The source is only part of the theoretical problem with the GPL in this case. The others being the patent clause, and the ramifications on other copyrighted code. (i.e., if one of the GPL'd packages contained Microsoft code, and they knowingly re-distributed it, then theoretically, they couldn't 'Pull a SCO' since they distributed it under the GPL themselves.)
So realistically, you have to take it as "Does the GPL matter, or since they're redistributing a product put together by someone else, is it merely a resale?" (And as someone above put forth, are resellers bound by the GPL, or merely the people who put the entire package together?)
Staples and other retail vendors have their own separate distribution licenses from companies like Microsoft to distrubt the software in boxes.
Only if they order direct from Microsoft. I worked in a local computer store, and we were able to sell box copies of any Microsoft Software we wanted to without ever signing (or seeing) an agreement from Microsoft. We just went to our distributor (who we did make sure was on their list of approved distributors) and bought a case of product, and resold said. Just like any other physical sales item. Here: https://partner.microsoft.com/US/40012335
Now, there were agreements that had to be in place for OEM copies, but like I said, that's a whole other tangent...
If Staples had been distributing Microsoft software from Cho Ming in Shanghai, even if the box looked like it came from Microsoft they would be guilty of distributing computer software without a license and be guilty of copyright infringement.
Actually, wouldn't it be possession of counterfeit property with intent to sell?
Ibiblio and Staples both serve the same purpose. They merely move the product from the producer (Red Hat) to the consumer. It's a Retail distribution, as opposed to a "Linux" distribution.
And while IANAL, I would think that someone moving product in a "Sealed" method (whether mirrored or through a retail or online retail site) is probably not liable for any EULA, GPL or otherwise. (Now, if they were installing the software, then they become an OEM which is completely different, but we won't go there, shall we?) Realistically, I would think only in distributing a modified (even if it's as little as re-branding) version of Ubuntu would the GPL have any relevance at all, since at that point you're not reselling, but actually distributing your own product.
Depending on who's arguing the point. At work we had a gentleman in maintenance sign a Yellow Pages agreement, and the Yellow Pages (One of the third-party ones who send you the order-stub that looks like a bill) published an ad for us that we didn't want. When they called about their money, we refused to pay because the person who signed wasn't authorized to do so. They said they didn't care, and sent the debt to collections, where it sits to this day.
You also have the debate as to whether they were a distributor or merely a Vendor. If Staples carries a boxed copy of RHEL, they're not bound by the GPL anymore than they're bound by the EULA for Windows for carrying Vista.
Since it wasn't a Microsoft-Branded product, and was in their "Marketplace" area, not their downloads, they probably haven't incurred any liabilities at all.
I get the difference, hence why I said it was a poor example.
But regardless, it does have parallels, not the least of which is that Kimberly-Clark (who makes Kleenex, there is no Kleenex company) is one of the more famous examples of a trademark that has become unserviceable due to dilution. (Which is what Google is hoping to avoid, etc., etc.) With "Open" having been a term in programming even before "Open Source" was coined, and then the registered trademark thereof being abandoned, I really think that being militant with the phrase is unwarranted, possibly confusing ("You can do what you want with Open Source Code, but you can't vary from OUR definition of Open Source."), and counter to the type of image that the OSS community really wants to portray (At least from my perspective). Hence I'm merely advocating that the terminology should be quietly put in the public domain, and work on shoring up and protecting the logo/sticker instead.
To protect the term, all I feel is warranted is using basic activism to spread the word around for people who are using "Open Source" in the description of a product without an OSI-Definition-Compatible license. If a case gets to flagrant, deceptive marketing suits aren't out of the question. (Hence my example of being too far outside the umbrella of "Generic" to risk falling afoul of the neutered Kleenex trademark.)
The problem though, with the "standard method" is that the characteristics aren't always researched, and can start varying from one person to the next.
For example (a poor one, but still...) Kleenex. It's a brand name that has come to describe a product with a given set of characteristics. But which characteristics? A piece of tissue appropriate for clearing of nasal passages? Or for someone to get away with calling their tissue Kleenex does it have to be a wood-pulp tissue of a given dimension? How far away from that umbrella (Which, admittedly, developed from lack of enforcing trademark) do you have to go to no longer be a "Kleenex" and therefore liable to getting hit with said trademark?
I realize the OSI has a firm definition, but why that definition? Just because you coined the term over 15 years before the OSI came into existence? Or, like this crowd seems to indicate (which may be truthful, may be astroturf, may be trolls getting their daily feed), has the term gained a life of its own with too diverse of an interpretation for a trademark to really hold up?
