You are correct. You can't expect to pick up the phone, and "press 1 for source code." But some companies/individuals take it to the other extreme, almost hiding the availability. But yes, "on request" = "with reasonable delivery."
The GPL is designed to protect ownership, not promote good manners. The community will have to handle the latter as a collective voice.
They would actually be correct in this case. Assuming the GHU utilities are unmodified, the responsibility of source distribution falls upon the "prior owner," if you will. This was done mainly for the sake of publishers, so they didn't have to provide source code along with the cdroms they included with their books (assuming the content was unmodified, of course).
However, the second party is required to acquire a copy of the source, but they don't have to assume distribution of it. This would be incase the original modifer ceases to exist, be it death, commercial bankrupcy, whatever. Then the second party would assume responsibility for the source, if they continue to distrubute it.
I don't want to enter a debate about how I make a living for myself, but there is nothing wrong for charging for the application of specialized knowledge. How many consultants do you hire for free? The fact that I can negotiate my rates is simply a product of the economic system we live in. What those rates are, specifically, are my private business. However I will state that sometimes I will negotiate for a lower amount if I feel the case has immediate relevence and importance. I prefer to view it as an investment at times.
Again, this wouldn't be a case of zealousness, but simply good business. Belief in a principle doesn't have to be removed from monetary benefit, for any parties involved.
Application of drivers to a GPL'ed kernel would, in fact, make the drivers fall under the GPL. It doesn't really matter if they are seperate or not. If you read the GPL closely, it specifically makes references to code "in close relationship to" the GPL source. Not to create ambiguity, we list several instances of code that would fall under the GPL and drivers is one of them.
People have tried to get around this by forcing a loophole - make the drivers imbedded on an almost entirely different ring and calling them with a second layer between the kernel and driver. But there are clearly defined "hooks" that prevent this, and a middle layer is one of them. In fact, in those instanced the middle layer falls into the GPL as well. It's very inclusive. We've seen some interesting things, such as wrapping potential GPL code with copyrighted material. In one case, they used text from a book owned by a sister company to protect their code, as remark statements! None of this has held up legally however.
I would advice you to be very careful with your assumption that drivers are non-GPL. It can be done, but it isn't my postion to tell you how to do it today. There are measures to protect again this sort of abuse.
The big difference is that the people who are violating the GPL are distributing the GPL code in a product. When you redistribute or sell the code, you have a different set of obligations than a user does. The GPL allows the end user to do almost anything.
To redistribute back to the rest of the people who have made modifications to Linux the changes they have made.
Not at all. The point of the GPL is not redistribution, but protection. You need to know what modifications are being applied so that, if you use it, you know you are not running malicious code. Many think it is about knowledge, but a public knowledge isn't necessarily a good thing. It limits advancement because a secret can be a good tool if used properly. But GPL doesn't have a central governing body to be held repsonsible, like a major company does. You trust that Novell won't put malicous code in a service pack, so we don't deman that they make it public. The Open Source community doesn't have such trust, so we self-check with the GPL. It isn't about increasing/limiting profits or knowledge, it is about limiting damage.
They probably thought they were supposed to hide the source, not knowing they were working under the GPL. But this isn't Sigma's fault - the burden of responsibility falls onto the modifier, not the distributor. If your purchase a knife and stab someone with it, is the store resonsbile for not outlining the legal responsability of knife usage? Probably not. You may be able to make a case for "being an accessory" and we are considering that avenue, but it may ultimately do more harm than good. What we really hope to see is the soruce made public.
Incorrect, they do have a D/A converter for CD audio, which by definition is a processor and would be under the GPL umbrella. This really does present an interesting situation... I was looking at some shocking inexpensive DVD players at Wal-Mart today ($43!) but they could be $743 players if this pans out.
The important thing to consider is that the GPL isn't just an inclusive license, it is exclusive. If you make a modification based on an exisiting peice of code, the regulations don't apply to the changed piece but rather to the unchanged (mainly, what you can do with it). You're allowed more freedom with the code you crafted, obviously, than what you didn't. This subtle but fundamental difference leads to a lot of GPL misunderstanding.
