At this point in the discussion I'm suffering from lack of bothering to google.
As for RMS... his views are well known and I'm sure you've represented them accurately. Had he been foolish enough to have Moglen incorporate a strict version of those views in the GPL, it would have died on the vine. As it turns out, he wasn't.
That's the "lesser" GPL or LGPL. I don't know if the GNU Scientific Library is under the GPL or the LGPL. Many of the GNU libraries are under the LGPLG. OP claimed it was the GPL. If he was wrong and its under the LGPL then he's suffering from more than a failure of imagination.
Or simply release it to the public domain. Like many developers these days, I quite agree with you. The GPL is not the right license for the software I choose to give away.
You'd still have the final version the the GNU Scientific Library that was released under GPL v3 available to you under the terms of GPL v3. Once offered, it can't be withdrawn.
2. Is non-operative on a practical level, thus need not be considered.
3. To be GPL compatible, your code must be released in a manner where anyone else later on can release their version under the GPL only. Whether or not this means you yourself have released it under the GPL is splitting hairs.
4. Yes, that's what viral means. Once your code relies on GPL code in a way that compels you to license your code under the GPL, it's hard as heck to back away and decide that your code has some novel functions that you don't feel like just giving away.
Any popular closed source software (like Microsoft Office) has this viral property: once you're invested in it, you can't easily extricate yourself from the requirements the copyright owner places on you. The GPL gets called out for retaining this behavior because it claims to promote freedom where closed source software does not.
You have heard of shared memory, no? Where the data set is large enough that passing it as a message to and from a network interface creates an unacceptable performance penalty, you can still fall back on shared memory between distinct processes.
Practically speaking, your code becomes GPL. Yes, technically you can commit the tort of copyright infringement by creating copies of the GPLed code in a manner for which you do not have the owner's permission, i.e. by refusing to offer your linked code under the GPL. Practically speaking, your code becomes GPL. For organizations who wish to stay out of court but are too sloppy to create wrappers, it has the viral and cancerous effects described.
Why not simply license the code as LGPL in the first place and let the other developers avoid this arbitrary hassle that forces a most likely inelegant design? (Really. If you don't answer that question I can't take you seriously. As it is my faith in humanity went down a notch.)
When I release my own code, I put it in the public domain and I don't sweat the whole licenses thing. When you release your code, you can do it the way you feel like.
No my argument is that if the FSF wanted GPL software to be used only with other GPL software, they'd have written the license that way. They didn't. They wrote the license so that if you link with the code yours becomes GPL but if you merely use the programs together, it doesn't. So, make your improvements to the GPL code, release your improvements to the GPL code and if you want to keep the rest of your application closed source then do it. We'll appreciate what you chose to contribute and those of us with a brain will respect your choice for the things you chose not to contribute. We probably won't use the closed source parts, but we'll respect your choice.
I first considered Gnu Scientific Library, but if I used this I would have to GPL my own code
If you think so, you're suffering a major failure of imagination. You can always find a practical way for non-GPL code to interact with GPL code that doesn't subject it to the GPL. Worst case, you build a light-weight wrapper around the GPL code and run it in a separate process. The beauty of it is that the authors of the GPL code can't even say nay: the GPL expressly forbids them from modifying it terms to disallow that higher level interaction.
Until a couple years ago, it was common practice to squat on 1.0.0.0/8 for internal use when 10.0.0.0/8 ran out. Then IANA allocated the space to APNIC which subsequently allocated most of it to China.
You're just discovering this about Windows software-based disk encryption schemes? Spend the extra $50 on an FDE drive and save yourself the heartache.
Stopping piracy is not the correct goal. Making money is the correct goal. You make money by convincing people to pay you, not by convincing them to abandon their attempt to use your product.
Deterrent is the wrong goal. Give up on the folks who choose to steal it. They aren't worth your time or concern. Worry about making it both easy and encouraging for the folks who are inclined to pay you to do so.
Oh noes, payments will be delayed. Engage eyeroll. Folks, payments to contractors and grantees from the federal government are usually late. The timeliness is never predictable, a factor that's programmed in to the cost structure for anyone who does business with the federal government. More tardiness will have no impact whatsoever.
Hello Mr. Evil Twin. Do try to throw him off the scent.
OP described his area as a "neighborhood." Generally speaking, one doesn't describe an high-rise residence as a neighborhood. Odds are very good he's looking at wood frame structures where the technique will work just fine.
Even if that wasn't true, we're not talking about a $20 wifi finder. Software like inSSIDer identifies the SSID and wifi channel along with the strength. And it shows the pattern of rises and falls as you move around. From OP's description, he knows enough about wifi to interpret the information successfully... even if it's coming from a directional antenna or dealing with the odd reflection.
The evil twin makes finding the culprit a cakewalk. Download inSSIDer and walk around. When the evil twin's signal is strongest, you're outside his door.
As a local (northern Virginia) I read the Washington Post online. I also have an Android phone. I have not used the Post's mobile apps. Not even once. Before reading this article, it had not even occurred to me that I might want to.
This says something about the value of the post's mobile apps and, by extension, the 54 (54!!) people hired to build and maintain them.
People spend money on virtual pets. They spend money on cool duds for their game avatars. The whole free-to-play concept depends on the sales of these virtual goods. And the pure vitriol when one of these places shuts down before they're bored with it...
There shouldn't even be a quota for immigrants with a higher education. The idea that we're turning away highly skilled people who *want* to be here is positively insane.
Slashdot Mirror
At this point in the discussion I'm suffering from lack of bothering to google.
As for RMS... his views are well known and I'm sure you've represented them accurately. Had he been foolish enough to have Moglen incorporate a strict version of those views in the GPL, it would have died on the vine. As it turns out, he wasn't.
