This looks like an opening salvo for Microsoft to fuck over the Linux crowd good and proper.
Come on. It's their network. Why should MS pay for other IM clients to use their servers, if they don't want to? It would be nice if they did, but refusing to do so hardly amounts to "fucking over" the non-MS clients. In fact, it might prove to be a bad move for them, if it pushes their customers onto other networks that aren't restricted in this way (AIM, Yahoo, and...dare I say... Jabber).
With that in mind, perhaps the Linux distributors, Jabber and other interested parties should get their act together and offer a viable alternative.
Agreed. Though I think the viable alternatives exist already.
Re:Suing SCO in small claims court?
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 1
Assuming that [the GPL is struck down], what would you be suing them for?
Because if the GPL is found to be invalid (good luck), then all GPL'd code reverts to standard copyright law, under which no one, SCO included, has the right to distribute any of the code that they didn't write.
Ok, point taken. But I would definitely file a company who provides Linux drivers for their hardware under "community member". Nevertheless, you're absolutely right that hordes of mere "customers" would be an incentive for companies to join the community...
The point is that though you may want to tinker with your computer, the vast majority of users (including a great many Linux users) don't want to know - they just want the OS to be functional and perform the work they want performed.
Ok, which is exactly why I would point such users to existing commercial OS products that fill their customer-like needs nicely (hey, even including some commercial OS products based on Linux).
Linux itself is not a commercial OS product, it is a community of developers and enthusiasts. That's not elitist, it's just a fact.
so unless you want Linux to remain a very small market, you'll have to make things simpler, offer pre-setup installs, and make things the same as what they are familiar with.
I don't care one bit how big the Linux "market" is, and I don't see why anyone but a commercial Linux distributor would care. I care how large and active the Linux community is, which is a very different thing from the market of Linux "customers". I am not a FLOSS developer to enrich Redhat/Suse/Mandrake, I'm in it for the community and the fun. I simply don't care if "Joe User" uses Linux or not. Why should I? He can use whatever he pleases. If he decides he wants to join the community, I'll welcome him with open arms and offer him some Free Beer.
If Redhat/Suse/Mandrake want to corner the desktop market by offering a simple-to-use version of Linux, more power to them, as long as it doesn't inhibit the community.
Then I invite you to go down to your local Best Buy, where they will cheerfully sell you Windows XP, which you can "just drive".
Pushing your analogy, why do you come into the meeting hall of the "custom kit car tinkerer's club" and ask them why they don't offer you a car that you can "just drive"? It makes no sense.
...the open source community must recognize that its primary goals: freedom of choice, freedom of source code, and freedom to alter applications, are not the goals of the average user.
Who cares? The user can either join our community, or they can stick with their OS product. Yes, it's a shame if they choose the latter, but I want to make this very clear: it's that individual user's loss, not our loss. We gain nothing from users who consider Linux a mere product, we need active community members, not "customers". Why should we kill everything great about our system just to attract some MS customers, who may very well be perfectly happy with their current OS? We are not in competition with MS, even though they may be in competition with us.
You can have a GPL'd library linked to non-GPL'd (but GPL-compatible) application code, as long as the linked binary is licensed under the GPL. The application code need not be GPL'd; any GPL-compatible license is ok. Sorry about that.
signed, Unfrozen Caveman Developer, who is frightened and amazed by your advanced licensing schemes!
Funny you should mention the FSF, since they have this to say on the issue in their GPL FAQ:
Q: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL?
A: Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.
See the part where it says all apps linked to a GPL'd library must be under the GPL? It unambiguously excludes "GPL-compatible" licenses in this statement. If you still aren't convinced, that very same FAQ defines a "GPL compatible license" this way:
Q: What does it mean to say a license is "compatible with the GPL".
A: It means that the other license and the GNU GPL are compatible; you can combine code released under the other license with code released under the GNU GPL in one larger program.