Yes, but did they achive 95% because of the GUI itself? Or is it because of the level, or ease, of interaction? I believe that a command-line based OS could get 95% market share, if it was easy to use. Microsoft didn't make DOS easier, they just created a easy interface for it.
It's really not necessary to be so dramatic. I wrote a character-mode installer that fit on one floppy, and was the best installer in 1996! It's not 1996 any longer. I think character mode would still be OK if it were easy, and that's where the new Debian installer is heading. It partitions your disk if you want it to, and so on. But it is built so that it can get a GUI front-end too. I think the developers are going for functionality before eye-candy.
I don't like developers who bear contempt for newbies. But the place to handle them is somewhere other than where the developers are attempting to do their work. This is why you need a layer over Debian.
Debian has gone to a database-driven configuration for many packages, which is accessed through dpkg-reconfigure. It provides "wizards" to configure various packages. It generates the various forms of configuration file, one need not edit those in many cases. They seem to headed in the right direction.
I would like to add that, after the conversation, Steve and I wound up in a hotel room drunk off our asses. One thing led to another, and well... let's just say there was a "code merge."
Things turned ugly after that, and now he won't even return my calls. I guess he felt guilty, but I believe in the passion of the moment.
This is just chest thumping, and my inbox is full of more examples from Mr. McBride that have a similar tone. What he fails to realize is that SCO is no longer in a position to even threaten people with a lawsuit anymore. Novell's patent was strong on it's own, but the SuSE acquisition added code modifications to the kernel that elevated the 1997 definition of "code deviation" to the point where it is so removed, no court will buy into it. I'd be very surprised if a court even bothers to hear the case at this point.
Agreed, and you make some good points. However, don't discount the power of financed research. Microsoft poured tons of money into usability studies of their Aqua interface, and we can benefit from their efforts. Obviously I'm not saying I want to copy it, but there are elements of usability that not only have the data to support it, but a proven track record as well.
POSIX ain't it. The factor of the "Apple matrix" that we were taught with OSX can readily be applied here. Merely linking, say, and icon to a representative unit (of the underlying operating system) to the point where the icon becomes the object itself is inherently bad. The user is too far removed from what he is actually doing.
I'll be perfectly honest, none of my actions are ever done with Microsoft in mind. I am content to let them go about their business while I go about mine. I don't wish them success, but I don't wish them failure either. There are, after all, real people with real families that work for them.
I've spent the past few months working with a team of excellent programmers on a Mac-compatable open source Premier clone. It has near-100% Premier compatability. I'm jumping the gun a little bit (official announcement is coming next week), but I promise you Mac users that you won't be disappointed. Initial testing is having Premier users being able to adapt in less than a day, to full levels of productivity. Stay tuned...
I did some work on this device - although, admittedly, my involvement ended a few months ago. The article doesn't mention the biggest problem we had working on it - the lack of a real "tv standard" on the internet. Consider that the stream may have originated from either a PAL, NTSC, or even something else (though we concentrated on those two only) and on the fly conversion between those two to a PC codec of sorts is not something trivial. Basically frames need to be discarded dynmaically in order to sync with the given display unit. Unlike other conversion devices, we didn't have the luxury of selectively removing/doubling frames based on what looks the best, we had to do it on the fly with streaming data. Basically what we did was sacrifice a small amount of compression for the sake of image smoothness, allowing us the freedom to guess the appropriate frames to manipulate. I'd say I'm about 95% happy with the results, but if you know what to look for you can see the artifacts. But it is open source, so improvements will be implememnted over time.
It certainly is NOT open source! There are so many violations I don't have time to list them all here. The most serious infraction, imo, is the modification of code without credit or documentation, then selling it on a bundle CD. This whole project has been a slap in the face to the entire movement.
