Re:Interesting, very interesting, but stupid
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 2
Update: I just realized that the scenario in question was to release the company's work under the GPL but in an obfuscated manner. The red herring about "incidental resources" through me off track. Sorry about that.
Interesting, very interesting, but stupid
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 2
I am legally allowed to use the environment to create my ANSI C++ code, which, when I compile it with GCC, I am free to use to whatever commercial end I like.
This is true. There's no way this could be considered a derivative work of your development environment. In fact, I don't see how ANYTHING could be considered a derivative work of any development environment. Shrink-wrap not withstanding (which is bogus to begin with), you have full legal right to use any software you have legally obtained for any legal purpose.
My company wants to translate this to an abuse of the GPL and has been advised 'full speed ahead!'
I don't see how. The previous scenario with the development environment did not involve any actual derivation. You were using the environment as a tool and did not create any derivative works of the environment.
The situation with source code is much different. A derivative work is a derivative work is a derivative work. If any significant amount of the source code gets included, incorporated, translated or transformed into your own work, your work is a derivative of the GPL source code. I don't see any way around this.
they instead compile a bunch of incomprehensible gobbledygook that just happens to compile to the same bytecode.
Hmmm, my brain's still churning this one over. I guess it depends on what you mean by "incomprehensible gobbledygook." If you use the bytecode to reverse engineer a fractal function that produces the same bytecode (as an example), then you would be in the clear. But if you use the source code to derive that gobbleygook then you are not in any sort of deterministic fashion, then you are not.
You know the game: globally replace every function name, variable name, and so on from our code with nonsensical names (or random characters), remove all of the comments, and any other form of obfuscation they can introduce.
Nope, can't do it. Obfuscation is still derivation. Obfuscation is still a form of translation, and translation is derivation. Besides which, the above in no way relates to your earlier statement regarding "incidental resources."
Let me tell you what you CAN do: You can reimplement the algorithms in the original GPL code. Then you will not be creating a derivative work.
All the benefits of a huge GPL project and countless thousands of volunteer hours and unreadable, incomprehensible source tree.
Even if you manage to get your scheme past the courts, you still run into a big problem. This problem is well known in the BSD community, which is why no one has yet been able to produce a *successful* proprietary BSD that wasn't already on good terms with a free BSD variant. The problem in a nutshell is that you've created a fork. Trying to track the original source while keeping your own features and improvements intact will be a nightmare of code management. If you're willing to burn all your bridges, go for it, but if you find yourself on a tiny desert island with no way off, it's your own damn fault.
Example: FreeBSD and Apple are on good working terms. Apple forked off Darwin, but had to make Darwin Open Source (and somewhat Free) in order not to create a horrible sync problem. BSD/OS was also derived from the generalized open source BSD code base, but they had to remain on good terms with the free BSDs, to the point that they even contributed their own proprietary code to FreeBSD just so it wouldn't get forked off into oblivion.
Another example: the GNU Emacs / XEmacs fork works for only one reason: they are both Free Software. If XEmacs was made proprietary from day one, it might possibly still be around, but GNU Emacs would be feature rich and viable while XEmacs would still be languishing back at the fork point.
Naturally, though, since the DoJ has dropped the ball on Microsoft, this sort of thing will only get worse. Get used to it, and vote Democratic in 2004.
Considering the history of Microsoft under the Clinton/Gore administration, I don't think this is a wise idea.
Microsoft's illegal tactics fall into two categories, objective illegal acts, such as the Java copyright violation, and subjective illegal acts which only apply to those who are already monopolies, like exclusive contracts. But even without these tactics, there would still be monopolies in the software industry because the consumers want monopolies there. Let me explain.
If everyone in the world was a geek, there would be few software monopolies. There would probably be twelve major operating systems, four major desktops, six major word processors, etc. But outside of geekdom the attitude is much different. My mother wants to use the exact same software her friends do. My CEO wants everyone in my company to use the exact same tools. A friend of mine hates Windows with a passion, but continues to use it simply because everyone he knows but me uses it.
Given suffiently accepted standards, this probably wouldn't occur, but new industries rarely have accepted standards. Imposing standards on an industry from the outside rarely works, since it is the marketplace that ultimately decides what the standards are. The marketplace chose Microsoft to be a monopoly because they want a standard. They want to know that any random program they purchase at CompUSA will work on their system. They want to know that any random hardware they purchase will have suitable drivers.
Should history have been slightly different, Microsoft may not have been a monopoly, but some other company would have. Perhaps the OS, browser and word processor monopolies would not have all belonged to the same company, but they would all still exist.
