In the end the company sits on a bunch of diff files, which can not be distributed to the world other than by GPL.
You're forgetting that the guy owns the IP of the modifications he made. As copyright holder on them, he's free to licence them to his company under whatever terms they agree to between themselves. That code will most likely be completely useless without the rest of the code which he *cannot* licence to the company, but that's life.
It might be perfectly legal to use the files internally,
The GPL places no restriction on use. The company can use any GPLed software internally without restriction, including this software. If they redistribute it, they then must supply with it either the source, or an offer to make the source available to whoever requests it.
I am unsure of the situation with regards to employees of the company that receive the software from another empoyee. The GPL specifies that no restrictions can be placed on those who receive the software; I suspect that they may be legally entitled to give it to whoever they want to. I suspect that the company may likewise be legally entitled to fire them, though.
I actually used NN 5 years ago. It was a buggy, slow, crash-prone piece of shit that couldn't handle even moderately complex nested tables without slowing to an absolute crawl and needed to reload the entire page to resize it(!), and I speak as a former ardent Netscape user (I have *never* used IE as my primary browser).
I'd rather user IE6 than NN 3/4 if I had to choose; it's simply not worth that much pain.
OSS would be better off without ANY restrictions on use.
There are no restrictions on use, the restrictions are on redistribution. You can even modify GPLed code and never release the modifications, as long as you similarly never release any binaries.
How is this hijacking a site? If I create a site at sIashdot.org, create a page that looks (to googlebot) like the slashdot front page, but redirects humans to $myShadySite, in what way have I hijacked slashdot?
Sure, I'll have the chance to push slashdot down the google results page, but slashdot is still slashdot - browse to http://slashdot.org and that's what you'll get, not my site.
Yes, it's a pain in the arse, yes it could confuse and mislead people, no the site has not been hijacked.
the user default is to answer "Yes" to any dialog boxes popping up while browsing the web.
That's true, and is why I don't believe that any OS or browser is going to save us from malware. Until the average user learns safe computing practices, they're going to continue installing stuff they later wish they hadn't; in time even if they do stop running as admin, they'll get used to typing in their admin (or root) username and password.
Indeed. I don't want to have to think "If I click this link, it'll cost me $smallAmount, which will add up to - hell, how much this month so far? $largerAmount or $evenLargerAmount?"
If it's something I use regularly, I'd rather pay a subscription. If it's something I just browse now and then, a micropayment model would be fine.
If they have the authority to do something, and it becomes in the company's best interest to do it, they will do it, without hesitation.
Never forget that companies are made up of people. While I agree that if it is in a company's interest to do something and they are able to, they will, don't think that they'll do it "without hesitation". The person making the decision may well hesitate; the people implementing it may well hesitate; but ultimately it'll happen, I agree with that.
No, it's a reason to always make sure that you specify in the contract that you wholly own any software that you have commissioned.
Seriously, with an off the shelf product, I can fully understand the company keeping the source, etc to themselves. But for bespoke software? If you pay me to write code for you, I expect you to want to own it completely, not licence it from me. Sure, I may use a library that I want to keep hold of, but even then, I'd expect you to licence it from me in such a way that you can take teh whole lot and give it to a third party to support/maintain/modify on your behalf.
Hey, it'd be better for me if you didn't, and were tied to me for future work, but that's not a reasonable expectation.
Initially at least, every single story he submitted consisted of a brief overview of the actual story, and a link to his blog. His blog contained a brief overview of the story, and a link to the actual story. Now, after months of complaints, he includes a link to the story in the slashdot summary too. If you google on his name, you'll find that he's made a career out of this; he consults on driving traffic to websites and blogs.
He is whoring for traffic for his blog, plain and simple. That would be fine, but his stories turn up here with such regularity that you could be forgiven for thinking that he works for slashdot. That would *also* be fine, but if it's the case, it really ought to be disclosed.
A lot of people consider his stories (especially in the past, before he linked to the real story instead of just his blog) to be glorified adverts. Understandably, the people who subscribe so they don't have to see ads are a little upset at that.
Finally, attached to every single story of his are a lot of posts complaining about him for the reasons above (amongst others), and yet the slashdot editors remain utterly silent on the matter. Sure, it's their site and we don't have to read it, but it would be nice to at least be acknowleged. No-one likes to feel ignored, especially paying subscribers (not that I am one, of course).