You need to really need to fine print on the EULA (especially those from Microsoft). The Service Packs, and also the agreement, are considered cumlative of all prior SPs. Service Pack 3 "contains" Service Pack 2, as well as the agreement held withing. For example, if SP2 had a CD Player v 1.0 that cataloged every CD you played and sent it to Micosoft, and 1.1 removed this feature, you still agreed to allow it with version 1.1 because it's a revision number. If it was CD Music Player ver 1.0 (a completely different product) then it wouldn't matter. Service packs aren't considered seperate products to Microsoft, especially licenses. You buy Windows XP workstation and you actually receive a license for every prior (non-retired) workstation product, provided you uninstall XP before you use, say, Windows 2000 workstation.
This is a classic example of a large corporation attempting to stomp on free speech. Why Microsoft? Because so much "spam" actually contains anti-MS agendas and content. Really, if MS succeeds here ask what is next on their horizon - open source.
You need to really need to fine print on the EULA (especially those from Microsoft). The Service Packs, and also the agreement, are considered cumlative of all prior SPs. Service Pack 3 "contains" Service Pack 2, as well as the agreement held withing. For example, if SP2 had a CD Player v 1.0 that cataloged every CD you played and sent it to Micosoft, and 1.1 removed this feature, you still agreed to allow it with version 1.1 because it's a revision number. If it was CD Music Player ver 1.0 (a completely different product) then it wouldn't matter. Service packs aren't considered seperate products to Microsoft, especially licenses. You buy Windows XP workstation and you actually receive a license for every prior (non-retired) workstation product, provided you uninstall XP before you use, say, Windows 2000 workstation.
This is a Open Source standard location to place licensing information. It isn't hidden as in "hidden from view" but rather hidden as in "not relevent to the functional operation of the program." I've been placing licensing information under hidden for years now, most people that follow the standard do as well.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct. You can't expect to pick up the phone, and "press 1 for source code." But some companies/individuals take it to the other extreme, almost hiding the availability. But yes, "on request" = "with reasonable delivery."
The GPL is designed to protect ownership, not promote good manners. The community will have to handle the latter as a collective voice.
They would actually be correct in this case. Assuming the GHU utilities are unmodified, the responsibility of source distribution falls upon the "prior owner," if you will. This was done mainly for the sake of publishers, so they didn't have to provide source code along with the cdroms they included with their books (assuming the content was unmodified, of course).
However, the second party is required to acquire a copy of the source, but they don't have to assume distribution of it. This would be incase the original modifer ceases to exist, be it death, commercial bankrupcy, whatever. Then the second party would assume responsibility for the source, if they continue to distrubute it.
I don't want to enter a debate about how I make a living for myself, but there is nothing wrong for charging for the application of specialized knowledge. How many consultants do you hire for free? The fact that I can negotiate my rates is simply a product of the economic system we live in. What those rates are, specifically, are my private business. However I will state that sometimes I will negotiate for a lower amount if I feel the case has immediate relevence and importance. I prefer to view it as an investment at times.
Again, this wouldn't be a case of zealousness, but simply good business. Belief in a principle doesn't have to be removed from monetary benefit, for any parties involved.
Application of drivers to a GPL'ed kernel would, in fact, make the drivers fall under the GPL. It doesn't really matter if they are seperate or not. If you read the GPL closely, it specifically makes references to code "in close relationship to" the GPL source. Not to create ambiguity, we list several instances of code that would fall under the GPL and drivers is one of them.
People have tried to get around this by forcing a loophole - make the drivers imbedded on an almost entirely different ring and calling them with a second layer between the kernel and driver. But there are clearly defined "hooks" that prevent this, and a middle layer is one of them. In fact, in those instanced the middle layer falls into the GPL as well. It's very inclusive. We've seen some interesting things, such as wrapping potential GPL code with copyrighted material. In one case, they used text from a book owned by a sister company to protect their code, as remark statements! None of this has held up legally however.