The GPL permits such a combination provided it is released under the GNU GPL. The other license is compatible with the GPL if it permits this too.
See the part where it says the combined code must be released under the GPL?
So, I'm afraid you're mistaken when you say that a program linked with a GPL'd library can be licensed under any GPL-compatible license; the FSF explicitly says such code must be GPL'd.
The mistake in my post was not a misread of the GPL, it was my interpretation that you have to choose between the QPL and GPL. Apparently, the dual-license means that both are applied simultaneously. (That's quite a trick, seeing as how the FSF says the QPL is not GPL compatible, but whatever, I am not arguing that point...) However, I stand by my point that you couldn't run KDE with a GPL'd Qt library, if Trolltech offered a disentangled GPL license for their library.
It seems to me there are issues here that are routinely swept under the proverbial rug...
Sure, you can choose the GPL version of Qt/X11, as long as you don't intend to use it with KDE. Essential core parts of KDE are licensed under BSD, and so cannot be used with the GPL'd Qt, only the QPL'd Qt.
What SCO is claiming is that since the JPL [sic] is not a recognized framework under the law, but U.S. copyright law of course is, any contradiction between the two should result in what U.S. copyright law saying winning out.
Gee that's neat, but there is *no* contradiction between the GPL and US Copyright Law. Copyright Law states that the author of a work has the exclusive right to modify and distribute their work, and the exclusive right to authorize others to do so.
The images show a human remote-controlling two of the machines. Sorry, if they are human-controlled, they aren't robots (despite what pop culture calls such machines).
The word 'robot' implies some degree of autonomy. At the end of the article, it says one of the machines is nearly autonomous and can be programmed to patrol a perimeter. Ok, that one's a robot. The rest seem to be remote-control security cameras...
Have any contributions been copyrighted? And if there are any copyrighted parts of Linux, it should be easy to excise and replace that section of code.
Huh? Did you know that all created works are automatically copyrighted to their author? So, all of Linux is copyrighted, as a matter of course. Each file has a copyright notice at the top with the author's name. If the code weren't copyrighted, then it couldn't be GPL'd.
2) Linux code should be de-SCOed to prevent this sort of problem from continuing to flair up
Please don't dignify SCO by assuming that they are right about the so-called infringement. Our assumption should be that Linux is clean until they prove otherwise.
There are only two real problems in computing: computers are too hard to use and too hard to program. We've made enormous progress on both of these over the past fifty years, but they are still the real problems. And I predict they still will be problems 50 years from now.
Interesting. So in 50 years, we won't have a Star-Trek like voice interface for our computers? Damn.
80-year-old LMCBoy: "computer, make me a ham sandwich"
Mycroft 2: "Poof! You are a ham sandwich." (mechanical laughter)
80yoL: "In my day, computers were obedient! They had respect for users. You mechs today with your AI and your hoodahey, I tell ya..." (types 'rmmod ai_humor.o')
They're selling ideas and expressions of ideas, and if you say they can't control their creations you're saying they have no right to make a living.
Uh, no. Legitimate IP is the expression of an idea, not the idea itself! You cannot "own" an idea, only its implementation. Our copyright and patent laws are very clear about this.
Well, calling JWST a successor to HST is a bit of a stretch, actually. JWST will be great for its intended mission of studying high-redshift galaxies, but it is a specialized instrument; not the general-purpose workhorse that HST exemplified. Plus, it will be at a lagrange point, and therefore completely unserviceable. So much for upgrades.
Slashdot Mirror
This looks like an opening salvo for Microsoft to fuck over the Linux crowd good and proper.
...dare I say... Jabber).
Come on. It's their network. Why should MS pay for other IM clients to use their servers, if they don't want to? It would be nice if they did, but refusing to do so hardly amounts to "fucking over" the non-MS clients. In fact, it might prove to be a bad move for them, if it pushes their customers onto other networks that aren't restricted in this way (AIM, Yahoo, and
With that in mind, perhaps the Linux distributors, Jabber and other interested parties should get their act together and offer a viable alternative.
