Implicit? It is so implicit that it is all over the kernel source files.
You are quoting out of context here. If there is no kernel as a legal entity then that license appears in another kernel source file. It is one or the other. Either the kernel is a legal conjoined work, or it just a collection of separately licensed works. The kernel can't have a license if all the individual copyright holders have full control. Your claim for example was that A submission of GPLv2 code constitutes a violation of the kernel's license, programs don't have legal rights corporations and individuals do.
F accepts a contract which restricts F's actions (on how to distribute in this case). The contract exists before F does any other action.
You are begging the question. F says no contract existed and he never accepted the contract. That's counter evidence.
References, please. If what you say is true, there is no need to collectively transition to GPLv3. All it takes is someone taking the kernel and changing the license.
Maybe, maybe not. I think it might be a lot easier to take parts of the kernel and conjoin them with GPLv3 code. Taking the entire kernel is likely to grant Linus standing, despite his belief he doesn't have standing. In other words I think Linus is making two mistakes.
My point is though, is that I'm not sure if someone did take the whole kernel and release it under GPLv3 he would lose a lawsuit. I'm pretty sure though if someone took a small subsystem where a large chunk of the code (but not all) was written by developers in favor or relicensing he would win.
Excuse me? You talk about a license as being implicit and now dare to talk about new licenses being created? References, please.
Nottage v. Jackson the author is the person most closely responsible for the work being produced. Feist -- facts are not copyrightable but compilations of facts are Wheaton v Peters -- A conjoined work has its own license
etc...
Case after case after case has been ruled this way.
What's an implicit corporate entity? "We, the kernel developers, being of caffeinated mind and tired body..."?
Yes. That's exactly what it takes. There need to be provable events which constitute signing the license. Your entire argument is predicated on the belief that everyone who contributed to the kernel explicitly agreed to the kernel license including the no upgrade policy collectively and thus individually they cannot do anything more than relicense their own contributions.
Otherwise what you have is a work, with no clear ownership, no clear standing and unclear licensing provisions. In which case the form of the license GPLv2 (vanilla, i.e. FSF) starts to have a lot of weight.
I think you know more about the specific dissimilarities than I do. Thank you for the info. Interesting point about the VFS layer and it makes sense. They need a more seamless experience and can sacrifice performance to get it.
Yes, they would - and, as somebody else noted, they did do so for HFS+, but, apparently, nobody cared enough to keep it going.
I wonder why. Linux has always maintained at least so/so HFS/HFS+ support. I'd think at this point lots of BSD admins are coming over as Darwin admins with Darwin systems...
I understand OSX is not just NeXTSTEP. On the other hand Ubuntu is not just SLS with a Linux 1.x kernel either. Both systems have evolved. The point is that when the Rhapsody project was starting in 1997, it was starting with huge chunks of code from NeXTSTEP and quite a bit of that code is still in OSX.
As for the kernel the kernel isn't unified at all. The kernel is a highly configurable system which allows tens of thousands of subsystems to be compiled in or not against a dozen different systems. Most major vendors (like Debian and Redhat) maintain their own kernel trees to get specialization. There are options like real time vs. performance. The kernel is designed to allow for a diversity.
But I understand your point. That was the whole idea behind User Linux and Progeny both of which failed. The Linux community simple values diversity over marketshare.
KDE with a preloading print subsystem probably shouldn't be the GUI for a phone or tablet.
As for a PC with SSD. That's an interesting point. At least right now there are four types of systems that have SSD 1) Very low end, like a netbook. Again maybe a poor choice for KDE 2) Mid range low weight (like Macbook air), generally should have swap. 3) Very high end, in which case the system has plenty of ram. 4) Fast desktop in which case there should also be an HDD.
Well because I haven't seen a lot of states rights conservatives be terribly consistent when it comes to policies they don't like. Take medical marijuana or euthanasia or even allowing states to impose safety standards on goods from other states. Suddenly they lose interest.
Rom Paul is an exception, he is generally rather consistent.
What are you talking about a government that never grows smaller? If you exclude medicare, medicaid and social security the government is much smaller today than it was 40 years ago. Mostly the government does defense and transfer payments. The government of my childhood was involved in enhancing culture, industrial policy, labor relations....
How you fix the system is convince large numbers of people to consider corruption more important than secondary issues. And to a great extent that has been happening. Congress is much less corrupt than it was in 2004 because there are mostly ideologues running around. In '06, '08 and '10 lots of the moderates in swing districts (the most easy to bribe) were kicked out and replaced with hard core partisans.
