Hey, I pick up litter in front of riot police for fun. a bit of community service for ripping a DVD wouldn't bother me too much.
If you think about it you've got 70-80 years to live (no this is not a death threat), loosing a couple of them isn't going to cause you that much of a problem and you may help save others in the process.
Some people put on a flank jacket, get on a ship and try not to die for a living.
No, Elvis the music, not the person, Who'd want to copy Elvis the person?
And you live in a cripple-ware country. Copyright on a recording is 50 years after it was first recorded (in the UK and possibly the EU).
You should also note that in the UP copyright on things before 1978 (or something like that) is different from copyright on things after 1986. 1978-1986 is just to weird to think about, 28+28+20 if you ask nicely.
Elvis is 50 this year, which means in exactly 10 days time he will start to come out of copyright and be put into the public domain (just incase anyone didn't know what Elvis sounded like)
So, what about DRM. if I download Elvis from Real and they put DRM on the track how the hell am I supposed to make as many copies of the public domain work as I want?
This is based on the assumption that...
DRM is technical not artistic so it doesn't count as a new work, just a copy.
Real used the original Elvis recording (or copy of).
you live in the UK (or possibly the EU as well)
But still holds true in 50 years time when that DRM music you purchased comes out of copyright, how can you then put it into the public domain?
As the saying goes, you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink.... well unless you make that water look really sexy, and tip a bit of salt down the horses neck just for good measure.
Advertising is to a product as salt it to the horse.
I think the problem is that when you use an old law against the new forms of corruption it may get applied to the corruption that's been going on for ages.
If someone breaks an Internet law then no-ones going to go after wall-mart since they have nothing to do with the Internet.
I'm not saying that wall-mart is breaking the law,maybe cutting it close, but then that's what all successful companies do, but if wall-mart was breaking the law the law may have to be changed for the sake of the economy.
so I can install windows on 500PC's at home, if the EULA doesn't mean shit, since I'm not breaking copyright laws.
Just like I could have the some playing on my ipod, and my pc at the same time, or even just play a mono recording out of my 5.1 surround sound system.
Umm.. sound like, Sun (I've got a sun driver development manual), Microsoft (they should drop a lot of the backwards compatibility between versions though!), IBM, COBOL, C, C++, Perl, Python, HTTP, XHTML, XML, XSLT, any English dictionary, My car, the design of my house, how they make space rockets.
Yeh, that stable API causes major problemsfor people.
No, I want a versioned API that's a lot less fine grained than the current situation. I would expect a 'stable' kernel to have a 'stable' API and an unstable kernel to have an API that changed every release.
The Kernel should be forked (at about version x.y.3) and unstable development should be done in the fork (with back-ports) and bug fixes should be done on the root.
This is how 'most' companies I've worked for release there software, they don't deliberately put unstable work into a stable branch.
Hmm, link the 'function' keys up to colours. The GIMP could do with a pain box style mixing palette though. Using a palette is also a way to check that you've got a tool configured how you would like.
As a workaround, suggest that they have a separate drawing open that they use as if it were a palette, maybe there a plug-in to do this already?
(I don't link the GIMP either, but I used a paintbox about 10 years ago and found that it's colour mixer was far better than anything we have today)
the FSF is well, just wrong the GPL is not an EULA, it can't prevent you from distributing you own code under the GPL.
I can write a patch for a GPL application, and so long as it is an original work I can release the patch on it's own under any license I want, even if I include the patch in a GPL application as well.
LGPL is for libraries and allows you to statically as well as dynamically link against a licensed piece of code.
how many Openly implementations are their? Dynamically linking against a GPL one won't make you have to comply with copy-left anymore than using ldconfig to link close source app against a GPL library will force them to open source their app.
If I switch to a GPL libc can I only run GPL software? If I interface with Apache over HTTP does my application have to obey the Apache license? If I run notepad under wine does Microsoft have to GPL notepad?
* There are too many ambiguities. Terms like "derivative work" are too vague to be used. Further the GPL also uses "collective work" and "aggregation" without sufficient distinction. Legal documents normally take pains to define such terms for their own purposes. Unfortunately, the GPL does not, except by defering to copyright law (interestingly, the LGPL does define "derived work" but that is in a different legal statement and not part of the GPL).
The FSF does try to correct/explain some of this through the FAQ. Unfortunately the FAQ:
- is not part of the GPL and is thus likely not legally binding.
- is also ambiguous.
* if one reads FSF's documents, supposedly written to explain the GPL, there is much about what the FSF would like to achieve (to the extent of including the Preamble in the GPL). This confuses the issue further since there is a big difference between what the FSF would like the GPL to mean and a legal interpretation of what the GPL actually says. An example of this is the binding issue (static vs dynamic linking). FSF would like the GPL to cover all linking models (including static, dynamic, via java byte code etc).