I would advice you to be very careful with your assumption that drivers are non-GPL. It can be done, but it isn't my postion to tell you how to do it today. There are measures to protect again this sort of abuse.
The big difference is that the people who are violating the GPL are distributing the GPL code in a product. When you redistribute or sell the code, you have a different set of obligations than a user does. The GPL allows the end user to do almost anything.
I am aware of these issues but I cannot comment publicly on them right now.
To redistribute back to the rest of the people who have made modifications to Linux the changes they have made.
Not at all. The point of the GPL is not redistribution, but protection. You need to know what modifications are being applied so that, if you use it, you know you are not running malicious code. Many think it is about knowledge, but a public knowledge isn't necessarily a good thing. It limits advancement because a secret can be a good tool if used properly. But GPL doesn't have a central governing body to be held repsonsible, like a major company does. You trust that Novell won't put malicous code in a service pack, so we don't deman that they make it public. The Open Source community doesn't have such trust, so we self-check with the GPL. It isn't about increasing/limiting profits or knowledge, it is about limiting damage.
They probably thought they were supposed to hide the source, not knowing they were working under the GPL. But this isn't Sigma's fault - the burden of responsibility falls onto the modifier, not the distributor. If your purchase a knife and stab someone with it, is the store resonsbile for not outlining the legal responsability of knife usage? Probably not. You may be able to make a case for "being an accessory" and we are considering that avenue, but it may ultimately do more harm than good. What we really hope to see is the soruce made public.
Incorrect, they do have a D/A converter for CD audio, which by definition is a processor and would be under the GPL umbrella. This really does present an interesting situation ... I was looking at some shocking inexpensive DVD players at Wal-Mart today ($43!) but they could be $743 players if this pans out.
The important thing to consider is that the GPL isn't just an inclusive license, it is exclusive. If you make a modification based on an exisiting peice of code, the regulations don't apply to the changed piece but rather to the unchanged (mainly, what you can do with it). You're allowed more freedom with the code you crafted, obviously, than what you didn't. This subtle but fundamental difference leads to a lot of GPL misunderstanding.
Yes, but did they achive 95% because of the GUI itself? Or is it because of the level, or ease, of interaction? I believe that a command-line based OS could get 95% market share, if it was easy to use. Microsoft didn't make DOS easier, they just created a easy interface for it.
It's really not necessary to be so dramatic.
I wrote a character-mode installer that fit on one floppy, and was the best installer in 1996! It's not 1996 any longer. I think character mode would still be OK if it were easy, and that's where the new Debian installer is heading. It partitions your disk if you want it to, and so on. But it is built so that it can get a GUI front-end too. I think the developers are going for functionality before eye-candy.
I don't like developers who bear contempt for newbies. But the place to handle them is somewhere other than where the developers are attempting to do their work. This is why you need a layer over Debian.
Debian has gone to a database-driven configuration for many packages, which is accessed through dpkg-reconfigure. It provides "wizards" to configure various packages. It generates the various forms of configuration file, one need not edit those in many cases. They seem to headed in the right direction.
I would like to add that, after the conversation, Steve and I wound up in a hotel room drunk off our asses. One thing led to another, and well ... let's just say there was a "code merge."
Things turned ugly after that, and now he won't even return my calls. I guess he felt guilty, but I believe in the passion of the moment.
This is just chest thumping, and my inbox is full of more examples from Mr. McBride that have a similar tone. What he fails to realize is that SCO is no longer in a position to even threaten people with a lawsuit anymore. Novell's patent was strong on it's own, but the SuSE acquisition added code modifications to the kernel that elevated the 1997 definition of "code deviation" to the point where it is so removed, no court will buy into it. I'd be very surprised if a court even bothers to hear the case at this point.
Agreed, and you make some good points. However, don't discount the power of financed research. Microsoft poured tons of money into usability studies of their Aqua interface, and we can benefit from their efforts. Obviously I'm not saying I want to copy it, but there are elements of usability that not only have the data to support it, but a proven track record as well.