If people in large numbers could band together we wouldn't need to bribe the politicians. The money exists mainly for the 50/50ish districts. It is the fact that the country is so cleanly divided red/blue and that corruption is not a first place or a second place issue that makes the money relevant.
OSX is essentially NeXTSTEP, which is from about '88. Linux has done well.
95% of the super computing market 60% of the server market largest player in the embedded market up and coming development system for the mainframe market 3rd largest player in the desktop market (though with the understanding 1 -> 2 and 2 ->3 are about 8::1 drops)
I don't consider Linux anything other than an success. The desktop world has advanced considerably from where it was in the mid 1990s and wanted things that open source isn't particularly good at.
I think you would be surprised how many features Windows 95 doesn't have that you take for granted. Go install a 95 and see what it doesn't do. OS features are like the frog cooking in the water, they get added gradually and...
Parent might have had points but "Windoze sucks!!!" doesn't help advance the conversation.
As for the advantages of familiar vs. better I think Gnome's comment was the best here, "You have a certain of difference points you can spend on your interface. Too different and people just hate it. So spend them carefully". The Windows interface made a lot of sense which is why even prior to KDE, Linux desktops sometimes had a windows feel. FVWM's FVWM95 was extremely popular with early distributions, RedHat even used to make that one the default.
Anyway with iOS gaining popularity, and OSX gaining popularity the days when everyone knew one or another interface are starting to pass. Further web based interfaces use entirely different toolkits and have entirely different paradigms. The computer monoculture is dying for the younger generation.
QT was in the mid 1990s being seriously proposed as the default widget set for Linux. Something like what Cocoa is for OSX or.NET for Windows. Yes, the idea was QT OS. LAMP would be the standard for 3 tier architecture and QT for 1 and 2 tier.
Then people went ballistic because of the QPL, Gnome started moving into that role with User Linux and Progeny. And today KDE is just a desktop environment but Linux GUI was a Suse, Turbo Linux, Caldera, Connectiva project at first with QT in a very prominent role.
No actually the hardware makes a huge difference. On x86 all hardware runs unprotected. Which means that if you can successfully hack and piece of hardware on an x86 you own the system. That's not the case with more sophisticated hardware. Further other CPU and hardware designs are better about trapping buffer overflow type attacks.
Solaris on x86 does not give you the same protections.
No, it is as simple as everybody knowing that's the kernel's license.
No that's false. That's called an implicit contract and the law does not accord them very much respect at all. Time and time again those sorts of contracts have been held not to be binding. I can think of an example in copyright law, because typically publishers are careful about making sure they have explicit contracts. But in other areas of law, absolutely not.
E can assert that F doing action K creates a contract, F can K and no contract is in place.
. It's there for everyone to read before they contribute and anyone who has spent the minimum time providing code already knows that Linux kernel's license is not the standard GPLv2 but a GPLv2 only one.
We have kernel developers on record saying that's not their understanding. They believe that the kernel copyright is the standard GPLv2, but that the kernel collectively is not exercising the GPLv2 -> v3 transition. So again we know that's not true.
It doesn't matter if there is a thousand more developers. I'm responsible of taking legal care of the code I wrote, and that's it.
That's again one of the myths of the open source community. Courts have held that entering into a conjoined work creates new licenses. In general publishers want unambiguous copyright but publishers have pushed ahead in conjoined works where individual copyright holders for a conjoined work didn't agree with relicensing.
A good example of this is collections of articles originally published in magazines and then republished in a book.
A3 will be infringing the kernel license by trying to insert standard GPLv2 code in it.
You are trying to have it both ways. There is no "kernel license" without a corporate entity that holds that license. Either there is a bunch of individual licenses or there is an implicit corporate entity. Further there is no obligation on any contract to enforce its terms. A3 is not infringing by indicating his understanding of the contract is more lenient.
Since that is illegal, A3 has no standing about trying to change the kernel's license.
Illegal from whom? Who in your opinion has standing?
Which makes the copy of X in the kernel GPLv2 with no option to change to GPLv3 or it can't enter the kernel.
Really is there any evidence that this was done? If I call a bunch of kernel contributors to the stand and ask them if they in fact did this, we know that some disagree they did.
As for the partial permission not being GPL specific that is true. But massive conjoined works with licensing this ambiguous is fairly specific to open source. The Linux kernel is a good example of a piece of code where standing is so complex that it is going to be unclear who has any authority to speak. That was the point of the A1, A2, A3 and A4. You are just assuming that Linus' has authority to speak for the whole product but Linus does not have, nor even claim to have that right. If A3 asserts that his code, in the kernel, does not have the no upgrade clause that's binding.