Since the GPL defers to copyright law, I think a reasonable interpretation of the GPL is to use some analogy with the publishing world. Let us say Joe's writes his book called "Study guide for book X". This book does not include book X, but is makes quotes and gives reference and is meaningless unless read in conjunction with book X. I doubt Joe's study guide could be considered derivation. If Joe's study guide was sold bundled with book X, this would be aggregation rather than derivation.
Would that not be a valid analogy of a dynamically linked program?
If, however, Joe was to reprint the body of book X with his commentary as footnotes or in-line text, then clearly this would be a breach of copyright. This would be analogous to static linking.
More modern analogies might use hyperlinks or bookmarks.
In summary, I think two actions are required to make the GPL effective:
* The FSF must make a distinction between its goals and the GPL. Too often, rms starts spouting about what he wants to see rather than what the GPL actually says.
* Terms need to be cleared up to make the GPL an effective legal device.
-- I spoke to God the other day, anti-psychotics must have stopped working again.
Strange, I always found coffee put me to sleep. but the problem is, I used to wake in the night and sit at the top of the stairs for hours and hours making paper planes. hmm.. interesting
I don't, I was just saying that the GPL is an EULA in the way it, well doesn't define a derived work.
What I am interested in doing is getting paid(or paying my rent and eating) for patches &co for GPL software.
The only way to do this is to provide a patch without any of the GPL code, then take the money and release an intergrated version under GPL. The patch can passed around under a non-GPL license, just like I can get a book, write between the lines and cut out what I've written and sell it to anyone without the consent of the copyright holder, all good stuff..
Here's an interesting comment from another site that give a better picture...
-----
#disclaimer, I am not a lawyer....
IMHO there are two main problems with FSF/GPL.
* There are too many ambiguities. Terms like "derivative work" are too vague to be used. Further the GPL also uses "collective work" and "aggregation" without sufficient distinction. Legal documents normally take pains to define such terms for their own purposes. Unfortunately, the GPL does not, except by defering to copyright law (interestingly, the LGPL does define "derived work" but that is in a different legal statemnet and not part of the GPL).
The FSF does try to correct/explain some of this through the faq. Unfortunately the faq:
- is not part of the GPL and is thus likely not legally binding.
- is also ambiguous.
* if one reads FSF's documents, supposedly written to explain the GPL, there is much about what the FSF would like to achieve (to the extent of including the Preamble in the GPL). This confuses the issue further since there is a big difference between what the FSF would like the GPL to mean and a legal interpretation of what the GPL actually says. An example of this is the binding issue (static vs dynamic linking). FSF would like the GPL to cover all linking models (including static, dynamic, via java byte code etc).
Since the GPL defers to copyright law, I think a reasonable interpretation of the GPL is to use some analogy with the publishing world. Let us say Joe's writes his book called "Study guide for book X". This book does not include book X, but is makes quotes and gives reference and is meaningless unless read in conjunction with book X. I doubt Joe's study guide could be considered derivation. If Joe's study guide was sold bundled with book X, this would be aggregation rather than derivation.
Would that not be a valid analogy of a dynamically linked program?
If, however, Joe was to reprint the body of book X with his commentary as footnotes or in-line text, then clearly this would be a breach of copyright. This would be analogous to static linking.
More modern analogies might use hyperlinks or bookmarks.
In summary, I think two actions are required to make the GPL effective:
* The FSF must make a distinction between its goals and the GPL. Too oftem, rms starts spouting about what he wants to see rather than what the GPL actually says.
* Terms need to be cleared up to make the GPL an effective legal device.
Ah... here's the problem. '... or distribute a program that links against it' that's usage so it's an EULA.
As an example.
I write an application called QTRedReader run-time linking against the GPL version of QT, I sell my application as a closed source product without the QT libraries, so you have to download and install QT from trolltech to use it.
I can't do this under the terms of the GPL, even though I am not 'copying' the original product.
Interfaces are a matter of fact and not copyrightable.
The right way... My product is great, it can do this, and this, and it's secure and you'll love it and....
The wrong way... Their products bad, use mine instead, oh and did I tell you how bad their product was, you must be a fool if you use it... did I say fool, I mean genius for switching to my product.
People generally don't trust someone if all they have to say is how bad the other person is.
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously failed geography, or to read the post, I'm not sure which one though?
Hey, I pick up litter in front of riot police for fun. a bit of community service for ripping a DVD wouldn't bother me too much.
If you think about it you've got 70-80 years to live (no this is not a death threat), loosing a couple of them isn't going to cause you that much of a problem and you may help save others in the process.
Some people put on a flank jacket, get on a ship and try not to die for a living.
No, Elvis the music, not the person, Who'd want to copy Elvis the person?
And you live in a cripple-ware country. Copyright on a recording is 50 years after it was first recorded (in the UK and possibly the EU).
