Look, I kinda hate saying it...
on
McVoy Strikes Back
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
...and I'm sure to be modded into oblivion for it; but, McVoy is just a cocktease. That's his problem right there.
He had this tool he teased the OSS crowd with. When some of them decided there were other fish in the sea, he got royally pissed because his tease no longer held any power. So not only did he run away pouting, he literally joined up with some of the worst hacks out there...specifically, Daniel Lyons. Mr. Lyons is well regarded as a talentless hack who hates anything that brings to light the truth of the matter: his relevence is waning and soon he can fade to black and nobody will miss him.
Can't say that I blame them. If my career were pinned to the software publisher business model of the 80's and 90's, I'd be scared as shit right about now and willing to say anything, stretch any number, exaggerate any claim, and basically claw and scrape as long as I could to maintain my position before I found myself out of work, out of money, and out of options.
I am getting annoyed because most of the people bitching about GPL violations are the same people that think the Microsoft EULA's are non-binding, and Copyright infringement is A-OK. It doesn't go both ways, either honor licenses or don't.
Hey, no argument from me here. Abide by copyright laws or don't. You'll have elements in any group who will flip-flop on an issue when it suits their favor. They are what they are.
But your argument is really baseless. phpAdsNew isn't making money from the software. There is no way, no matter how you twist the laws around in court, that the VX30 people would be compelled to "pay damages". They would have to give their source to people that paid for the product, end of story. There are no damages being wrought here that have any monetary impact whatsoever.
My argument is not baseless. It is based on the law. phpAdsNew is released under the GPL which has in it stipulations that MXS has apparently violated. I am not twisting any laws around. I am stating an interpretation of the laws that is clear and simple and relevant and backed up by years of precedent. phpAdsNew's authors are receiving consideration but that's really a moot point.
As for paying damages, let me just point you here as I thank my fellow/. member, Brian Ristuccia for saying exactly what I wanted to say, only better, and long before me at that.
By all means, talk down to me some more -- but use an argument that MAKES SENSE before you do.
I am sorry for talking down to you. It's a fault of mine. As much as I want to hide behind the relative anonymity provided on the internet and just tear into people, I tend not to; so, please offer me the benefit of the doubt. It would be a shame for you to not hear what I'm saying and not learn that I actually am making sense merely because you think me an asshole.
I don't see what suing the VX30 peeps would accomplish other than getting them to distribute their source with the product when they sell it... or is that the point?
The point is compliance with the license. If you do not comply with the license the software is distributed under, you have no right to it. Comply with the terms of the license, or remove the unlicensed code. (Note: The previous statement is not license-specific. It applies to *ALL* licenses.)
You can't really argue that they're hurting phpAdsNew profits -- because there aren't any.
Oh, Adrian. You just don't understand. Your assertion is incorrect. Your statement belies an ideology concerned only with money. Remuneration comes in other forms, however. Payment in kind is consideration just the same as cash money. The profits (that is, the benefit, the consideration, the payment given) in OSS is in additional code, not cash. Let's look at the following:
Software development takes time
time = money
Donating code = Donating time = Donating money (ie., donating code is just as good as paying cash money)
By taking the software (phpAdsNew), and disregarding the license, MXS committed a copyright violation, and the copyright holder has a right now to sue MXS to force them to: (a) stop infringing by removing all of phpAdsNew from AdStats; (b) pay damages; (c) comply with the license and pay for phpAdsNew by way of contributing their modifications (if any) back to the project; or (d) some combination of the above.
I don't know, but I could imagine a scenario wherein NetFlix provides what amounts to a fulfillment service to Wal-Mart under the Wal-Mart name and maintains its own NetFlix branded rental service.
Then, if Wal-Mart says: no NC-17 movies, etc., on our branded service, fine. So long as the people who are interested in it can still get it under the NetFlix name, I don't care if Wal-Mart wants to filter their product.
...licensing program that will let programmers share ideas with one another while at the same time allowing them to retain the rights to their own software modifications.
