According to the GPL, you must make the source code available to the people you distribute it to. Well, if your giving someone your document doesn't this mean you're also giving them the code as well??:)
So what does it matter? You're not being forced to make it available to the entire world, only to those you send your document to.
But, I believe, for reasons I've spelled out in other postings here... which will not be repeated... that the idea is ludicrous anyway. But even if it is true... where's the harm?
This whole thing is just blown way out of proportion. I have to read the email list and laugh at the guy who said I don't want to make this more than it is.
I would be suprised if we don't here some clarification on this soon. But I believe that what was said on the mailing list was an eggregiously wrong interpretation of the license.
No, I wasn't. I was referring to how the current GPL 2.0 operates. Not to things which are merely being considered for GPL 3.0../ is so full of FUD these days, it's almost funny.:)
In contract law, the contract is always read against the drafter. It is obvious, from looking at the GPL that it is referring to programs in the normal sense. The intent is to cover programs, not documents with embedded fonts which could be considered programs. Intent is what forms the legal relationship. If the intent was only to cover programs in the usual sense, then that's all it shall cover. There are other parts of the GPL, for instance, which can be misread.
For instance, what if I create a web application and I use GPL software? If I allow people outside of my company access to the website, do I have to make the modified source or the source to my application available? To an inexperienced person, it might seem to be the case, since the GPL simply talks about "distribution" but fails to mention what distribution means. It is obvious, however, that it means for me to sell or ultimately to give you a copy of the program in binary form.
Fonts, no matter how they are drawn, whether with postscript or bitmap are considered to be *content* and nothing more. Besides, even if it were considered to make my document GPL how would I "distribute the source" to said document. Even if the font is a program, the document itself isn't. The GPL doesn't say anything about linking programs with non-programs now does it? (No, it doesn't):)
I think people who deprecate the GPL are funny, I really do. Because they consistently miss the point.
It won't stand up in a court of law, and that's what's important. Fonts are *content* no matter how they are generated, whether by postscript or bitmap. Prove otherwise in a court of law and I'll be quite amazed.
I understand patents quite well. Please see my petition at: http://www.petitiononline.com/pasp01 for more information. The petition was written by myself, RMS and a few others.
The governing force of any contract or license is intent. Was it the intention of the FSF to force documents to be under the GPL, I think not. This is evidenced by the use of "The Program" all over the document.
Additionally, we're talking copyrights here. Patents are a different beast entirely.
The GPL repeatedly refers to "the Program" or "a Program" and it's "source code".
A document, which is data, cannot be construed to be code, it's quite as simple as that.
Using a font, in the document, further, does not make the document a "derivative work" of the font nor does the document "link with" the font in the usual sense, as the document only references the font in it's metadata.
In short. The author of the above article is totally full of it and doesn't know what he/she is talking about as are all of the fine souls on the scribus list.
It should be the responsibility of the USPTO because one of the weaknesses of the infamous Rule 56 which requires the applicant to submit any information subject to the patentability of his/her invention of which he/she has knowledge. Some information is here:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/so ft ware/sanjose/sj_sterne.html
The problem is that Rule 56 is somewhat vague. Who is to say if they had knowledge of ALL prior art?
I agree that the citizens of the US shouldn't have to pay for this, but the problem is that not allowing this to happen for everyone raises the cost of getting a patent to outside of the realm where it is feasible for a small business to acquire them. It's a matter of figuring out how to pay for all of the extra work it will take to find appropriate prior art.
He was good as the doctor in the 1996 movie. The story just sucked.
GJC
So long and thanks for all the fish, Larry!
on
Linus Drops BitKeeper
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Guess it's finally happened. When we found out about your restrictive license that was enough. I guess Linus has finally seen the light, thank goodness.
There are a bunch of "Best Buy" stores here in MD. It might be fun to organize a protest where everyone goes in a pays with $2 bills for everything for a whole day.:)
The mainstream media is always trying to play everyone in the Linux community off of this rabid, fly by night, wide-eyed, geek-with-nothing-better-to-do stereotype.
I too despise the 5% which makes the rest of us look bad. I, personally, have never downloaded a pirated song or a pirated movie in my life, nor would I want to. But, in my experience, in their quest to find things to write about, these writers will pull things from the headlines which they don't fully understand. And in doing so, the general public, who are more like a herd of sheep than anything else, will simply believe whatever's told to them.
I have no problem with them exposing the truth about the warez crowd since I dislike the warez crowd myself, but I can see this being misused as an avenue for getting at open source/free software and other things which don't deserve to be demonized.