Do a little thought experiment. Pretend that Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. Pretend that there's just as many copies of Redhat on the shelves as WindowsXP. Pretend that for every copy of MSOffice there's a copy of StarOffice. No take away everyone's OS and word processor and see what they rush out to buy. I know what 90% of them will choose, and it won't be Redhat and StarOffice.
ps. Even in geekdom we still want monopolies of a sort, which is why GNU has a monopoly in free C compilers, and hordes of ACs decry any new project that is even slightly similar to an existing project.
I disagree. Microsoft's "natural" monopoly developed because of our copyright laws.
Copyright law (and the imposition of enduser agreements) is not something limited to Microsoft. All software manufacturers can take advantage of it, and the vast majority do, including Free Software. Copyright does not explain why IExplorer is a monopoly and Mozilla is not, nor why MSWord is and WordPerfect is not, nor why Windows is and BeOS is not.
If our copyright laws required disclosure of interfaces and/or source code
Actually they do. That's the whole philosophical purpose of copyright, to disclose the work to the public. But it doesn't cover unpublished works. The Windows source code, just like that of non-monopoly and quite dead BeOS, has not been published.
There are several reasons for the existance of the Windows hegemony, but copyright is not one of them. However one may debate the merits or evils of copyright, they didn't serve to create the Microsoft monopoly, because copyright was available and used by all of Microsoft's competitors, including IBM, Be Inc, Apple and GNU.
It's a natural tactic in any industry regardless of age. Go pull out an old DRDOS and Win31 and double check that message. It said that Win31 was not *supported* on DRDOS. That was true. Microsoft did not support Win31 on top of DRDOS. The situation is similar for my automobile, which recommends certain -brands- of motor oil and tires.
As someone who actually understands your reference to Galt's Gulch, I think you're missing a vital point. (I generally agree with you, so keep reading)
Every piece of functionality offered by Microsoft on the typical PC is provided by numerous other companies. Browsers? We got em. Word processors? We got em. Component based development tools? We got em. Funny little panels with a start button? We got em.
There's only one thing Microsoft has that other companies don't: a monopoly. And that's what this case is about. If Microsoft does a Galt's Gulch, the result will be chaos and mayhem. Not because the industry loses a whole bunch of functionality, but because the industry loses a monopoly at precisely the same time the market is demanding one. (ooh! heretical words!)
Microsoft is one of the few *natural* monopolies seen in the past few hundred years. Unlike the state-sponsored monopolies of the past (railroads, AT&T, your CableCo) Microsoft rose to its position of dominance because the market wants a single company in that position. This is an artifact of the infant consumer software industry. Eliminating state sponsored monopolies is a good thing. But eliminating naturally occuring monopolies is extremely distruptive to the marketplace.
There have been some bona-fide, non-monopoly related, crimes, infractions and illegalities committed by Microsoft. But because everyone's so focused on the monopoly thing, they simply get ignored. Microsoft should be punished for their illegal actions, but allowed to keep its monopoly. The marketplace will overthrow that one on its own when it's good and ready.
I would say it is vital for OSes to include this level of functionality AT THE VERY LEAST. In fact, KDE is doing the same thing with Konquerer and the file manager.
Um, hate to break the news to you, but KDE is not an operating system.
That's only if you believe the Slashdot propaganda. That ten years mentioned in the blurb does not refer to a single case, but several consecutive cases, the earlier ones of which have been settled.
You know how the liberals go around saying that if guns were outlawed no one would have guns?
I think the RIAA and MPAA are really liberals in disguise. They think if they can just get a law passed banning certain kinds of hardware then that hardware couldn't possibly exist any more.
If you read their terms of use it appears that students papers become the property of Turnitin.com.
They can't do that. It's not legal. It doesn't follow the proper protocols for copyright assignment. They don't receive full copyright to you work just because they say so somewhere in a hidden license annoucement.
To transfer copyright you must *explicitly* do so in a manner involving consideration, signatures, etc.
linux is not restricted to the limited set of applications it is capable of running.
Wow! There's a whole world of Linux out there I never knew about! Just think, I can run programs on Linux that Linux is not capable of running. That's pretty neat.
An entire generation (mine) learned Pascal in college. The generation before they all learned Fortran.
If the structured programming where still "in", I'm certain Pascal or Modula-3 would be the dominant language. But it's Object Oriented Programming now, and Java is an excellent language to teach OO in. But what will be the next big fad in programming? Maybe it will be something new, or maybe something old whose time has come.
Maybe in ten or twenty years OO and Java will be as passe as Pascal, and students will be learning Functional Programming and MS will have to do some serious marketing to get a generation of LISP students using C#/VB.net.