<rant>
You mean just like almost every other OSI-certified license? Hey, I wrote this code that is a modification to X. I am licensing under license Y. But guess what! I still own my code. I still hold the copyright. Unless you're working with someone who requires any contributions to their code have copyright assigned back to them, you always retain your rights to do whatever you damn well please with your code. All the license does is give other people the same rights I have with some (more or less) restrictions that I, as owner of the code, don't have to follow.
Like, say, there's this project that is dual-licensed under the GPL gratis and a proprietary/closed-source license for a fee...then I can write this additional module of functionality that tacks onto it. I, as owner of the code, can then decide to keep it to myself and not worry about the GPL (because it only kicks in if I distribute), or I can choose to release my code under the GPL (which does not give the project "principle" the right to include it in the proprietary/closed-source license) OR I can do exactly what the other folks are doing: release my modifications gratis (or for a fee if I want to...not that I'd collect much from anybody because the first person who paid could turn around and release it gratis) under the GPL and license it back to the project principle under the proprietary/closed-source license gratis or for a fee if I so choose.
I have all these options because I retain my rights to the code I write, period.
Now, what it strikes me as this guy wants to make something somewhere between the GPL and BSD licenses. A little less scary to PHBs (see: GPL) and a little less scary to developers who believe in "share and share a like" (see: BSD). I just don't know enough about the myriad of other licenses out there to know if something like that already exists...although I suspect it does.
</rant>
Of course, I'm probably way off base and will be undoubtedly regaled by many of the/. minions as to why and how.
Is an unrealized danger of OSS that others may take your project in a direction you didn't intend?
Only if you're a moron. Everybody understands OSS is subject to forking. It's been used as FUD against it. But the fact is, it's just the market at work. If others take a project in a direction you didn't intend...so what? You released it in a way that allowed that to happen. If you don't want that to happen, pick a different license.
Can OSS code and goals harmonize with the goals and needs of corporation designed code?
Duh. Of course. Do I really need to provide a list? Can't anybody here on/. think for half a second and come up with one or two OSS projects sponsored by corporations where the code and goals are "harmonized" as the questioner puts it?
Is it that Apple mismanaged the relationship, or that the KHTML guys expected too much?
You know Microsoft is using that email to test their new email tracking system. Forward this to everyone you know and if it reaches 1000 people everyone on the list you will receive $1000 and a copy of Windows Longhorn at Bill Gates' expense.
Yes, vaporware does mean something. But your definition is by no means the absolute truth. Many software projects that were very much intended to be released never make it out the door for many reasons (usually poor management) but they are very much vaporware.
As many others have said, Duke Nukem Forever was actually meant to be produced. They really tried (and supposedly still are) but it is a perennial favorite in Wired's vaporware awards. Why? Because it's vaporware...even though it was originally intended to be released.
Now, as for calling people retards: you should know better. To call you a retard would be an insult to those in the world who actually are mentally retarded, regardless of your IQ.
Well, I sure don't care. I've been using computers for well over 20 years now. I've had a PC since I was a kid. I am a self-employed technology consultant. I develop software using Python mostly nowadays. I believe I qualify as slightly more than just a power-user.
And I don't give one rat's ass about desktop search. In all my years, I've never accumulated so many documents I couldn't find one. I have had some in formats I can no longer read (GeoWrite from GeoWorks Ensemble, for instance) but none I can't find.
I need search for the Internet because I don't know the half of what's out there. I don't need super search functions for my PC. I know what's on it and where it is. I put it there. And I'm one of the most unorganized fellows there is.
On my linux systems,
find
is all I need for the rare times I need to see if something is on my system or if I don't know where it is.
On a Windows box,
dir/s
fits the bill just fine. If you need more than that to find files on your system, you need to start throwing more files away.
Hey, Waldmeister, I am Influenza. If I infect you, you will get certain benefits. Among these could be some much needed rest. On the other hand, there may be a down side. For instance, you might not feel so well. Anyway, please carefully weigh the pros and cons of my presence and tell me: would you like me to infect you?
I always give people the choice up front, you see. All us viruses are like that...well, all except that nasty GPL. No choice there whatsoever. It just barrels right on in and takes over. No manners at all...nasty virus indeed.
These people are selling snake oil pure and simple. I have a high degree of skepticism on any claim to be able to produce a random file of the same size and hash as a known file. That is, as long as the hash is not CRC or something ridiculous like that.
