg of you.
I assert to that the the "social phenomenon" of the "culture" of the GPL has a direct relevancy to this debate. Let's state it clearly: the "social phenomenon" of the group of people who promote the GPL zealously impacts their thinking. How else would it be that every time that this debate happens the pattern is the same with the GPL members? Clearly many people "promoting" the GPL think in the same regimented manner and respond in the same ways. Regimented thinking or "group think" is a sure sign of a "culture" which has "social control" and the hallmarks of a "cult" or "commune" where membership is obtained by conforming to the particular though pattern matrix of the set by the leaders. The promotion of GPL is evidently as successful a mind virus, or if you prefer "social phenomenon", as Java or Microsoft in the market place of ideas. By being a member of the group with it's well rehearsed thought patterns and arguments of defense and means of stifling discussion with claims of "troll" you are "fighting the good fight for the GPL". I accuse you of attempting to stifle discussion by your baseless accusations and mis-characterization of my intent. I told you what my intention is and was fairly careful in stating it clearly - isn't it possible that that really is my intent? Who would know better than I?
It wasn't my intention to debate you on whether or not the GPL or BSD is better. Obviously the GPL is better for you and you've made up your mind. My point is to show the flaws in the GPL and how the BSD license doesn't have this. All I get back is the GPL "party line" - another reason that the "communistic" simile works so well as a descriptive term with members of the "social phenomenon" or "culture" known as the GPL. It's simply accurate give the regimented group think that is evident.
If you were or are an independent thinker and free of the "social phenomenon" of the GPL you'd be able to have a real discourse regarding the issues without resorting to childish accusations.
The fact remains that Theo's comments are deadly on target and backed up by law and legal opinions. Furthermore it
Since the changes to the path do not constitute a new derivative work as defined by copyright law it doesn't not become copyrightable when merged with the original work. IF the original work is dual licensed with BSD and GPL then changes must be shared as required by GPL. Since the work doesn't qualify as a new derived work as defined by copyright law the changes fall in a gray area where the courts would side with the original authors. Thus the new work is best considered a gift to the original authors and is under their copyright and license or licenses. Since their original work is under the BSD license the changes must be published under the BSD license and the GPL license simultaneously. I checked this with a lawyer and he suggests that rather than fight it in court that the authors of the new "patch" or change additions simply gift their copyrighted work to the original authors. Remember that copyright law has teeth in these matters; it's not just three or four paragraphs in the BSD license, it's the entire copyright laws and court decisions in your country that make the difference and that apply here.
Once the facts have been discovered in the case of the BSD Driver Linux Patch without BSD license mentioned escapade we'll know better how the cookie crumbles in this case.
Remember your code isn't copyrightable when merged with another's original work unless you have significant changes (in volume) or you alter the code so that it is different enough to be classified as a derivative work by copyright laws. This has significant implications for all software projects, open, free or closed. It also has serious issues and implications for forks of open or free software projects no matter which license is involved. Furthermore the original authors are always in bed with you as long as you have any portion of their code in your system beyond fair use. Be warned that they may have more rights in your derived work than you can even imagine now.
Yes you are correct you can take it or leave it. That point is valid but misses the point of valid criticism that is often raised about the GPL and it's method of restrictions.
The point is that once you "commit" to extending a GPL'd piece of software you give up your choice to choose at any time in the future for that software to be not shipped with source. As we all know this is one of the defining characteristics of GPL'd software - you must publish or make available the source code of your changes that you distribute. You agreed to that and must obey if you intend to follow your agreements. The community even enforces this point legally. The "commune" also promotes this aggressively in many ways such as your non-relevant point which I hear all the time from GPL advocates.
Compare two software projects, one GPL'd and one BSD licensed. They both have similar features and capabilities. If you choose the GPL you've effectively joined a commune that will enforce your adherence to their restrictive covenants, including their over zealous restriction on sharing source code which you author. By choosing the BSD licensed software you have freedom now or in the future to choose to distribute the source for your changes or not assuming that your changes are a new derivative work. If your changes are not a derivative work and you choose to distribute them you must keep the BSD license. See earlier analysis comments by itsybitsy in this thread for the in depth analysis on these points. Yes you are free to do what you want but you are still bound by copyright law and the BSD license terms.
Once you commit to the GPL there is no going back! That binds your hands in the future as many have found out the hard way.
Also, as many have also found out, the GPL attempts to infect other software that co-exists with it in a system in sneaky ways that are just downright tasteful and overly restrictive. This is often called the viral nature of the GPL.
I'd rather choose a license that keeps my options open for the future so that I as a developer can choose at any point in the future to ship or not ship the source code modifications that I create for others original works under the BSD or other license. That's the freedom of choice that GPL takes away at the time you commit to using GPL. That's why GPL is less free than BSD. That is a major reason for the GPL license being considered "restrictive" and the BSD license is considered "permissive".
If you don't like this assessment then that's simply too bad for you.
Obviously your freedom to choose at anytime isn't important to you. Obviously you have chosen the path of joining the GPL commune - if it works for you all the more power to you - just don't enforce your communistic and socialistic ways upon us freedom lovers.
That also means don't steal BSD software and attempt to change it into GPL'd software.
That also means sharing non-derivative software changes with BSD software authors under the BSD license if you choose to share them as you must with dual BSD and GPL'd software. Thank you.
Let's go through the logic of that one more time just so you and everyone is clear. Software that is both GPL'd and BSD licensed has some unique interactions. For example, if you make a change to said software the GPL license requires that you share the source code (if you distribute the binary). Since you are sharing the source code you must publish it under the BSD license as well IF it doesn't qualify as a derived work as defined by copyright law. Why? Once minor changes are merged you don't have a copyright in it and the original authors rights and license take priority. Even if your changes do qualify as a derived work the original licensed code embedded within the derived work must retain the BSD license per the BSD terms and per copyright law. Also the original authors retain their rights in derived works even with BSD terms as a result of copyright law.
It's often better to ask for permission than to beg for forgiveness. Th