But then I can't vote for anyone! They all send me spam. What makes Jones so innovative is that he does it before the election using contributor funds, while every other politician in my district does it after they get elected using taxpayer funds.
I won't vote for Bill Jones, but I admire him nonetheless. He is soft spoken, a team player but not a party drone, level headed, doesn't sling mud much, doesn't make waves, etc. He has done an excellent job in the offices he has held. In short, he doesn't have the qualities that get you elected to high office.
Sending this "spam" may be poor judgement, but no other candidate is going to call him on it since they ALL do the same thing in some form or another. Frankly, I don't see much of a difference between politcal spam and the multitude of flyers that clog my snailmail box every election cycle.
(On the flip side, Gray Davis had pretty much the same milqetoaste persona until he underwent a major personality change and ran for governor.)
My representative spams me all the time. No matter how much I beg to be taken off her "we can make a perfect world if we arrest all gun owners" list, the crap still keeps coming. Nothing I can do about it because it isn't really spam.
He was trying to use KDE and Konqueror on Redhat. That should be explanation enough for his difficulties. Redhat doesn't like KDE, never did, and probably never will.
I can update KDE with complete ease under FreeBSD. I'm sure my Debian friends will attest to its ease on their system as well. Even when I used package-manager-less Slackware, upgrading KDE was a simple as grabbing the new packages and installing them all.
In my case, there's only one thing holding back IPv6: my ISP doesn't support it. IPv6 is already completely integrated into my OS (FreeBSD), and effortless to set up. But it's useless until my ISP switches over.
The US hasn't switched to metric for a very simple reason: those of us living here, regardless of political affiliation, have a very strong individualistic streak. We don't just go change a system just because someone bigger than us tells us to. We spent a decade in the process of conversion and in the end we decided we didn't want the hassle.
The metric system is still taught in schools, still used in industry, and still available on every milk carton from New York to San Fransisco. But we prefer the English system. We're individualists and that's our choice. Just because it isn't your choice is completely irrelevant.
Oh, by the way, we've been using metric currency since day one, far sooner than most other countries did.
Slashdot Mirror
Update: I just realized that the scenario in question was to release the company's work under the GPL but in an obfuscated manner. The red herring about "incidental resources" through me off track. Sorry about that.
I am legally allowed to use the environment to create my ANSI C++ code, which, when I compile it with GCC, I am free to use to whatever commercial end I like.
This is true. There's no way this could be considered a derivative work of your development environment. In fact, I don't see how ANYTHING could be considered a derivative work of any development environment. Shrink-wrap not withstanding (which is bogus to begin with), you have full legal right to use any software you have legally obtained for any legal purpose.
My company wants to translate this to an abuse of the GPL and has been advised 'full speed ahead!'
I don't see how. The previous scenario with the development environment did not involve any actual derivation. You were using the environment as a tool and did not create any derivative works of the environment.
The situation with source code is much different. A derivative work is a derivative work is a derivative work. If any significant amount of the source code gets included, incorporated, translated or transformed into your own work, your work is a derivative of the GPL source code. I don't see any way around this.
they instead compile a bunch of incomprehensible gobbledygook that just happens to compile to the same bytecode.
Hmmm, my brain's still churning this one over. I guess it depends on what you mean by "incomprehensible gobbledygook." If you use the bytecode to reverse engineer a fractal function that produces the same bytecode (as an example), then you would be in the clear. But if you use the source code to derive that gobbleygook then you are not in any sort of deterministic fashion, then you are not.
You know the game: globally replace every function name, variable name, and so on from our code with nonsensical names (or random characters), remove all of the comments, and any other form of obfuscation they can introduce.
Nope, can't do it. Obfuscation is still derivation. Obfuscation is still a form of translation, and translation is derivation. Besides which, the above in no way relates to your earlier statement regarding "incidental resources."
Let me tell you what you CAN do: You can reimplement the algorithms in the original GPL code. Then you will not be creating a derivative work.
All the benefits of a huge GPL project and countless thousands of volunteer hours and unreadable, incomprehensible source tree.
Even if you manage to get your scheme past the courts, you still run into a big problem. This problem is well known in the BSD community, which is why no one has yet been able to produce a *successful* proprietary BSD that wasn't already on good terms with a free BSD variant. The problem in a nutshell is that you've created a fork. Trying to track the original source while keeping your own features and improvements intact will be a nightmare of code management. If you're willing to burn all your bridges, go for it, but if you find yourself on a tiny desert island with no way off, it's your own damn fault.