Agreed. Though I think the viable alternatives exist already.
Assuming that [the GPL is struck down], what would you be suing them for?
Because if the GPL is found to be invalid (good luck), then all GPL'd code reverts to standard copyright law, under which no one, SCO included, has the right to distribute any of the code that they didn't write.
Don't forget: GPL != public domain.
Ok, point taken. But I would definitely file a company who provides Linux drivers for their hardware under "community member". Nevertheless, you're absolutely right that hordes of mere "customers" would be an incentive for companies to join the community...
The point is that though you may want to tinker with your computer, the vast majority of users (including a great many Linux users) don't want to know - they just want the OS to be functional and perform the work they want performed.
Ok, which is exactly why I would point such users to existing commercial OS products that fill their customer-like needs nicely (hey, even including some commercial OS products based on Linux).
Linux itself is not a commercial OS product, it is a community of developers and enthusiasts. That's not elitist, it's just a fact.
so unless you want Linux to remain a very small market, you'll have to make things simpler, offer pre-setup installs, and make things the same as what they are familiar with.
I don't care one bit how big the Linux "market" is, and I don't see why anyone but a commercial Linux distributor would care. I care how large and active the Linux community is, which is a very different thing from the market of Linux "customers". I am not a FLOSS developer to enrich Redhat/Suse/Mandrake, I'm in it for the community and the fun. I simply don't care if "Joe User" uses Linux or not. Why should I? He can use whatever he pleases. If he decides he wants to join the community, I'll welcome him with open arms and offer him some Free Beer.
If Redhat/Suse/Mandrake want to corner the desktop market by offering a simple-to-use version of Linux, more power to them, as long as it doesn't inhibit the community.
We just want to get in them and drive.
Then I invite you to go down to your local Best Buy, where they will cheerfully sell you Windows XP, which you can "just drive".
Pushing your analogy, why do you come into the meeting hall of the "custom kit car tinkerer's club" and ask them why they don't offer you a car that you can "just drive"? It makes no sense.
Who cares? The user can either join our community, or they can stick with their OS product. Yes, it's a shame if they choose the latter, but I want to make this very clear: it's that individual user's loss, not our loss. We gain nothing from users who consider Linux a mere product, we need active community members, not "customers". Why should we kill everything great about our system just to attract some MS customers, who may very well be perfectly happy with their current OS? We are not in competition with MS, even though they may be in competition with us.
Well, that's my opinion anyway, I could be wrong.
Oops. I missed an important detail.
You can have a GPL'd library linked to non-GPL'd (but GPL-compatible) application code, as long as the linked binary is licensed under the GPL. The application code need not be GPL'd; any GPL-compatible license is ok. Sorry about that.
signed,
Unfrozen Caveman Developer, who is frightened and amazed by your advanced licensing schemes!
Funny you should mention the FSF, since they have this to say on the issue in their GPL FAQ:
See the part where it says all apps linked to a GPL'd library must be under the GPL? It unambiguously excludes "GPL-compatible" licenses in this statement. If you still aren't convinced, that very same FAQ defines a "GPL compatible license" this way:
See the part where it says the combined code must be released under the GPL?
So, I'm afraid you're mistaken when you say that a program linked with a GPL'd library can be licensed under any GPL-compatible license; the FSF explicitly says such code must be GPL'd.
The mistake in my post was not a misread of the GPL, it was my interpretation that you have to choose between the QPL and GPL. Apparently, the dual-license means that both are applied simultaneously. (That's quite a trick, seeing as how the FSF says the QPL is not GPL compatible, but whatever, I am not arguing that point...) However, I stand by my point that you couldn't run KDE with a GPL'd Qt library, if Trolltech offered a disentangled GPL license for their library.
It seems to me there are issues here that are routinely swept under the proverbial rug...