Apple was the first company to make an MP3 player and call it the "Shuffle", though. If they've trademarked it (and I'd be amazed if they haven't) then the "Super Shuffle" may well be hit under trademark law as being confusingly similar and trading on Apple's brand name.
Also, the Super Shuffle isn't just shaped like the iPod Shuffle, it's damn-near identical. That may fall foul of design protection laws; I don't know if you have them in the US, but we certainly do here in the UK. You can't just make something look almost identical to something else and get away with it. There was a very high-profile court case a few years ago when a supermarket chain was sued because the cans and bottles for its own-brand Cola looked too similar to Coke's.
Well, I don't know about the US, but here in the UK designs can be legally protected, so this could well be infringing under that law. Also, by calling it the "Super Shuffle" they're almost certainly going to fall foul of trademark law under a "confusingly similar" clause (Apple *has* tmed the name "Shuffle", right?)
No, they have to make the source of the kernel they use available to anyone who has the binary (ie an owner of the phone). Just saying "it's stock 2.4.2, get it from kernel.org" isn't good enough, they have to make it available themselves.
You are correct that they don't have to give out the source to their own binaries, as long as they're not GPLed or derived from GPLed software.
No, because the webmasters are not commiting a crime in their country of residence. I'm not familiar with AUian law (and am not a lawyer in any case), but somehow I doubt that what DrinkOrDie are doing is legal in AU...
Yeah, but it's a "victimless" crime (as it only really affects companies, never mind that they're just groups of people trying to make a living) and besides doesn't affect people here (as most of the ones that are programmers licence their stuff under OSS licences, conveniently forgetting that those licences wouldn't be worth the bits they're composed of without copyright law to back them up), so we don't care. Oh, unless someone violates the GPL, then they're evil and we come down on them like a ton of bricks.
A person living outside the United States should not need to worry about US laws
What if I hire someone in the US to commit a crime there? Surely I am just as guilty as the person who accepted my money, even if what I hired them to do is not a crime in my own country.
No, the crash was precipitated by "mass market hysteria" - it was hysteria that caused the market to reach an unsustainably high level, as people poured hundreds of millions of pounds into businesses with plans that amounted to nothing. Everyone saw it as a sure-fire get rich quick scheme, and their greed and ambition blinded them to the truth that the vast majority of those businesses simply were absolutely guaranteed to fail.
If they ask *what sort of computers* I'm going to assume that they mean either "do you have (Windows) PCs, or Macs?" or "what sort of spec are your machines?". I most certainly would *not* consider "they're those boxes over there" to be a vaild answer to that question, no matter who asked it (unless I knew them personally).
In fact, I'd most likely ask them to clarify the question, by asking them what they meant - spec, type, OS, installed apps, intended use, etc.
they were more willing to out and take chances than women perhaps
Or:
men and women have had it drilled into them by society from an early age that Men are Providers and Leaders, Women are Homebuilders and Followers
men tend to promote men to senior roles, not women
There's nothing wrong with the people in charge being male. However, when you have a large group of people (eg business leaders, managers, techies, etc) with a sex or ethnicity distribution that does not reflect society at large, then there's clearly some sort of bias happening somewhere. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as it may just be that that particular group doesn't appeal to certain types of people. However, it may also mean that the incumbents of the group (eg managers) are actively excluding people of a certain type (eg women). Then there is a problem that needs to be addressed.
So, being a male in a senior position isn't wrong, but having the vast majority of senior positions taken by men may well be, depending on the cause.
Slashdot Mirror
In the end the company sits on a bunch of diff files, which can not be distributed to the world other than by GPL.
You're forgetting that the guy owns the IP of the modifications he made. As copyright holder on them, he's free to licence them to his company under whatever terms they agree to between themselves. That code will most likely be completely useless without the rest of the code which he *cannot* licence to the company, but that's life.
It might be perfectly legal to use the files internally,
The GPL places no restriction on use. The company can use any GPLed software internally without restriction, including this software. If they redistribute it, they then must supply with it either the source, or an offer to make the source available to whoever requests it.