If Hollywood is famous for anything it's for the generation of stereotypes, and I'm afraid that all of us law-abiding-open-source-enthusiasts will be lumped in with the bad crowd.
No, it doesn't contradict my philosophy. Personally, I hate the people who pirate songs and software. I believe it's wrong to do this.
But I know how simplistically the writers on some of these shows think and I can easily see other factions of the online community being dragged in a villified without justification.
It is an attempt to demonize the warez crowd.
on
TV Show About The Scene
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And to some degree, the rest of the online community.
There's no better way to sway or prejudice public opinion than through Hollywood.
Because I want to make sure I never consider working there.
Rules:
1) Never sign anything like this 2) Never sign anything like this 3) Never sign anything like this
Any doubts, please review the forgoing rules.
In short, your employer is violating the GPL, and is perhaps somewhat unscrupulous in what they did to you, but you are not innocent in the regard that you should never have entered into such a one sided agreement in the first place.
The GPL doesn't give you the right to take someone's code and use it without releasing the result. You must release anything that GPL'd software is linked or combined with under the GPL.
If they CherryOS guys are using PearPC, which is GPL, they *must* release any modifications to PearPC in addition to their own code under the GPL license.
The PearPC teams members still hold the copyrights to the PearPC code. They can still sue for copyright infringement AND/OR violation of GPL terms, if they wish.
GNU/Linux is ending the UNIX wars by forcing the UNIX vendors to switch to GNU/Linux or to seriously consider supporting it. The UNIX world has been divided and has had infighting since the first time BSD was ever distributed and LONG before Linux ever appeared on the scene.
An oligopoly of GNU/Linux vendors and supportors is much harder to defeat than several different vendors with disparate versions of the same operating system.
Eliminating proprietary UNIX and unifying the UNIX sector under one banner is a necessary first step to ending Microsoft's monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the GPL, you must make the source code available to the people you distribute it to. Well, if your giving someone your document doesn't this mean you're also giving them the code as well?? :)
So what does it matter? You're not being forced to make it available to the entire world, only to those you send your document to.
But, I believe, for reasons I've spelled out in other postings here... which will not be repeated... that the idea is ludicrous anyway. But even if it is true... where's the harm?
GJC
This whole thing is just blown way out of proportion. I have to read the email list and laugh at the guy who said I don't want to make this more than it is.
I would be suprised if we don't here some clarification on this soon. But I believe that what was said on the mailing list was an eggregiously wrong interpretation of the license.
GJC
No, I wasn't. I was referring to how the current GPL 2.0 operates. Not to things which are merely being considered for GPL 3.0. ./ is so full of FUD these days, it's almost funny. :)
GJC
You're making a few very large legal leaps here.
:)
In contract law, the contract is always read against the drafter. It is obvious, from looking at the GPL that it is referring to programs in the normal sense. The intent is to cover programs, not documents with embedded fonts which could be considered programs. Intent is what forms the legal relationship. If the intent was only to cover programs in the usual sense, then that's all it shall cover. There are other parts of the GPL, for instance, which can be misread.
For instance, what if I create a web application and I use GPL software? If I allow people outside of my company access to the website, do I have to make the modified source or the source to my application available? To an inexperienced person, it might seem to be the case, since the GPL simply talks about "distribution" but fails to mention what distribution means. It is obvious, however, that it means for me to sell or ultimately to give you a copy of the program in binary form.
Fonts, no matter how they are drawn, whether with postscript or bitmap are considered to be *content* and nothing more. Besides, even if it were considered to make my document GPL how would I "distribute the source" to said document. Even if the font is a program, the document itself isn't. The GPL doesn't say anything about linking programs with non-programs now does it? (No, it doesn't)
Later, GJC
Font's are not programs. :)
I think people who deprecate the GPL are funny, I really do. Because they consistently miss the point.
It won't stand up in a court of law, and that's what's important. Fonts are *content* no matter how they are generated, whether by postscript or bitmap. Prove otherwise in a court of law and I'll be quite amazed.
You can go on simply believing what you're told.
GJC
I understand patents quite well. Please see my petition at: http://www.petitiononline.com/pasp01 for more information. The petition was written by myself, RMS and a few others.
The governing force of any contract or license is intent. Was it the intention of the FSF to force documents to be under the GPL, I think not. This is evidenced by the use of "The Program" all over the document.
Additionally, we're talking copyrights here. Patents are a different beast entirely.
IANAL, but here goes:
The GPL repeatedly refers to "the Program" or "a Program" and it's "source code".
A document, which is data, cannot be construed to be code, it's quite as simple as that.