Sure, you can choose the GPL version of Qt/X11, as long as you don't intend to use it with KDE. Essential core parts of KDE are licensed under BSD, and so cannot be used with the GPL'd Qt, only the QPL'd Qt.
Someone you trust is one of us...
Just wait until the SCOX ticker takes a dive, then you'll hear plenty from "ol' Darl".
Funny, but the line:
Linux Programmers: We don't need a copyright. We wrote it and we have the GPL.
Should read:
Linux Programmers: Duh, of course we have copyright! Without it the code couldn't be GPL'd.
GPL'd code is copyrighted by its author, it is NOT public domain. End broken-record mode.
maybe not the wrong thread after all, if SCO has their way... ;)
What SCO is claiming is that since the JPL [sic] is not a recognized framework under the law, but U.S. copyright law of course is, any contradiction between the two should result in what U.S. copyright law saying winning out.
Gee that's neat, but there is *no* contradiction between the GPL and US Copyright Law. Copyright Law states that the author of a work has the exclusive right to modify and distribute their work, and the exclusive right to authorize others to do so.
Thanks, and good night.
The images show a human remote-controlling two of the machines. Sorry, if they are human-controlled, they aren't robots (despite what pop culture calls such machines).
The word 'robot' implies some degree of autonomy. At the end of the article, it says one of the machines is nearly autonomous and can be programmed to patrol a perimeter. Ok, that one's a robot. The rest seem to be remote-control security cameras...
Have any contributions been copyrighted? And if there are any copyrighted parts of Linux, it should be easy to excise and replace that section of code.
Huh? Did you know that all created works are automatically copyrighted to their author? So, all of Linux is copyrighted, as a matter of course. Each file has a copyright notice at the top with the author's name. If the code weren't copyrighted, then it couldn't be GPL'd.
Lady and gentlemen, Anthony Boyd is loosing his mind.
eww, I feel so icky now...I don't know how people can spell it that way, it's like fingernails on a chalkboard.
2) Linux code should be de-SCOed to prevent this sort of problem from continuing to flair up
Please don't dignify SCO by assuming that they are right about the so-called infringement. Our assumption should be that Linux is clean until they prove otherwise.
Her question, of course, was:
"what the fsck do you think you are doing?"
The whole thing has become inconceivably(*) surreal.
(*: yes, Inigo, I know what that word means).
I haven't seen a SCO story this week
you haven't?
There are only two real problems in computing: computers are too hard to use and too hard to program. We've made enormous progress on both of these over the past fifty years, but they are still the real problems. And I predict they still will be problems 50 years from now.
Interesting. So in 50 years, we won't have a Star-Trek like voice interface for our computers? Damn.
80-year-old LMCBoy: "computer, make me a ham sandwich"
Mycroft 2: "Poof! You are a ham sandwich." (mechanical laughter)
80yoL: "In my day, computers were obedient! They had respect for users. You mechs today with your AI and your hoodahey, I tell ya..." (types 'rmmod ai_humor.o')
As usual this type of action makes me happy I am an NRA member and support the 2nd ammendment to the hilt.
Hello, non-sequitur!
You honestly see some sort of connection to the 2nd amendment here? That is freaking scary.
They're selling ideas and expressions of ideas, and if you say they can't control their creations you're saying they have no right to make a living.
Uh, no. Legitimate IP is the expression of an idea, not the idea itself! You cannot "own" an idea, only its implementation. Our copyright and patent laws are very clear about this.
Well, calling JWST a successor to HST is a bit of a stretch, actually. JWST will be great for its intended mission of studying high-redshift galaxies, but it is a specialized instrument; not the general-purpose workhorse that HST exemplified. Plus, it will be at a lagrange point, and therefore completely unserviceable. So much for upgrades.
If they were bringing suit against Microsoft for the same thing, it would be foolish to buy Windows.
Something like this, perhaps?