Like I said, it's not that I don't think you have a right to enforce it, I'm just thinking that at this point, the term has wandered too far in scope and public definition, and you should at least consider that the time for standing up may have passed, and concentrate on the endorsements / logo program. Either that, or actually get it branded by law, and get something through congress in one piece that defines Open Source from a legal perspective.
But note, that the American Cheese Product Slices you purchase that is lacking the "Real" logo still says "Cheese" in big letters (with "product" tiny underneath.)
My main beef with the whole thing is that "Open Source" is a semi-nebulous term (despite OSI's definition thereof), and while I have no qualms with them refusing use of the "OSI Approved" logo, for them to declare outright what can and can't call itself "Open" is like forcing Kraft to relabel their primary product as "American Curdled Oil Slices (with cheese-like flavor)"
I do like the concept of Open Source, and run a lot of good, honest Open Source software both at work and at home, but you (and Mr. Perens, and others) built the concept of Open Source around having a community of people all able to access things (in this case, source code) that have no physical value freely ('libre' to rip off the FSF). And now you want to play proprietary with the terminology?
I'm not saying you're wrong in doing so (as much as I may disagree with the apparent militantism), but am I the only one who sees the contradiction?
(And yes, I know the OSI has said logo. I was trying to point out this is already taken care of, but then realized the sarcasm might have gotten lost in translation.)
Then why not just make an "OSI Approved" logo, and license the logo to only be used in conjunction with software that is completely under an OSI Approved License? Then the OSI can associate said logo / "OSI Approved" mark with "Open Source" through conferences and other marketing...
Because, honestly, if the OSI claims that my Java projects from my Data Structures classes (Which are Kopylefted, per Discordian whim) are not Open Source, I would be rather offended.
Either that or make the Open Source license list Open Source, so we can all check in any nominated-and-seconded licenses. Otherwise Open Source as a whole just became closed.
Next time there's a store near you having a buy-one-get-one-free sale, go on in and tell them you'd rather not have two of whatever it is, and could they please just give you the free one by itself. See how well that works for you;)
The local grocery stores around here will give you half of a buy-one-get-one.... but you only get it for half-free.
Wow... if "Homelands" was 10 years ago, I quit almost 8 years ago...
*checks release dates* I started right when 4th Ed came out, pre-Ice Age... So Early Spring of 1995 was when I was getting Fallen Empires at 3 for $1, and Dark at $5 per pack.
When I started, the most sought-after expansion (that was still within reason) was The Dark... Out of print and rapidly running out of sealed boxes, they were a premium at $5 per pack! Fallen Empires (Which friends of mine joked were worth more as toilet paper than as actual cards) was everywhere at $0.75 - $1.50 a pack. (I had one guy selling me Fallen Empires at buy-one for $1, get two free.)
You can't tell me that in 10 years the price of ink and cardboard has more than doubled...
You can store most downloadables on the SD card, but they don't show up in your Channels that way... The stuff in your Channels has to be in the internal memory.
A bit of a bummer, but I'm still glad for the backup. (Granted, I haven't tried deleting something out of internal memory and restoring from the card yet...)
Except FFXI Doesn't crash. Losing full-screen puts you back a level to the character selection, which is still part of FFXI, not POL. Threw an Error, sent you back to the main menu.
The error message is specifically "FFXI Lost Full Screen", not some inability to render, which leads me to believe that it was an intentional disconnect.
And as far as the other botters, there is a windowing wrapper available that tricks FFXI into thinking it always has fullscreen. Which is probably why they're disabling the full-screen "protection" this summer, since at this point it's just bothering the honest players.
You're somewhat mistaken with one of your assumptions.... Alt+Tab while in FFXI in Windows does not cause the game to crash. The original design was to cause a D/C from the game to prevent scripting / botting / etc. This "feature" (and yes, it's a documented feature, not outright bug.) is scheduled to be removed in a patch this summer.
I doubt they have one in-house, but I can give you a slight lead....
There is a scrap yard / used appliances / refurbished computer company in Southern Ohio called ReUse. They occasionally will get in odd bits and pieces from the surrounding universities and public schools. If you ask really, really nicely, I bet they would keep an eye out for you. (One of the last loads they got in that I got to help unload had a stack of HP LaserJet printers. Just "LaserJet". No bloody II, III, 4, or 5. Plus a few dumb terminals of early 1990's vintage, 30-pin RAM new in box, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
The source is only part of the theoretical problem with the GPL in this case. The others being the patent clause, and the ramifications on other copyrighted code. (i.e., if one of the GPL'd packages contained Microsoft code, and they knowingly re-distributed it, then theoretically, they couldn't 'Pull a SCO' since they distributed it under the GPL themselves.)