Using a font, in the document, further, does not make the document a "derivative work" of the font nor does the document "link with" the font in the usual sense, as the document only references the font in it's metadata.
In short. The author of the above article is totally full of it and doesn't know what he/she is talking about as are all of the fine souls on the scribus list.
GJC
Good point. :/
It should be the responsibility of the USPTO because one of the weaknesses of the infamous Rule 56 which requires the applicant to submit any information subject to the patentability of his/her invention of which he/she has knowledge. Some information is here:
o ft ware/sanjose/sj_sterne.html
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/s
The problem is that Rule 56 is somewhat vague. Who is to say if they had knowledge of ALL prior art?
I agree that the citizens of the US shouldn't have to pay for this, but the problem is that not allowing this to happen for everyone raises the cost of getting a patent to outside of the realm where it is feasible for a small business to acquire them. It's a matter of figuring out how to pay for all of the extra work it will take to find appropriate prior art.
Later, GJC
He was good as the doctor in the 1996 movie. The story just sucked.
GJC
Guess it's finally happened. When we found out about your restrictive license that was enough. I guess Linus has finally seen the light, thank goodness.
Told ya larry! See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya!
GJC
There are a bunch of "Best Buy" stores here in MD. It might be fun to organize a protest where everyone goes in a pays with $2 bills for everything for a whole day. :)
Later, GJC
That's a more accurate statement. :)
The mainstream media is always trying to play everyone in the Linux community off of this rabid, fly by night, wide-eyed, geek-with-nothing-better-to-do stereotype.
The are a shill for whoever pays the most money.
GJC
"Because of overwhelming evidence..." instead of "by popular demand." :)
GJC
Might as well forget about visiting/posting or reading slashdot. It's April 1st. :/
:)
Oh.. wait... I should follow my own advice.
GJC
It's a travesty that this name is used by these nafarious folks at ADTI. The real Tocqueville was a philosopher and lover of freedom:
l le
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocquevi
Truely ashame that they should damage his name.
GJC
I too despise the 5% which makes the rest of us look bad. I, personally, have never downloaded a pirated song or a pirated movie in my life, nor would I want to. But, in my experience, in their quest to find things to write about, these writers will pull things from the headlines which they don't fully understand. And in doing so, the general public, who are more like a herd of sheep than anything else, will simply believe whatever's told to them.
I have no problem with them exposing the truth about the warez crowd since I dislike the warez crowd myself, but I can see this being misused as an avenue for getting at open source/free software and other things which don't deserve to be demonized.
If Hollywood is famous for anything it's for the generation of stereotypes, and I'm afraid that all of us law-abiding-open-source-enthusiasts will be lumped in with the bad crowd.
Later, GJC
No, it doesn't contradict my philosophy. Personally, I hate the people who pirate songs and software. I believe it's wrong to do this.
But I know how simplistically the writers on some of these shows think and I can easily see other factions of the online community being dragged in a villified without justification.
And to some degree, the rest of the online community.
There's no better way to sway or prejudice public opinion than through Hollywood.
GJC
Because I want to make sure I never consider working there.
Rules:
1) Never sign anything like this
2) Never sign anything like this
3) Never sign anything like this
Any doubts, please review the forgoing rules.
In short, your employer is violating the GPL, and is perhaps somewhat unscrupulous in what they did to you, but you are not innocent in the regard that you should never have entered into such a one sided agreement in the first place.
GJC
Yeah right. This "end" has been heralded several times before and it's never happened.
GJC
All true. The GPL is complex, I can't hope to express all of it in just a few sentences. :)
GJC
Sorry... let me restate for clarity... you must release ANYTHING OF YOURS which you have combined or linked with GPL code under the GPL.
The GPL doesn't give you the right to take someone's code and use it without releasing the result. You must release anything that GPL'd software is linked or combined with under the GPL.
If they CherryOS guys are using PearPC, which is GPL, they *must* release any modifications to PearPC in addition to their own code under the GPL license.
The PearPC teams members still hold the copyrights to the PearPC code. They can still sue for copyright infringement AND/OR violation of GPL terms, if they wish.
GNU/Linux is ending the UNIX wars by forcing the UNIX vendors to switch to GNU/Linux or to seriously consider supporting it. The UNIX world has been divided and has had infighting since the first time BSD was ever distributed and LONG before Linux ever appeared on the scene.
An oligopoly of GNU/Linux vendors and supportors is much harder to defeat than several different vendors with disparate versions of the same operating system.
Eliminating proprietary UNIX and unifying the UNIX sector under one banner is a necessary first step to ending Microsoft's monopoly.
Later, GJC
Thank, GJC