I am unsure of the situation with regards to employees of the company that receive the software from another empoyee. The GPL specifies that no restrictions can be placed on those who receive the software; I suspect that they may be legally entitled to give it to whoever they want to. I suspect that the company may likewise be legally entitled to fire them, though.
Well, as I read the GPL, technically the company would
a) have to give the source to any employee that they gave the binary to; and
b) be unable to prevent said employee from further distributing the code
Remember, a condition of the GPL is that you cannot place further restrictions on people you give the code/binaries to. That includes your employees.
Of course, there's probably nothing preventing you from letting them go if they do pass it on...
[Disclaimer: No, of course I'm not a lawyer, and especially not in your jurisdiction]
id rather use netscape navigator from 5 years ago
I actually used NN 5 years ago. It was a buggy, slow, crash-prone piece of shit that couldn't handle even moderately complex nested tables without slowing to an absolute crawl and needed to reload the entire page to resize it(!), and I speak as a former ardent Netscape user (I have *never* used IE as my primary browser).
I'd rather user IE6 than NN 3/4 if I had to choose; it's simply not worth that much pain.
And what does that estimated 300k buy them exactly? Bragging rights about having the largest data warehouse of utter crap?
:-)
Just because a thing is feasible doesn't make it likely
OSS would be better off without ANY restrictions on use.
There are no restrictions on use, the restrictions are on redistribution. You can even modify GPLed code and never release the modifications, as long as you similarly never release any binaries.
Well, the "B" stands for "Business" - perhaps you have to be a business to join?
That said, why the hell isn't RedHat or someone a member? For that matter, surely IBM already is...
How is this hijacking a site? If I create a site at sIashdot.org, create a page that looks (to googlebot) like the slashdot front page, but redirects humans to $myShadySite, in what way have I hijacked slashdot?
Sure, I'll have the chance to push slashdot down the google results page, but slashdot is still slashdot - browse to http://slashdot.org and that's what you'll get, not my site.
Yes, it's a pain in the arse, yes it could confuse and mislead people, no the site has not been hijacked.
More specifically, it's the JVM, not Java - Java is just a language, which can be compiled to native code if you really want.
the user default is to answer "Yes" to any dialog boxes popping up while browsing the web.
That's true, and is why I don't believe that any OS or browser is going to save us from malware. Until the average user learns safe computing practices, they're going to continue installing stuff they later wish they hadn't; in time even if they do stop running as admin, they'll get used to typing in their admin (or root) username and password.
Indeed. I don't want to have to think "If I click this link, it'll cost me $smallAmount, which will add up to - hell, how much this month so far? $largerAmount or $evenLargerAmount?"
If it's something I use regularly, I'd rather pay a subscription. If it's something I just browse now and then, a micropayment model would be fine.
If they have the authority to do something, and it becomes in the company's best interest to do it, they will do it, without hesitation.
Never forget that companies are made up of people. While I agree that if it is in a company's interest to do something and they are able to, they will, don't think that they'll do it "without hesitation". The person making the decision may well hesitate; the people implementing it may well hesitate; but ultimately it'll happen, I agree with that.
No, it's a reason to always make sure that you specify in the contract that you wholly own any software that you have commissioned.
Seriously, with an off the shelf product, I can fully understand the company keeping the source, etc to themselves. But for bespoke software? If you pay me to write code for you, I expect you to want to own it completely, not licence it from me. Sure, I may use a library that I want to keep hold of, but even then, I'd expect you to licence it from me in such a way that you can take teh whole lot and give it to a third party to support/maintain/modify on your behalf.
Hey, it'd be better for me if you didn't, and were tied to me for future work, but that's not a reasonable expectation.
Initially at least, every single story he submitted consisted of a brief overview of the actual story, and a link to his blog. His blog contained a brief overview of the story, and a link to the actual story. Now, after months of complaints, he includes a link to the story in the slashdot summary too. If you google on his name, you'll find that he's made a career out of this; he consults on driving traffic to websites and blogs.
He is whoring for traffic for his blog, plain and simple. That would be fine, but his stories turn up here with such regularity that you could be forgiven for thinking that he works for slashdot. That would *also* be fine, but if it's the case, it really ought to be disclosed.
A lot of people consider his stories (especially in the past, before he linked to the real story instead of just his blog) to be glorified adverts. Understandably, the people who subscribe so they don't have to see ads are a little upset at that.