Slashdot Mirror
You are quoting out of context here. If there is no kernel as a legal entity then that license appears in another kernel source file. It is one or the other. Either the kernel is a legal conjoined work, or it just a collection of separately licensed works. The kernel can't have a license if all the individual copyright holders have full control. Your claim for example was that A submission of GPLv2 code constitutes a violation of the kernel's license, programs don't have legal rights corporations and individuals do.
You are begging the question. F says no contract existed and he never accepted the contract. That's counter evidence.
Maybe, maybe not. I think it might be a lot easier to take parts of the kernel and conjoin them with GPLv3 code. Taking the entire kernel is likely to grant Linus standing, despite his belief he doesn't have standing. In other words I think Linus is making two mistakes.
My point is though, is that I'm not sure if someone did take the whole kernel and release it under GPLv3 he would lose a lawsuit. I'm pretty sure though if someone took a small subsystem where a large chunk of the code (but not all) was written by developers in favor or relicensing he would win.
Nottage v. Jackson the author is the person most closely responsible for the work being produced.
Feist -- facts are not copyrightable but compilations of facts are
Wheaton v Peters -- A conjoined work has its own license
etc...
Case after case after case has been ruled this way.
Yes. That's exactly what it takes. There need to be provable events which constitute signing the license. Your entire argument is predicated on the belief that everyone who contributed to the kernel explicitly agreed to the kernel license including the no upgrade policy collectively and thus individually they cannot do anything more than relicense their own contributions.
Otherwise what you have is a work, with no clear ownership, no clear standing and unclear licensing provisions. In which case the form of the license GPLv2 (vanilla, i.e. FSF) starts to have a lot of weight.
I agree FVWM can be configured to be like non windows environments and was configured that way in the 1990s.
I think you know more about the specific dissimilarities than I do. Thank you for the info. Interesting point about the VFS layer and it makes sense. They need a more seamless experience and can sacrifice performance to get it.
I wonder why. Linux has always maintained at least so/so HFS/HFS+ support. I'd think at this point lots of BSD admins are coming over as Darwin admins with Darwin systems...
I understand OSX is not just NeXTSTEP. On the other hand Ubuntu is not just SLS with a Linux 1.x kernel either. Both systems have evolved. The point is that when the Rhapsody project was starting in 1997, it was starting with huge chunks of code from NeXTSTEP and quite a bit of that code is still in OSX.
As for the kernel the kernel isn't unified at all. The kernel is a highly configurable system which allows tens of thousands of subsystems to be compiled in or not against a dozen different systems. Most major vendors (like Debian and Redhat) maintain their own kernel trees to get specialization. There are options like real time vs. performance. The kernel is designed to allow for a diversity.
But I understand your point. That was the whole idea behind User Linux and Progeny both of which failed. The Linux community simple values diversity over marketshare.
KDE with a preloading print subsystem probably shouldn't be the GUI for a phone or tablet.
As for a PC with SSD. That's an interesting point. At least right now there are four types of systems that have SSD
1) Very low end, like a netbook. Again maybe a poor choice for KDE
2) Mid range low weight (like Macbook air), generally should have swap.
3) Very high end, in which case the system has plenty of ram.
4) Fast desktop in which case there should also be an HDD.
Well because I haven't seen a lot of states rights conservatives be terribly consistent when it comes to policies they don't like. Take medical marijuana or euthanasia or even allowing states to impose safety standards on goods from other states. Suddenly they lose interest.
Rom Paul is an exception, he is generally rather consistent.
What are you talking about a government that never grows smaller? If you exclude medicare, medicaid and social security the government is much smaller today than it was 40 years ago. Mostly the government does defense and transfer payments. The government of my childhood was involved in enhancing culture, industrial policy, labor relations....
What are you talking about? The US extradites to foreign countries, we don't have any law prohibiting the extradition of citizens.
How you fix the system is convince large numbers of people to consider corruption more important than secondary issues. And to a great extent that has been happening. Congress is much less corrupt than it was in 2004 because there are mostly ideologues running around. In '06, '08 and '10 lots of the moderates in swing districts (the most easy to bribe) were kicked out and replaced with hard core partisans.
If people in large numbers could band together we wouldn't need to bribe the politicians. The money exists mainly for the 50/50ish districts. It is the fact that the country is so cleanly divided red/blue and that corruption is not a first place or a second place issue that makes the money relevant.
Seriously... you are going to advocate a violent approach to dealing with a disagreement about the laws regarding DNS?
Look I think SOPA is bad law. I think it might even be moderately destructive. I'm fairly sure it would prove annoying.
That falls far short of being worth killing people over.
OSX is essentially NeXTSTEP, which is from about '88. Linux has done well.
