Forgetting whether you'd win in court, is it kosher to take software that had once been GPL and close it to the world?
That's why the right to fork is so important and is a key part of the Debian free software guidelines and the GPL. Right to fork prevents most abuses this one included.
Someone with standing, i.e. who wrote a patch can demand information. Mentor would need to respond to a DMCA complaint with exactly the kinds of information you are discussing.
If you know one person who wrote one patch that is actually in the code...
but nobody has answered (so far) the fact that a certain percentage of the code WAS distributed under the GPL...
Just in case you are still confused on this point. Mentor has copyright, the GPL applies to the licenses and they code they distribute. It doesn't apply to code Mentor distributes. Copyright does not assert the existence of some platonic ideal code it is specific to where it came from.
A gives me a copy of program B under the GPL. C gives me a copy of program B under the BSD license.
I have 2 valid licenses and if I redistribute under the BSD license I am redistributing C's copy of the code since C granted me license. (A) is not involved.
In the case of, say, MySQL, Oracle are entitled to produce completely new functionality and close-source that functionality but aren't entitled to close MySQL simply because new functionality exists.... but they can't re-license the chunks that were under the old license.
Actually Oracle is entitled to close MySQL for all future versions, and they are free to distribute the code whatever license(s) suit their fancy. A bad license, would cause the whole open source community to move over to one of the product forks, which would be bad for Oracle so they don't do that. But legally they certainly can.
Company X releases version Y of product Z under the LGPL. Company X releases version Y+ of product Z under the GPL.
User A can freely do whatever they want under the LGPL with version Y. User A can freely do whatever they want under the GPL with version Y+.
And Company X's opinion doesn't matter. The stuff about the fork is nonsense. However reading the articles the question is that people don't want to be locked at version Y. And Company X is free to do whatever they want with code. Further, since the LGPL is GPL compatible a combined GPL/LGPL work is fully GPL. So community contributions made to them under the LGPL can be released in Y+ under the GPL only.
It feels very icky that anyone, owner included, can retroactively alter the rights to something.
They can't. Mentor is not choosing to distribute under the GPL, that doesn't mean that someone else who got the code from Code Sourcery couldn't distribute under the GPL.
At the very least, it can be assumed the US Government contributed patches to the GPLed code.
And the question is a) what license are those patches under. They might be PD, with the USAF asserting no rights to them. b) Even if they were originally GPLed the USAF has most at least implicitly and possibly excplicitely relicensed them for the commercial version.
I would doubt that Mentor is violating a government copyright for one things because the federal government so rarely asserts copyright.
It sounds like the code was originally dual licensed. I would bet the routines are MIT/BSD licensed otherwise they would have not been able to distribute the code dual licensed originally.
Here's the problem: complaining too much will mean we get code now that maybe four or five people, tops, will actually care about.
If you can be shown to deliberately have failed to enforce your rights that constitutes consent. They go from being GPL violators to being licensed under the new terms. You don't have the option of setting a trap and waiting.
Further I'm not sure you have standing here. This doesn't sound like it is your code so you don't have the right to do anything.
Code Sourcery produced two versions of their VSIPL++ image processing library — one closed-source, one GPLed. It was extremely decent of them. When Mentor Graphics bought Code Sourcery, they continued developing the closed-course one and discontinued, then deleted, the GPL variant. It's unclear to me if that's kosher, as the closed variant must contain code that had been GPLed at one point.
From what you are describing it sounds like Mentor Grapics has copyright not a GPL license. They aren't obligated to do anything. Because the old code was previously licensed under the GPL by Code Sourcery they won't be able to act against people creating derived works.... but they don't have any obligations.
If A writes code and gives it to be B under the GPL and then B gives it C. B and C are bound by the GPL, A is not. A can't stop B or C from giving it to D under the GPL, but they are free to release the next version as fully closed source.
1) The iPhone homescreen allows you to add additional screens in a sequence. 2) You can replace any icon with a "drawer". That's actually the only thing I have on my first 2 screens, a large collection of drawers.
As for that keyboard app you linked, does it replace the built-in iPhone keyboard, or does it just let you send/copy/paste text to other apps? Mine does the former.
The latter. But that is a slightly more nuanced complaint than the original you made. Android is more configurable.
Honestly, why did linux embrace the "spread crap everywhere" windows software installation model, instead of the Apple software install model? IT's retarded to have to install files shotgun style all over the fricking FS.