Finally, attached to every single story of his are a lot of posts complaining about him for the reasons above (amongst others), and yet the slashdot editors remain utterly silent on the matter. Sure, it's their site and we don't have to read it, but it would be nice to at least be acknowleged. No-one likes to feel ignored, especially paying subscribers (not that I am one, of course).
Apple was the first company to make an MP3 player and call it the "Shuffle", though. If they've trademarked it (and I'd be amazed if they haven't) then the "Super Shuffle" may well be hit under trademark law as being confusingly similar and trading on Apple's brand name.
Also, the Super Shuffle isn't just shaped like the iPod Shuffle, it's damn-near identical. That may fall foul of design protection laws; I don't know if you have them in the US, but we certainly do here in the UK. You can't just make something look almost identical to something else and get away with it. There was a very high-profile court case a few years ago when a supermarket chain was sued because the cans and bottles for its own-brand Cola looked too similar to Coke's.
Well, I don't know about the US, but here in the UK designs can be legally protected, so this could well be infringing under that law. Also, by calling it the "Super Shuffle" they're almost certainly going to fall foul of trademark law under a "confusingly similar" clause (Apple *has* tmed the name "Shuffle", right?)
I think there are those who would welcome a return to that state.
Of course there is - everyone involved in not-for-profit copyright infringement. Duh.
No, they have to make the source of the kernel they use available to anyone who has the binary (ie an owner of the phone). Just saying "it's stock 2.4.2, get it from kernel.org" isn't good enough, they have to make it available themselves.
You are correct that they don't have to give out the source to their own binaries, as long as they're not GPLed or derived from GPLed software.
Would they accept being 'second-class customers', no different in Microsoft's eyes to the Average Joe?
As opposed to the way it is now, you mean, when they don't get preferential treatment either?
No, because the webmasters are not commiting a crime in their country of residence. I'm not familiar with AUian law (and am not a lawyer in any case), but somehow I doubt that what DrinkOrDie are doing is legal in AU...
Yeah, but it's a "victimless" crime (as it only really affects companies, never mind that they're just groups of people trying to make a living) and besides doesn't affect people here (as most of the ones that are programmers licence their stuff under OSS licences, conveniently forgetting that those licences wouldn't be worth the bits they're composed of without copyright law to back them up), so we don't care. Oh, unless someone violates the GPL, then they're evil and we come down on them like a ton of bricks.
A person living outside the United States should not need to worry about US laws
What if I hire someone in the US to commit a crime there? Surely I am just as guilty as the person who accepted my money, even if what I hired them to do is not a crime in my own country.
If you approve of the term, it only has to be used once. If you disapprove, you'll never be used to it.
No, the crash was precipitated by "mass market hysteria" - it was hysteria that caused the market to reach an unsustainably high level, as people poured hundreds of millions of pounds into businesses with plans that amounted to nothing. Everyone saw it as a sure-fire get rich quick scheme, and their greed and ambition blinded them to the truth that the vast majority of those businesses simply were absolutely guaranteed to fail.
If they ask *what sort of computers* I'm going to assume that they mean either "do you have (Windows) PCs, or Macs?" or "what sort of spec are your machines?". I most certainly would *not* consider "they're those boxes over there" to be a vaild answer to that question, no matter who asked it (unless I knew them personally).
In fact, I'd most likely ask them to clarify the question, by asking them what they meant - spec, type, OS, installed apps, intended use, etc.
they were more willing to out and take chances than women perhaps
Or:
men and women have had it drilled into them by society from an early age that Men are Providers and Leaders, Women are Homebuilders and Followers
men tend to promote men to senior roles, not women
There's nothing wrong with the people in charge being male. However, when you have a large group of people (eg business leaders, managers, techies, etc) with a sex or ethnicity distribution that does not reflect society at large, then there's clearly some sort of bias happening somewhere. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as it may just be that that particular group doesn't appeal to certain types of people. However, it may also mean that the incumbents of the group (eg managers) are actively excluding people of a certain type (eg women). Then there is a problem that needs to be addressed.
So, being a male in a senior position isn't wrong, but having the vast majority of senior positions taken by men may well be, depending on the cause.