95% of the super computing market
60% of the server market
largest player in the embedded market
up and coming development system for the mainframe market
3rd largest player in the desktop market (though with the understanding 1 -> 2 and 2 ->3 are about 8::1 drops)
I don't consider Linux anything other than an success. The desktop world has advanced considerably from where it was in the mid 1990s and wanted things that open source isn't particularly good at.
OS/2 WPS was the basis for ICEWM. DFM is a file manager based WPS.
Not all Linux window managers follow those conventions. Try window managers based on non windows environments. For example WindowMaker.
The reason is most distributions base themselves around a GUI and E17 is a window manager not a GUI. But...
http://bodhilinux.com/
http://www.moonos.org/ (DR17 version)
http://opengeu.intilinux.com/
http://shr-project.org/trac
etc...
Why? You have virtual memory, why not load it, configure it and swap it out?
I think you would be surprised how many features Windows 95 doesn't have that you take for granted. Go install a 95 and see what it doesn't do. OS features are like the frog cooking in the water, they get added gradually and ...
Just use one of the older ones. For example WindowMaker is still a delight after almost 20 years.
Parent might have had points but "Windoze sucks!!!" doesn't help advance the conversation.
As for the advantages of familiar vs. better I think Gnome's comment was the best here, "You have a certain of difference points you can spend on your interface. Too different and people just hate it. So spend them carefully". The Windows interface made a lot of sense which is why even prior to KDE, Linux desktops sometimes had a windows feel. FVWM's FVWM95 was extremely popular with early distributions, RedHat even used to make that one the default.
Anyway with iOS gaining popularity, and OSX gaining popularity the days when everyone knew one or another interface are starting to pass. Further web based interfaces use entirely different toolkits and have entirely different paradigms. The computer monoculture is dying for the younger generation.
Small nitpick. QT developed a GPL license because of KDE and the controversy. When KDE started it was QT-non commercial and then the QPL license.
QT was in the mid 1990s being seriously proposed as the default widget set for Linux. Something like what Cocoa is for OSX or .NET for Windows. Yes, the idea was QT OS. LAMP would be the standard for 3 tier architecture and QT for 1 and 2 tier.
Then people went ballistic because of the QPL, Gnome started moving into that role with User Linux and Progeny. And today KDE is just a desktop environment but Linux GUI was a Suse, Turbo Linux, Caldera, Connectiva project at first with QT in a very prominent role.
No actually the hardware makes a huge difference. On x86 all hardware runs unprotected. Which means that if you can successfully hack and piece of hardware on an x86 you own the system. That's not the case with more sophisticated hardware. Further other CPU and hardware designs are better about trapping buffer overflow type attacks.
Solaris on x86 does not give you the same protections.
No that's false. That's called an implicit contract and the law does not accord them very much respect at all. Time and time again those sorts of contracts have been held not to be binding. I can think of an example in copyright law, because typically publishers are careful about making sure they have explicit contracts. But in other areas of law, absolutely not.
E can assert that F doing action K creates a contract, F can K and no contract is in place.
We have kernel developers on record saying that's not their understanding. They believe that the kernel copyright is the standard GPLv2, but that the kernel collectively is not exercising the GPLv2 -> v3 transition. So again we know that's not true.
That's again one of the myths of the open source community. Courts have held that entering into a conjoined work creates new licenses. In general publishers want unambiguous copyright but publishers have pushed ahead in conjoined works where individual copyright holders for a conjoined work didn't agree with relicensing.
A good example of this is collections of articles originally published in magazines and then republished in a book.
You are trying to have it both ways. There is no "kernel license" without a corporate entity that holds that license. Either there is a bunch of individual licenses or there is an implicit corporate entity. Further there is no obligation on any contract to enforce its terms. A3 is not infringing by indicating his understanding of the contract is more lenient.
Illegal from whom? Who in your opinion has standing?
Really is there any evidence that this was done? If I call a bunch of kernel contributors to the stand and ask them if they in fact did this, we know that some disagree they did.
As for the partial permission not being GPL specific that is true. But massive conjoined works with licensing this ambiguous is fairly specific to open source. The Linux kernel is a good example of a piece of code where standing is so complex that it is going to be unclear who has any authority to speak. That was the point of the A1, A2, A3 and A4. You are just assuming that Linus' has authority to speak for the whole product but Linus does not have, nor even claim to have that right. If A3 asserts that his code, in the kernel, does not have the no upgrade clause that's binding.
I don't even follow your objection to B, taking X' as GPLv2.
What I am following is your theory that if
R is under license A
S is under license B
they can never be conjoined. And that is just false.