You have a low user number, I'd assume you had this argument a dozen years ago or earlier. Linux doesn't use either model, it uses the huge OS library model which is frankly closer to what mainframers use than either Windows or Apple.
My old phones had voice query systems that didn't do parsing. Given that I couldn't remember the exact verbal sequences they want, I'd say something and they would do something random. Totally worthless.
Natural language parsing is complex and it converts the feature into something useful.
For example without natural language is the correct command:
Web Google locksmith near (address) Wesite Google locksmith near (address) Google search address equal (address) for locksmith etc...
There is plenty of choice. The whole "Apple cripples you" is Android propaganda. What Apple does is prevent people from accidentally shooting themselves in the foot.
Apple makes easy and safe stuff easy and makes dangerous stuff hard.
There aren't very many jobs in AI since the 1980s. There are a huge number of people who have skills and experience in close fields. If Apple were to make AI sexy again you would see AI research universally speed up. I don't think Apple would even consider hiring 1000 AI researchers but in theory they could, and yes that would make a huge difference.
I'm going to agree with DrgnDancer. In the last few years I've had an LG-Env-Touch and a Blackberry Curve as well as the iPhone 4S. The 4s seems to outperform the Env-Touch on reception and is on par with the Curve. Not as good as the old Motorola with the antenna but seems to be as good as the competition, I can't complain.
You use equipment that is designed for physicians that a typical patient could not use on their own. There quite often exists similar equipment which is designed for patients to use on their own. It is the same with IT technology. There are pieces of IT technology that are good professionals and almost worthless for home / small business users.
Most laptops are good for both as are most tablets. But windows OS have ties to windows servers and windows servers have good business technology in them. So a short hand is to say that the laptops are "business tech". Same thing as BlackBerry which has great server solutions which make the phones easier to manager it is the servers not the phones that make them "business tech".
As far as your story about tablets.... it could be done. It is a question of money. Your company has to decide which types of tablets they like. I personally in picking an EMR tablet went with tablets that were more durable, Fuji. Most laptops, iPad's included don't do well with a highly conductive, acidic low viscosity fluid like urine.
Re:I like gvim, except...
on
Vim Turns 20
·
· Score: 1
Well no, vim turned 20 not vi. OTOH saying vim is a modern flavor of vi is accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
No.... you forgetting they have copyright. They aren't bound by the GPL the person who got the binaries is.
A writes code gives it to B under theGPL and B gives it to C. B has to provide source, A doesn't.
That's why the right to fork is so important and is a key part of the Debian free software guidelines and the GPL. Right to fork prevents most abuses this one included.
Someone with standing, i.e. who wrote a patch can demand information. Mentor would need to respond to a DMCA complaint with exactly the kinds of information you are discussing.
If you know one person who wrote one patch that is actually in the code...
Except the product was dual licensed. So the patches couldn't have been exclusively GPLed.
Just in case you are still confused on this point. Mentor has copyright, the GPL applies to the licenses and they code they distribute. It doesn't apply to code Mentor distributes. Copyright does not assert the existence of some platonic ideal code it is specific to where it came from.
A gives me a copy of program B under the GPL.
C gives me a copy of program B under the BSD license.
I have 2 valid licenses and if I redistribute under the BSD license I am redistributing C's copy of the code since C granted me license. (A) is not involved.
Actually Oracle is entitled to close MySQL for all future versions, and they are free to distribute the code whatever license(s) suit their fancy. A bad license, would cause the whole open source community to move over to one of the product forks, which would be bad for Oracle so they don't do that. But legally they certainly can.
The GPL version was originally dual licensed. People don't use GPL outside code for dual licensed projects.
The company in question isn't a license they have copyright.
Except they called it the LGPL. Which you can't do with a weird license. By calling it L:GPL you essential dual license it to the recipient.
This is pretty clear cut.
Company X releases version Y of product Z under the LGPL.
Company X releases version Y+ of product Z under the GPL.
User A can freely do whatever they want under the LGPL with version Y.
User A can freely do whatever they want under the GPL with version Y+.
And Company X's opinion doesn't matter. The stuff about the fork is nonsense. However reading the articles the question is that people don't want to be locked at version Y. And Company X is free to do whatever they want with code. Further, since the LGPL is GPL compatible a combined GPL/LGPL work is fully GPL. So community contributions made to them under the LGPL can be released in Y+ under the GPL only.