Example: FreeBSD and Apple are on good working terms. Apple forked off Darwin, but had to make Darwin Open Source (and somewhat Free) in order not to create a horrible sync problem. BSD/OS was also derived from the generalized open source BSD code base, but they had to remain on good terms with the free BSDs, to the point that they even contributed their own proprietary code to FreeBSD just so it wouldn't get forked off into oblivion.
Another example: the GNU Emacs / XEmacs fork works for only one reason: they are both Free Software. If XEmacs was made proprietary from day one, it might possibly still be around, but GNU Emacs would be feature rich and viable while XEmacs would still be languishing back at the fork point.
Naturally, though, since the DoJ has dropped the ball on Microsoft, this sort of thing will only get worse. Get used to it, and vote Democratic in 2004.
Considering the history of Microsoft under the Clinton/Gore administration, I don't think this is a wise idea.
Microsoft's illegal tactics fall into two categories, objective illegal acts, such as the Java copyright violation, and subjective illegal acts which only apply to those who are already monopolies, like exclusive contracts. But even without these tactics, there would still be monopolies in the software industry because the consumers want monopolies there. Let me explain.
If everyone in the world was a geek, there would be few software monopolies. There would probably be twelve major operating systems, four major desktops, six major word processors, etc. But outside of geekdom the attitude is much different. My mother wants to use the exact same software her friends do. My CEO wants everyone in my company to use the exact same tools. A friend of mine hates Windows with a passion, but continues to use it simply because everyone he knows but me uses it.
Given suffiently accepted standards, this probably wouldn't occur, but new industries rarely have accepted standards. Imposing standards on an industry from the outside rarely works, since it is the marketplace that ultimately decides what the standards are. The marketplace chose Microsoft to be a monopoly because they want a standard. They want to know that any random program they purchase at CompUSA will work on their system. They want to know that any random hardware they purchase will have suitable drivers.
Should history have been slightly different, Microsoft may not have been a monopoly, but some other company would have. Perhaps the OS, browser and word processor monopolies would not have all belonged to the same company, but they would all still exist.
Do a little thought experiment. Pretend that Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. Pretend that there's just as many copies of Redhat on the shelves as WindowsXP. Pretend that for every copy of MSOffice there's a copy of StarOffice. No take away everyone's OS and word processor and see what they rush out to buy. I know what 90% of them will choose, and it won't be Redhat and StarOffice.
ps. Even in geekdom we still want monopolies of a sort, which is why GNU has a monopoly in free C compilers, and hordes of ACs decry any new project that is even slightly similar to an existing project.
I disagree. Microsoft's "natural" monopoly developed because of our copyright laws.
Copyright law (and the imposition of enduser agreements) is not something limited to Microsoft. All software manufacturers can take advantage of it, and the vast majority do, including Free Software. Copyright does not explain why IExplorer is a monopoly and Mozilla is not, nor why MSWord is and WordPerfect is not, nor why Windows is and BeOS is not.
If our copyright laws required disclosure of interfaces and/or source code
Actually they do. That's the whole philosophical purpose of copyright, to disclose the work to the public. But it doesn't cover unpublished works. The Windows source code, just like that of non-monopoly and quite dead BeOS, has not been published.
There are several reasons for the existance of the Windows hegemony, but copyright is not one of them. However one may debate the merits or evils of copyright, they didn't serve to create the Microsoft monopoly, because copyright was available and used by all of Microsoft's competitors, including IBM, Be Inc, Apple and GNU.
It's a natural tactic in any industry regardless of age. Go pull out an old DRDOS and Win31 and double check that message. It said that Win31 was not *supported* on DRDOS. That was true. Microsoft did not support Win31 on top of DRDOS.
The situation is similar for my automobile, which recommends certain -brands- of motor oil and tires.
As someone who actually understands your reference to Galt's Gulch, I think you're missing a vital point. (I generally agree with you, so keep reading)
Every piece of functionality offered by Microsoft on the typical PC is provided by numerous other companies. Browsers? We got em. Word processors? We got em. Component based development tools? We got em. Funny little panels with a start button? We got em.
There's only one thing Microsoft has that other companies don't: a monopoly. And that's what this case is about. If Microsoft does a Galt's Gulch, the result will be chaos and mayhem. Not because the industry loses a whole bunch of functionality, but because the industry loses a monopoly at precisely the same time the market is demanding one. (ooh! heretical words!)
Microsoft is one of the few *natural* monopolies seen in the past few hundred years. Unlike the state-sponsored monopolies of the past (railroads, AT&T, your CableCo) Microsoft rose to its position of dominance because the market wants a single company in that position. This is an artifact of the infant consumer software industry. Eliminating state sponsored monopolies is a good thing. But eliminating naturally occuring monopolies is extremely distruptive to the marketplace.