You should also note that in the UP copyright on things before 1978 (or something like that) is different from copyright on things after 1986.
1978-1986 is just to weird to think about, 28+28+20 if you ask nicely.
You just lost them, try using the word customer next time, it puts you on top for a change.
'Unfortunately, after trying to play the dvd back with Windows Media Player 9, I couldn't get it to work'
Ah that little cherry, put a weird track on the DVD to make windows choke.
Windows Media Player 9 is the DRM.
I think it's got a name.... Ah civil disobedience that'd be the bunny.
Elvis is 50 this year, which means in exactly 10 days time he will start to come out of copyright and be put into the public domain (just incase anyone didn't know what Elvis sounded like)
So, what about DRM.
if I download Elvis from Real and they put DRM on the track how the hell am I supposed to make as many copies of the public domain work as I want?
This is based on the assumption that...
DRM is technical not artistic so it doesn't count as a new work, just a copy.
Real used the original Elvis recording (or copy of).
you live in the UK (or possibly the EU as well)
But still holds true in 50 years time when that DRM music you purchased comes out of copyright, how can you then put it into the public domain?
As the saying goes, you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink....
well unless you make that water look really sexy, and tip a bit of salt down the horses neck just for good measure.
Advertising is to a product as salt it to the horse.
It's just when somethings got to go those in charge usually drop usability.
Try telling you boss about 504, or the disability descrimination act and watch him give you the, don't mention that word, look.
Or at the bbc
I think the problem is that when you use an old law against the new forms of corruption it may get applied to the corruption that's been going on for ages.
,maybe cutting it close, but then that's what all successful companies do, but if wall-mart was breaking the law the law may have to be changed for the sake of the economy.
If someone breaks an Internet law then no-ones going to go after wall-mart since they have nothing to do with the Internet.
I'm not saying that wall-mart is breaking the law
so I can install windows on 500PC's at home, if the EULA doesn't mean shit, since I'm not breaking copyright laws.
Just like I could have the some playing on my ipod, and my pc at the same time, or even just play a mono recording out of my 5.1 surround sound system.
Umm.. sound like, Sun (I've got a sun driver development manual), Microsoft (they should drop a lot of the backwards compatibility between versions though!), IBM, COBOL, C, C++, Perl, Python, HTTP, XHTML, XML, XSLT, any English dictionary, My car, the design of my house, how they make space rockets.
Yeh, that stable API causes major problemsfor people.
No, I want a versioned API that's a lot less fine grained than the current situation.
I would expect a 'stable' kernel to have a 'stable' API and an unstable kernel to have an API that changed every release.
The Kernel should be forked (at about version x.y.3) and unstable development should be done in the fork (with back-ports) and bug fixes should be done on the root.
This is how 'most' companies I've worked for release there software, they don't deliberately put unstable work into a stable branch.
Hmm, link the 'function' keys up to colours.
The GIMP could do with a pain box style mixing palette though. Using a palette is also a way to check that you've got a tool configured how you would like.
As a workaround, suggest that they have a separate drawing open that they use as if it were a palette, maybe there a plug-in to do this already?
(I don't link the GIMP either, but I used a paintbox about 10 years ago and found that it's colour mixer was far better than anything we have today)
the FSF is well, just wrong the GPL is not an EULA, it can't prevent you from distributing you own code under the GPL.
I can write a patch for a GPL application, and so long as it is an original work I can release the patch on it's own under any license I want, even if I include the patch in a GPL application as well.
LGPL is for libraries and allows you to statically as well as dynamically link against a licensed piece of code.
how many Openly implementations are their? Dynamically linking against a GPL one won't make you have to comply with copy-left anymore than using ldconfig to link close source app against a GPL library will force them to open source their app.
If I switch to a GPL libc can I only run GPL software? If I interface with Apache over HTTP does my application have to obey the Apache license? If I run notepad under wine does Microsoft have to GPL notepad?
Checkout this thread
---SNIP---
#disclaimer, I am not a lawyer....
IMHO there are two main problems with FSF/GPL.
* There are too many ambiguities. Terms like "derivative work" are too vague to be used. Further the GPL also uses "collective work" and "aggregation" without sufficient distinction. Legal documents normally take pains to define such terms for their own purposes. Unfortunately, the GPL does not, except by defering to copyright law (interestingly, the LGPL does define "derived work" but that is in a different legal statement and not part of the GPL).
The FSF does try to correct/explain some of this through the FAQ. Unfortunately the FAQ:
- is not part of the GPL and is thus likely not legally binding.
- is also ambiguous.