That's the "lesser" GPL or LGPL. I don't know if the GNU Scientific Library is under the GPL or the LGPL. Many of the GNU libraries are under the LGPLG. OP claimed it was the GPL. If he was wrong and its under the LGPL then he's suffering from more than a failure of imagination.
Or simply release it to the public domain. Like many developers these days, I quite agree with you. The GPL is not the right license for the software I choose to give away.
You'd still have the final version the the GNU Scientific Library that was released under GPL v3 available to you under the terms of GPL v3. Once offered, it can't be withdrawn.
1. I said that.
2. Is non-operative on a practical level, thus need not be considered.
3. To be GPL compatible, your code must be released in a manner where anyone else later on can release their version under the GPL only. Whether or not this means you yourself have released it under the GPL is splitting hairs.
4. Yes, that's what viral means. Once your code relies on GPL code in a way that compels you to license your code under the GPL, it's hard as heck to back away and decide that your code has some novel functions that you don't feel like just giving away.
Any popular closed source software (like Microsoft Office) has this viral property: once you're invested in it, you can't easily extricate yourself from the requirements the copyright owner places on you. The GPL gets called out for retaining this behavior because it claims to promote freedom where closed source software does not.
You have heard of shared memory, no? Where the data set is large enough that passing it as a message to and from a network interface creates an unacceptable performance penalty, you can still fall back on shared memory between distinct processes.
Practically speaking, your code becomes GPL. Yes, technically you can commit the tort of copyright infringement by creating copies of the GPLed code in a manner for which you do not have the owner's permission, i.e. by refusing to offer your linked code under the GPL. Practically speaking, your code becomes GPL. For organizations who wish to stay out of court but are too sloppy to create wrappers, it has the viral and cancerous effects described.
Why not simply license the code as LGPL in the first place and let the other developers avoid this arbitrary hassle that forces a most likely inelegant design? (Really. If you don't answer that question I can't take you seriously. As it is my faith in humanity went down a notch.)
When I release my own code, I put it in the public domain and I don't sweat the whole licenses thing. When you release your code, you can do it the way you feel like.
No my argument is that if the FSF wanted GPL software to be used only with other GPL software, they'd have written the license that way. They didn't. They wrote the license so that if you link with the code yours becomes GPL but if you merely use the programs together, it doesn't. So, make your improvements to the GPL code, release your improvements to the GPL code and if you want to keep the rest of your application closed source then do it. We'll appreciate what you chose to contribute and those of us with a brain will respect your choice for the things you chose not to contribute. We probably won't use the closed source parts, but we'll respect your choice.
I first considered Gnu Scientific Library, but if I used this I would have to GPL my own code
If you think so, you're suffering a major failure of imagination. You can always find a practical way for non-GPL code to interact with GPL code that doesn't subject it to the GPL. Worst case, you build a light-weight wrapper around the GPL code and run it in a separate process. The beauty of it is that the authors of the GPL code can't even say nay: the GPL expressly forbids them from modifying it terms to disallow that higher level interaction.
Until a couple years ago, it was common practice to squat on 1.0.0.0/8 for internal use when 10.0.0.0/8 ran out. Then IANA allocated the space to APNIC which subsequently allocated most of it to China.
You're just discovering this about Windows software-based disk encryption schemes? Spend the extra $50 on an FDE drive and save yourself the heartache.
Welcome to the 21st century version of a SLAAP.
Stopping piracy is not the correct goal. Making money is the correct goal. You make money by convincing people to pay you, not by convincing them to abandon their attempt to use your product.
Deterrent is the wrong goal. Give up on the folks who choose to steal it. They aren't worth your time or concern. Worry about making it both easy and encouraging for the folks who are inclined to pay you to do so.
Oh noes, payments will be delayed. Engage eyeroll. Folks, payments to contractors and grantees from the federal government are usually late. The timeliness is never predictable, a factor that's programmed in to the cost structure for anyone who does business with the federal government. More tardiness will have no impact whatsoever.
Hello Mr. Evil Twin. Do try to throw him off the scent.
OP described his area as a "neighborhood." Generally speaking, one doesn't describe an high-rise residence as a neighborhood. Odds are very good he's looking at wood frame structures where the technique will work just fine.
Even if that wasn't true, we're not talking about a $20 wifi finder. Software like inSSIDer identifies the SSID and wifi channel along with the strength. And it shows the pattern of rises and falls as you move around. From OP's description, he knows enough about wifi to interpret the information successfully... even if it's coming from a directional antenna or dealing with the odd reflection.
The evil twin makes finding the culprit a cakewalk. Download inSSIDer and walk around. When the evil twin's signal is strongest, you're outside his door.
As a local (northern Virginia) I read the Washington Post online. I also have an Android phone. I have not used the Post's mobile apps. Not even once. Before reading this article, it had not even occurred to me that I might want to.
This says something about the value of the post's mobile apps and, by extension, the 54 (54!!) people hired to build and maintain them.
If you can afford $50k for a Tesla, you can afford another $5000 for a used whatever gasoline car that can take you on the extended trips.
It's not so virtual when you sell it on eBay.
Yeah, I was going to say: work smart, not fast.
People spend money on virtual pets. They spend money on cool duds for their game avatars. The whole free-to-play concept depends on the sales of these virtual goods. And the pure vitriol when one of these places shuts down before they're bored with it...
Of course cyberspace exists.
What's the old saw? A state-run lottery ain't nothing but a voluntary tax? You played. You lost. Move on.
There shouldn't even be a quota for immigrants with a higher education. The idea that we're turning away highly skilled people who *want* to be here is positively insane.