There have been some bona-fide, non-monopoly related, crimes, infractions and illegalities committed by Microsoft. But because everyone's so focused on the monopoly thing, they simply get ignored. Microsoft should be punished for their illegal actions, but allowed to keep its monopoly. The marketplace will overthrow that one on its own when it's good and ready.
I would say it is vital for OSes to include this level of functionality AT THE VERY LEAST. In fact, KDE is doing the same thing with Konquerer and the file manager.
Um, hate to break the news to you, but KDE is not an operating system.
That's only if you believe the Slashdot propaganda. That ten years mentioned in the blurb does not refer to a single case, but several consecutive cases, the earlier ones of which have been settled.
It was a joke! Laugh! It's called 'hyperbole' Sometimes liberals just have no sense of humour...
You know how the liberals go around saying that if guns were outlawed no one would have guns?
I think the RIAA and MPAA are really liberals in disguise. They think if they can just get a law passed banning certain kinds of hardware then that hardware couldn't possibly exist any more.
However, they have nothing to do with the 'size' of government, and everything to do with the 'size' of companies who can bribe the government.
The solution to this problem isn't to impoverish companies, but instead to stop making government power a salable commodity.
If you read their terms of use it appears that students papers become the property of Turnitin.com.
They can't do that. It's not legal. It doesn't follow the proper protocols for copyright assignment. They don't receive full copyright to you work just because they say so somewhere in a hidden license annoucement.
To transfer copyright you must *explicitly* do so in a manner involving consideration, signatures, etc.
linux is not restricted to the limited set of applications it is capable of running.
Wow! There's a whole world of Linux out there I never knew about! Just think, I can run programs on Linux that Linux is not capable of running. That's pretty neat.
An entire generation (mine) learned Pascal in college. The generation before they all learned Fortran.
If the structured programming where still "in", I'm certain Pascal or Modula-3 would be the dominant language. But it's Object Oriented Programming now, and Java is an excellent language to teach OO in. But what will be the next big fad in programming? Maybe it will be something new, or maybe something old whose time has come.
Maybe in ten or twenty years OO and Java will be as passe as Pascal, and students will be learning Functional Programming and MS will have to do some serious marketing to get a generation of LISP students using C#/VB.net.
Most GPL software that I have in my possession contain no explict offer of source code.
But then I can't vote for anyone! They all send me spam. What makes Jones so innovative is that he does it before the election using contributor funds, while every other politician in my district does it after they get elected using taxpayer funds.
I won't vote for Bill Jones, but I admire him nonetheless. He is soft spoken, a team player but not a party drone, level headed, doesn't sling mud much, doesn't make waves, etc. He has done an excellent job in the offices he has held. In short, he doesn't have the qualities that get you elected to high office.
Sending this "spam" may be poor judgement, but no other candidate is going to call him on it since they ALL do the same thing in some form or another. Frankly, I don't see much of a difference between politcal spam and the multitude of flyers that clog my snailmail box every election cycle.
(On the flip side, Gray Davis had pretty much the same milqetoaste persona until he underwent a major personality change and ran for governor.)
My representative spams me all the time. No matter how much I beg to be taken off her "we can make a perfect world if we arrest all gun owners" list, the crap still keeps coming. Nothing I can do about it because it isn't really spam.
He was trying to use KDE and Konqueror on Redhat. That should be explanation enough for his difficulties. Redhat doesn't like KDE, never did, and probably never will.
I can update KDE with complete ease under FreeBSD. I'm sure my Debian friends will attest to its ease on their system as well. Even when I used package-manager-less Slackware, upgrading KDE was a simple as grabbing the new packages and installing them all.
Nah, you just go and tell other ones to change their system because they are smaller than you.
Those who can, do.
In my case, there's only one thing holding back IPv6: my ISP doesn't support it. IPv6 is already completely integrated into my OS (FreeBSD), and effortless to set up. But it's useless until my ISP switches over.
The US hasn't switched to metric for a very simple reason: those of us living here, regardless of political affiliation, have a very strong individualistic streak. We don't just go change a system just because someone bigger than us tells us to. We spent a decade in the process of conversion and in the end we decided we didn't want the hassle.
The metric system is still taught in schools, still used in industry, and still available on every milk carton from New York to San Fransisco. But we prefer the English system. We're individualists and that's our choice. Just because it isn't your choice is completely irrelevant.
Oh, by the way, we've been using metric currency since day one, far sooner than most other countries did.
For the same reason we spell theater as 'theater'.
Again, the statement is much to general to agree/disagree, but there are certain situations which require *exact* layout.
God forbid I should use my own stylesheets!