POSIX ain't it. The factor of the "Apple matrix" that we were taught with OSX can readily be applied here. Merely linking, say, and icon to a representative unit (of the underlying operating system) to the point where the icon becomes the object itself is inherently bad. The user is too far removed from what he is actually doing.
I appreciate your input.
You may want to check out my website then:
Bruce Perens homepage.
I'll be perfectly honest, none of my actions are ever done with Microsoft in mind. I am content to let them go about their business while I go about mine. I don't wish them success, but I don't wish them failure either. There are, after all, real people with real families that work for them.
I've spent the past few months working with a team of excellent programmers on a Mac-compatable open source Premier clone. It has near-100% Premier compatability. I'm jumping the gun a little bit (official announcement is coming next week), but I promise you Mac users that you won't be disappointed. Initial testing is having Premier users being able to adapt in less than a day, to full levels of productivity. Stay tuned
SLASHDOT:
A bunch of gay hippie bullshit.
News for fags, sperm that splatters.
http://www.slashdot.org
I did some work on this device - although, admittedly, my involvement ended a few months ago. The article doesn't mention the biggest problem we had working on it - the lack of a real "tv standard" on the internet. Consider that the stream may have originated from either a PAL, NTSC, or even something else (though we concentrated on those two only) and on the fly conversion between those two to a PC codec of sorts is not something trivial. Basically frames need to be discarded dynmaically in order to sync with the given display unit. Unlike other conversion devices, we didn't have the luxury of selectively removing/doubling frames based on what looks the best, we had to do it on the fly with streaming data. Basically what we did was sacrifice a small amount of compression for the sake of image smoothness, allowing us the freedom to guess the appropriate frames to manipulate. I'd say I'm about 95% happy with the results, but if you know what to look for you can see the artifacts. But it is open source, so improvements will be implememnted over time.
It certainly is NOT open source! There are so many violations I don't have time to list them all here. The most serious infraction, imo, is the modification of code without credit or documentation, then selling it on a bundle CD. This whole project has been a slap in the face to the entire movement.
You need to really need to fine print on the EULA (especially those from Microsoft). The Service Packs, and also the agreement, are considered cumlative of all prior SPs. Service Pack 3 "contains" Service Pack 2, as well as the agreement held withing. For example, if SP2 had a CD Player v 1.0 that cataloged every CD you played and sent it to Micosoft, and 1.1 removed this feature, you still agreed to allow it with version 1.1 because it's a revision number. If it was CD Music Player ver 1.0 (a completely different product) then it wouldn't matter. Service packs aren't considered seperate products to Microsoft, especially licenses. You buy Windows XP workstation and you actually receive a license for every prior (non-retired) workstation product, provided you uninstall XP before you use, say, Windows 2000 workstation.
you are one stupid fucking son of a bitch, you fucking cum drinking faggot.
This is a classic example of a large corporation attempting to stomp on free speech. Why Microsoft? Because so much "spam" actually contains anti-MS agendas and content. Really, if MS succeeds here ask what is next on their horizon - open source.
You need to really need to fine print on the EULA (especially those from Microsoft). The Service Packs, and also the agreement, are considered cumlative of all prior SPs. Service Pack 3 "contains" Service Pack 2, as well as the agreement held withing. For example, if SP2 had a CD Player v 1.0 that cataloged every CD you played and sent it to Micosoft, and 1.1 removed this feature, you still agreed to allow it with version 1.1 because it's a revision number. If it was CD Music Player ver 1.0 (a completely different product) then it wouldn't matter. Service packs aren't considered seperate products to Microsoft, especially licenses. You buy Windows XP workstation and you actually receive a license for every prior (non-retired) workstation product, provided you uninstall XP before you use, say, Windows 2000 workstation.
This is a Open Source standard location to place licensing information. It isn't hidden as in "hidden from view" but rather hidden as in "not relevent to the functional operation of the program." I've been placing licensing information under hidden for years now, most people that follow the standard do as well.