They can't. Mentor is not choosing to distribute under the GPL, that doesn't mean that someone else who got the code from Code Sourcery couldn't distribute under the GPL.
And the question is
a) what license are those patches under. They might be PD, with the USAF asserting no rights to them.
b) Even if they were originally GPLed the USAF has most at least implicitly and possibly excplicitely relicensed them for the commercial version.
I would doubt that Mentor is violating a government copyright for one things because the federal government so rarely asserts copyright.
It sounds like the code was originally dual licensed. I would bet the routines are MIT/BSD licensed otherwise they would have not been able to distribute the code dual licensed originally.
If you can be shown to deliberately have failed to enforce your rights that constitutes consent. They go from being GPL violators to being licensed under the new terms. You don't have the option of setting a trap and waiting.
Further I'm not sure you have standing here. This doesn't sound like it is your code so you don't have the right to do anything.
From what you are describing it sounds like Mentor Grapics has copyright not a GPL license. They aren't obligated to do anything. Because the old code was previously licensed under the GPL by Code Sourcery they won't be able to act against people creating derived works.... but they don't have any obligations.
If A writes code and gives it to be B under the GPL and then B gives it C.
B and C are bound by the GPL, A is not. A can't stop B or C from giving it to D under the GPL, but they are free to release the next version as fully closed source.
1) The iPhone homescreen allows you to add additional screens in a sequence.
2) You can replace any icon with a "drawer". That's actually the only thing I have on my first 2 screens, a large collection of drawers.
The latter. But that is a slightly more nuanced complaint than the original you made. Android is more configurable.
Well if you have been along that long than how about:
Linux on the server (big battle)
Linux on mainframes (surprise win)
Linux dominating supercomputing (another big win)
Linux on embedded.
You have a low user number, I'd assume you had this argument a dozen years ago or earlier. Linux doesn't use either model, it uses the huge OS library model which is frankly closer to what mainframers use than either Windows or Apple.
I think you forgot Android. There is a successful Linux based UI now.
Makes sense. Android has a wider range of apps. GP was arguing that natural language advantages didn't matter.
The homescreen is fully modifiable, not sure what you mean about this one. As for predictive keyboard that exists.
My old phones had voice query systems that didn't do parsing. Given that I couldn't remember the exact verbal sequences they want, I'd say something and they would do something random. Totally worthless.
Natural language parsing is complex and it converts the feature into something useful.
For example without natural language is the correct command:
Web Google locksmith near (address)
Wesite Google locksmith near (address)
Google search address equal (address) for locksmith
etc...
There is plenty of choice. The whole "Apple cripples you" is Android propaganda. What Apple does is prevent people from accidentally shooting themselves in the foot.
Apple makes easy and safe stuff easy and makes dangerous stuff hard.
I was in a data sinkhole Siri tells the end user it is temporarily unavailable if it can't get signal.
There aren't very many jobs in AI since the 1980s. There are a huge number of people who have skills and experience in close fields. If Apple were to make AI sexy again you would see AI research universally speed up. I don't think Apple would even consider hiring 1000 AI researchers but in theory they could, and yes that would make a huge difference.
I'm going to agree with DrgnDancer. In the last few years I've had an LG-Env-Touch and a Blackberry Curve as well as the iPhone 4S. The 4s seems to outperform the Env-Touch on reception and is on par with the Curve. Not as good as the old Motorola with the antenna but seems to be as good as the competition, I can't complain.
You use equipment that is designed for physicians that a typical patient could not use on their own. There quite often exists similar equipment which is designed for patients to use on their own. It is the same with IT technology. There are pieces of IT technology that are good professionals and almost worthless for home / small business users.
Most laptops are good for both as are most tablets. But windows OS have ties to windows servers and windows servers have good business technology in them. So a short hand is to say that the laptops are "business tech". Same thing as BlackBerry which has great server solutions which make the phones easier to manager it is the servers not the phones that make them "business tech".
As far as your story about tablets .... it could be done. It is a question of money. Your company has to decide which types of tablets they like. I personally in picking an EMR tablet went with tablets that were more durable, Fuji. Most laptops, iPad's included don't do well with a highly conductive, acidic low viscosity fluid like urine.
Well no, vim turned 20 not vi. OTOH saying vim is a modern flavor of vi is accurate.