* if one reads FSF's documents, supposedly written to explain the GPL, there is much about what the FSF would like to achieve (to the extent of including the Preamble in the GPL). This confuses the issue further since there is a big difference between what the FSF would like the GPL to mean and a legal interpretation of what the GPL actually says. An example of this is the binding issue (static vs dynamic linking). FSF would like the GPL to cover all linking models (including static, dynamic, via java byte code etc).
Since the GPL defers to copyright law, I think a reasonable interpretation of the GPL is to use some analogy with the publishing world. Let us say Joe's writes his book called "Study guide for book X". This book does not include book X, but is makes quotes and gives reference and is meaningless unless read in conjunction with book X. I doubt Joe's study guide could be considered derivation. If Joe's study guide was sold bundled with book X, this would be aggregation rather than derivation.
Would that not be a valid analogy of a dynamically linked program?
If, however, Joe was to reprint the body of book X with his commentary as footnotes or in-line text, then clearly this would be a breach of copyright. This would be analogous to static linking.
More modern analogies might use hyperlinks or bookmarks.
In summary, I think two actions are required to make the GPL effective:
* The FSF must make a distinction between its goals and the GPL. Too often, rms starts spouting about what he wants to see rather than what the GPL actually says.
* Terms need to be cleared up to make the GPL an effective legal device.
--
I spoke to God the other day, anti-psychotics must have stopped working again.
But I thought that the I Agree button was the legal office!
smart people rock up their coke and smoke it.
Strange, I always found coffee put me to sleep.
but the problem is, I used to wake in the night and sit at the top of the stairs for hours and hours making paper planes.
hmm.. interesting
Get a $50 graphics tablet and see if that helps...
Trust are super cheap and this driver works ok.
What the internet you say, that's exactly the reason I'm buying this PC with windows on, so I can access the internet.
I don't, I was just saying that the GPL is an EULA in the way it, well doesn't define a derived work.
What I am interested in doing is getting paid(or paying my rent and eating) for patches &co for GPL software.
The only way to do this is to provide a patch without any of the GPL code, then take the money and release an intergrated version under GPL.
The patch can passed around under a non-GPL license, just like I can get a book, write between the lines and cut out what I've written and sell it to anyone without the consent of the copyright holder, all good stuff..
Here's an interesting comment from another site that give a better picture...
-----
#disclaimer, I am not a lawyer....
IMHO there are two main problems with FSF/GPL.
* There are too many ambiguities. Terms like "derivative work" are too vague to be used. Further the GPL also uses "collective work" and "aggregation" without sufficient distinction. Legal documents normally take pains to define such terms for their own purposes. Unfortunately, the GPL does not, except by defering to copyright law (interestingly, the LGPL does define "derived work" but that is in a different legal statemnet and not part of the GPL).
The FSF does try to correct/explain some of this through the faq. Unfortunately the faq:
- is not part of the GPL and is thus likely not legally binding.
- is also ambiguous.
* if one reads FSF's documents, supposedly written to explain the GPL, there is much about what the FSF would like to achieve (to the extent of including the Preamble in the GPL). This confuses the issue further since there is a big difference between what the FSF would like the GPL to mean and a legal interpretation of what the GPL actually says. An example of this is the binding issue (static vs dynamic linking). FSF would like the GPL to cover all linking models (including static, dynamic, via java byte code etc).
Since the GPL defers to copyright law, I think a reasonable interpretation of the GPL is to use some analogy with the publishing world. Let us say Joe's writes his book called "Study guide for book X". This book does not include book X, but is makes quotes and gives reference and is meaningless unless read in conjunction with book X. I doubt Joe's study guide could be considered derivation. If Joe's study guide was sold bundled with book X, this would be aggregation rather than derivation.
Would that not be a valid analogy of a dynamically linked program?
If, however, Joe was to reprint the body of book X with his commentary as footnotes or in-line text, then clearly this would be a breach of copyright. This would be analogous to static linking.
More modern analogies might use hyperlinks or bookmarks.
In summary, I think two actions are required to make the GPL effective:
* The FSF must make a distinction between its goals and the GPL. Too oftem, rms starts spouting about what he wants to see rather than what the GPL actually says.
* Terms need to be cleared up to make the GPL an effective legal device.
Ah... here's the problem.
'... or distribute a program that links against it' that's usage so it's an EULA.
As an example.
I write an application called QTRedReader run-time linking against the GPL version of QT, I sell my application as a closed source product without the QT libraries, so you have to download and install QT from trolltech to use it.
I can't do this under the terms of the GPL, even though I am not 'copying' the original product.
Interfaces are a matter of fact and not copyrightable.
The right way... My product is great, it can do this, and this, and it's secure and you'll love it and....
The wrong way... Their products bad, use mine instead, oh and did I tell you how bad their product was, you must be a fool if you use it... did I say fool, I mean genius for switching to my product.
People generally don't trust someone if all they have to say is how bad the other person is.
Isn't checking against an MD5 from a trusted site good enough?