So realistically, you have to take it as "Does the GPL matter, or since they're redistributing a product put together by someone else, is it merely a resale?" (And as someone above put forth, are resellers bound by the GPL, or merely the people who put the entire package together?)
Staples and other retail vendors have their own separate distribution licenses from companies like Microsoft to distrubt the software in boxes.
Only if they order direct from Microsoft. I worked in a local computer store, and we were able to sell box copies of any Microsoft Software we wanted to without ever signing (or seeing) an agreement from Microsoft. We just went to our distributor (who we did make sure was on their list of approved distributors) and bought a case of product, and resold said. Just like any other physical sales item. Here: https://partner.microsoft.com/US/40012335
Now, there were agreements that had to be in place for OEM copies, but like I said, that's a whole other tangent...
If Staples had been distributing Microsoft software from Cho Ming in Shanghai, even if the box looked like it came from Microsoft they would be guilty of distributing computer software without a license and be guilty of copyright infringement.
Actually, wouldn't it be possession of counterfeit property with intent to sell?
Except didn't Jackson sell off his ownership of said to pay for legal fees a few years ago?
Ibiblio and Staples both serve the same purpose. They merely move the product from the producer (Red Hat) to the consumer. It's a Retail distribution, as opposed to a "Linux" distribution.
And while IANAL, I would think that someone moving product in a "Sealed" method (whether mirrored or through a retail or online retail site) is probably not liable for any EULA, GPL or otherwise. (Now, if they were installing the software, then they become an OEM which is completely different, but we won't go there, shall we?) Realistically, I would think only in distributing a modified (even if it's as little as re-branding) version of Ubuntu would the GPL have any relevance at all, since at that point you're not reselling, but actually distributing your own product.
Depending on who's arguing the point. At work we had a gentleman in maintenance sign a Yellow Pages agreement, and the Yellow Pages (One of the third-party ones who send you the order-stub that looks like a bill) published an ad for us that we didn't want. When they called about their money, we refused to pay because the person who signed wasn't authorized to do so. They said they didn't care, and sent the debt to collections, where it sits to this day.
You also have the debate as to whether they were a distributor or merely a Vendor. If Staples carries a boxed copy of RHEL, they're not bound by the GPL anymore than they're bound by the EULA for Windows for carrying Vista.
Since it wasn't a Microsoft-Branded product, and was in their "Marketplace" area, not their downloads, they probably haven't incurred any liabilities at all.
I get the difference, hence why I said it was a poor example.
But regardless, it does have parallels, not the least of which is that Kimberly-Clark (who makes Kleenex, there is no Kleenex company) is one of the more famous examples of a trademark that has become unserviceable due to dilution. (Which is what Google is hoping to avoid, etc., etc.) With "Open" having been a term in programming even before "Open Source" was coined, and then the registered trademark thereof being abandoned, I really think that being militant with the phrase is unwarranted, possibly confusing ("You can do what you want with Open Source Code, but you can't vary from OUR definition of Open Source."), and counter to the type of image that the OSS community really wants to portray (At least from my perspective). Hence I'm merely advocating that the terminology should be quietly put in the public domain, and work on shoring up and protecting the logo/sticker instead.
To protect the term, all I feel is warranted is using basic activism to spread the word around for people who are using "Open Source" in the description of a product without an OSI-Definition-Compatible license. If a case gets to flagrant, deceptive marketing suits aren't out of the question. (Hence my example of being too far outside the umbrella of "Generic" to risk falling afoul of the neutered Kleenex trademark.)
The problem though, with the "standard method" is that the characteristics aren't always researched, and can start varying from one person to the next.
For example (a poor one, but still...) Kleenex. It's a brand name that has come to describe a product with a given set of characteristics. But which characteristics? A piece of tissue appropriate for clearing of nasal passages? Or for someone to get away with calling their tissue Kleenex does it have to be a wood-pulp tissue of a given dimension? How far away from that umbrella (Which, admittedly, developed from lack of enforcing trademark) do you have to go to no longer be a "Kleenex" and therefore liable to getting hit with said trademark?
I realize the OSI has a firm definition, but why that definition? Just because you coined the term over 15 years before the OSI came into existence? Or, like this crowd seems to indicate (which may be truthful, may be astroturf, may be trolls getting their daily feed), has the term gained a life of its own with too diverse of an interpretation for a trademark to really hold up?
Like I said, it's not that I don't think you have a right to enforce it, I'm just thinking that at this point, the term has wandered too far in scope and public definition, and you should at least consider that the time for standing up may have passed, and concentrate on the endorsements / logo program. Either that, or actually get it branded by law, and get something through congress in one piece that defines Open Source from a legal perspective.