If you're talking MD5 or SHA-1 or better, it's just ridiculous.
Oh, and just think how this could backfire on the RIAA/MPAA types: Search some P2P system for a file that might be your copyrighted material...download it to prove it is and that person X is distributing it illegally...receive unplayable garbage from P2P system instead. There goes your ability to prove in court that anybody is illegally distributing your copyrighted materials.
Slashdot Mirror
...and I'm sure to be modded into oblivion for it; but, McVoy is just a cocktease. That's his problem right there.
He had this tool he teased the OSS crowd with. When some of them decided there were other fish in the sea, he got royally pissed because his tease no longer held any power. So not only did he run away pouting, he literally joined up with some of the worst hacks out there...specifically, Daniel Lyons. Mr. Lyons is well regarded as a talentless hack who hates anything that brings to light the truth of the matter: his relevence is waning and soon he can fade to black and nobody will miss him.
Can't say that I blame them. If my career were pinned to the software publisher business model of the 80's and 90's, I'd be scared as shit right about now and willing to say anything, stretch any number, exaggerate any claim, and basically claw and scrape as long as I could to maintain my position before I found myself out of work, out of money, and out of options.
As for paying damages, let me just point you here as I thank my fellow
I am sorry for talking down to you. It's a fault of mine. As much as I want to hide behind the relative anonymity provided on the internet and just tear into people, I tend not to; so, please offer me the benefit of the doubt. It would be a shame for you to not hear what I'm saying and not learn that I actually am making sense merely because you think me an asshole.
- Software development takes time
- time = money
- Donating code = Donating time = Donating money (ie., donating code is just as good as paying cash money)
By taking the software (phpAdsNew), and disregarding the license, MXS committed a copyright violation, and the copyright holder has a right now to sue MXS to force them to: (a) stop infringing by removing all of phpAdsNew from AdStats; (b) pay damages; (c) comply with the license and pay for phpAdsNew by way of contributing their modifications (if any) back to the project; or (d) some combination of the above.This is Copyright/Econ 101 stuff here.
I'd much rather my enemies had money than government powers.
Money = government powers. If your enemies have one, they have both.
Well, certainly their most potent weapon is an almost fanatical devotion to the pop.
- I have several e-mail accounts to deal with
- I chat on IRC daily
- I follow several USENET news groups
- I routinely post on a variety of message boards
- I subscribe to Mental Floss, SysAdmin Magazine and Columbus Monthly
- I read
/. and technocrat and fark and El Reg and Something Awful and Google News and Groklaw and The Onion and Maddox and Ars Technica and USA Today and NewsForge every single day
- I use Stumble Upon to find random, new and interesting web sites
...AND I CAN'T GET ENOUGH!!!
See, no problem at all!I don't know, but I could imagine a scenario wherein NetFlix provides what amounts to a fulfillment service to Wal-Mart under the Wal-Mart name and maintains its own NetFlix branded rental service.
Then, if Wal-Mart says: no NC-17 movies, etc., on our branded service, fine. So long as the people who are interested in it can still get it under the NetFlix name, I don't care if Wal-Mart wants to filter their product.
Disable this on your IIS servers, mmmkay...
Why not 6, Blake? Why not 6?
- OSDL
- Sendmail
- Eclipse
- Ghostscript
Need I continue?...licensing program that will let programmers share ideas with one another while at the same time allowing them to retain the rights to their own software modifications.
/. minions as to why and how.
<rant>
You mean just like almost every other OSI-certified license? Hey, I wrote this code that is a modification to X. I am licensing under license Y. But guess what! I still own my code. I still hold the copyright. Unless you're working with someone who requires any contributions to their code have copyright assigned back to them, you always retain your rights to do whatever you damn well please with your code. All the license does is give other people the same rights I have with some (more or less) restrictions that I, as owner of the code, don't have to follow.