I have no problem with this line of thought.
But note, that the American Cheese Product Slices you purchase that is lacking the "Real" logo still says "Cheese" in big letters (with "product" tiny underneath.)
My main beef with the whole thing is that "Open Source" is a semi-nebulous term (despite OSI's definition thereof), and while I have no qualms with them refusing use of the "OSI Approved" logo, for them to declare outright what can and can't call itself "Open" is like forcing Kraft to relabel their primary product as "American Curdled Oil Slices (with cheese-like flavor)"
I do like the concept of Open Source, and run a lot of good, honest Open Source software both at work and at home, but you (and Mr. Perens, and others) built the concept of Open Source around having a community of people all able to access things (in this case, source code) that have no physical value freely ('libre' to rip off the FSF). And now you want to play proprietary with the terminology?
I'm not saying you're wrong in doing so (as much as I may disagree with the apparent militantism), but am I the only one who sees the contradiction?
(And yes, I know the OSI has said logo. I was trying to point out this is already taken care of, but then realized the sarcasm might have gotten lost in translation.)
Then why not just make an "OSI Approved" logo, and license the logo to only be used in conjunction with software that is completely under an OSI Approved License? Then the OSI can associate said logo / "OSI Approved" mark with "Open Source" through conferences and other marketing...
Because, honestly, if the OSI claims that my Java projects from my Data Structures classes (Which are Kopylefted, per Discordian whim) are not Open Source, I would be rather offended.
Either that or make the Open Source license list Open Source, so we can all check in any nominated-and-seconded licenses. Otherwise Open Source as a whole just became closed.
Next time there's a store near you having a buy-one-get-one-free sale, go on in and tell them you'd rather not have two of whatever it is, and could they please just give you the free one by itself. See how well that works for you ;)
The local grocery stores around here will give you half of a buy-one-get-one.... but you only get it for half-free.
Wow... if "Homelands" was 10 years ago, I quit almost 8 years ago...
*checks release dates* I started right when 4th Ed came out, pre-Ice Age... So Early Spring of 1995 was when I was getting Fallen Empires at 3 for $1, and Dark at $5 per pack.
M:TG boosters are up to $5 for a 15-pack? WTF?
When I started, the most sought-after expansion (that was still within reason) was The Dark... Out of print and rapidly running out of sealed boxes, they were a premium at $5 per pack! Fallen Empires (Which friends of mine joked were worth more as toilet paper than as actual cards) was everywhere at $0.75 - $1.50 a pack. (I had one guy selling me Fallen Empires at buy-one for $1, get two free.)
You can't tell me that in 10 years the price of ink and cardboard has more than doubled...
You can store most downloadables on the SD card, but they don't show up in your Channels that way... The stuff in your Channels has to be in the internal memory.
A bit of a bummer, but I'm still glad for the backup. (Granted, I haven't tried deleting something out of internal memory and restoring from the card yet...)
Except FFXI Doesn't crash. Losing full-screen puts you back a level to the character selection, which is still part of FFXI, not POL. Threw an Error, sent you back to the main menu.
The error message is specifically "FFXI Lost Full Screen", not some inability to render, which leads me to believe that it was an intentional disconnect.
And as far as the other botters, there is a windowing wrapper available that tricks FFXI into thinking it always has fullscreen. Which is probably why they're disabling the full-screen "protection" this summer, since at this point it's just bothering the honest players.
You're somewhat mistaken with one of your assumptions.... Alt+Tab while in FFXI in Windows does not cause the game to crash. The original design was to cause a D/C from the game to prevent scripting / botting / etc. This "feature" (and yes, it's a documented feature, not outright bug.) is scheduled to be removed in a patch this summer.
Cartridges are Square(ish), while DVD/CD-ROMs are Circle, so obviously this game is being released for the NES, with it's nearly-square cartridges.
:P
Right?
I own a Wii, you insensitive clod! :P
If they aren't willing to look or ship to you, I'll keep an eye out next time I'm there. (Which is only about 3-4 times a year....)
I doubt they have one in-house, but I can give you a slight lead....
There is a scrap yard / used appliances / refurbished computer company in Southern Ohio called ReUse. They occasionally will get in odd bits and pieces from the surrounding universities and public schools. If you ask really, really nicely, I bet they would keep an eye out for you. (One of the last loads they got in that I got to help unload had a stack of HP LaserJet printers. Just "LaserJet". No bloody II, III, 4, or 5. Plus a few dumb terminals of early 1990's vintage, 30-pin RAM new in box, etc.)
Gutar Hero: Heart Edition!
I'd buy that!
Red Octane made GH1 and GH2. Future releases will be made by Neversoft/Activision.