Like, say, there's this project that is dual-licensed under the GPL gratis and a proprietary/closed-source license for a fee...then I can write this additional module of functionality that tacks onto it. I, as owner of the code, can then decide to keep it to myself and not worry about the GPL (because it only kicks in if I distribute), or I can choose to release my code under the GPL (which does not give the project "principle" the right to include it in the proprietary/closed-source license) OR I can do exactly what the other folks are doing: release my modifications gratis (or for a fee if I want to...not that I'd collect much from anybody because the first person who paid could turn around and release it gratis) under the GPL and license it back to the project principle under the proprietary/closed-source license gratis or for a fee if I so choose.
I have all these options because I retain my rights to the code I write, period.
Now, what it strikes me as this guy wants to make something somewhere between the GPL and BSD licenses. A little less scary to PHBs (see: GPL) and a little less scary to developers who believe in "share and share a like" (see: BSD). I just don't know enough about the myriad of other licenses out there to know if something like that already exists...although I suspect it does.
</rant>
Of course, I'm probably way off base and will be undoubtedly regaled by many of the
Is an unrealized danger of OSS that others may take your project in a direction you didn't intend?
/. think for half a second and come up with one or two OSS projects sponsored by corporations where the code and goals are "harmonized" as the questioner puts it?
Only if you're a moron. Everybody understands OSS is subject to forking. It's been used as FUD against it. But the fact is, it's just the market at work. If others take a project in a direction you didn't intend...so what? You released it in a way that allowed that to happen. If you don't want that to happen, pick a different license.
Can OSS code and goals harmonize with the goals and needs of corporation designed code?
Duh. Of course. Do I really need to provide a list? Can't anybody here on
Is it that Apple mismanaged the relationship, or that the KHTML guys expected too much?
How about both?
I'm building a case/cooling mod right now using liquid nitrogen!
Oops! You bwoke it.
You know Microsoft is using that email to test their new email tracking system. Forward this to everyone you know and if it reaches 1000 people everyone on the list you will receive $1000 and a copy of Windows Longhorn at Bill Gates' expense.
I don't usually advocate moderating AC comments...but that was funny.
Yes, vaporware does mean something. But your definition is by no means the absolute truth. Many software projects that were very much intended to be released never make it out the door for many reasons (usually poor management) but they are very much vaporware.
As many others have said, Duke Nukem Forever was actually meant to be produced. They really tried (and supposedly still are) but it is a perennial favorite in Wired's vaporware awards. Why? Because it's vaporware...even though it was originally intended to be released.
Now, as for calling people retards: you should know better. To call you a retard would be an insult to those in the world who actually are mentally retarded, regardless of your IQ.
And I don't give one rat's ass about desktop search. In all my years, I've never accumulated so many documents I couldn't find one. I have had some in formats I can no longer read (GeoWrite from GeoWorks Ensemble, for instance) but none I can't find.
I need search for the Internet because I don't know the half of what's out there. I don't need super search functions for my PC. I know what's on it and where it is. I put it there. And I'm one of the most unorganized fellows there is.
On my linux systems, is all I need for the rare times I need to see if something is on my system or if I don't know where it is.
On a Windows box, fits the bill just fine. If you need more than that to find files on your system, you need to start throwing more files away.
Hey, Waldmeister, I am Influenza. If I infect you, you will get certain benefits. Among these could be some much needed rest. On the other hand, there may be a down side. For instance, you might not feel so well. Anyway, please carefully weigh the pros and cons of my presence and tell me: would you like me to infect you?
I always give people the choice up front, you see. All us viruses are like that...well, all except that nasty GPL. No choice there whatsoever. It just barrels right on in and takes over. No manners at all...nasty virus indeed.
These people are selling snake oil pure and simple. I have a high degree of skepticism on any claim to be able to produce a random file of the same size and hash as a known file. That is, as long as the hash is not CRC or something ridiculous like that. If you're talking MD5 or SHA-1 or better, it's just ridiculous.
Oh, and just think how this could backfire on the RIAA/MPAA types: Search some P2P system for a file that might be your copyrighted material...download it to prove it is and that person X is distributing it illegally...receive unplayable garbage from P2P system instead. There goes your ability to prove in court that anybody is illegally distributing your copyrighted materials.
the false headline will hit google news and spread further, whereas the correction in the comments will go unnoticed.
This story should be yanked now.