No, you must have the offer, written or not. Simple knowledge that the offer must exist could be sufficient.
Well, "the information". Just guessing that they have it and asking for it doesn't seem to be sufficient, at least based on the two references in the GPL FAQ that I gave you. In other words, the "written offer" could be "send mail to P.O. Box 6125 and ask for offer #23, include a check for $9.95 made out to "GPL Source Code Offer #23" and indicate request ID is 0x12AB3354."
I said The GPL does say that access to the source when downloading a binary must be "the same place" and "equivalent access". You're right, I left off that I was referring to a 3a distribution only, if you reject the FAQ's notion that you can't do 3b distribution via FTP.
Regarding 3a, what I meant was that if I sell you a binary release on CD for $20, can I also charge you an additional $20 for the source CD (which you can decline if you wish)? What if the source is on 20 CDs, can I charge you $400 for the source? Can I provide the binary on CD and the source on (lots of) floppy disks? The FAQ says you can charge a fee for downloading, why wouldn't that apply to charging a fee for physical media? For the downloading, what it sounds like is that I can charge $x per megabyte, and as long as I provide the same access (same charge per megabyte) to the source, it counts as a distribution under 3a. So I just inflate the size of the source distribution by including all sorts of junk (Linksys tarball for WRT54G is 179 MB, compared to 3 MB for the image). That's why I question the "for the same fee" wording in the FAQ.
If I can charge you a different amount for "binary + source" than "binary (but I offered you source and you didn't want it)", and both fall under 3a (thus no written offer, no obligation to provide source in the future), then that seems to defeat the purpose. I definitely agree that you can charge one price for "binary + source" and another for "binary + written offer", and the price you charge for either is arbitrary (except for the fulfillment of the written offer). My question is if you can charge for the source required by 3a separately from the charge for the binary, it seems to me that if you do that you haven't "provide the source code with the binary distribution", and thus if they don't take you up on it, that's a 3b distribution and now they (and anyone else) can get the source from you at cost. Note that's distinctly different from the download situation where providing the source "in the same place" and "equivalent access" counts as having distributed the source even if they chose not to get a copy of the source.
WET54gv2 appears to be using a uClinux kernel, on an ARM processor. Released source is for firmware version 2.07, 2.10 image still shows it is uClinux, but source isn't available online.
I don't have a Windows machine, so I can't look at the WET54g firmware (distributed only as a.exe), version 2.06. WET54gs doesn't have downloadable firmware yet. WGA doesn't, either.
Regarding who can execute the "written offer", from the GPL FAQ (also see this later question) seems to clearly indicate that you must have a copy of the written offer (or at least, "the information you received as to the offer"). Yes, 3c applies, not 3b. 3b applies to the party creating the written offer. 3c is what defines what additional parties receive as to a written offer, and thus defines the maximum requirement for being able to receive the sources (from the original 3b party). I'm just explaining why I worded it as "the information you received as to the offer" as opposed to "the written offer" - you may not have the written offer if you weren't the original recipient under 3b.
Again from the GPL FAQ, the mail order interpretation (you must, if requested, provide the requested source on physical media posted through the mail) seems at odds with the actual language of the GPL which merely requires the source to be provided on "customary media". Like, 500 floppy disks (and I get to charge you for the labor to copy all those disks). Or, how about punch cards or paper tape, traditional AND customary!
The GPL does say that access to the source when downloading a binary must be "the same place" and "equivalent access", but the FAQ says that putting in a link to another web/ftp site is either probably or definitely OK (latter link is also the one that claims that you can't distribute under 3b via anonymous FTP). However, I had always interpreted the 3a rule as not allowing an additional charge for the source code, while the interpretation seems to be that you can not charge more for the source than you did for the binary (based on size? A 1MB binary and 125MB source (including entire tool chain, compiler, library sources, etc) could make the cost for the source prohibitive. Or do they mean that if you charged $20 for the binary, you can't charge more than $20 for the sources, even if the sources take up 100 times as much space).
I'm looking at this from the viewpoint of someone trying to sell GPL software as if it was proprietary, making it as inconvenient and expensive for the average person to download the sources and pass them on, and attempt to prevent copying and redistribution of the binary as well, and see if the GPL properly blocks such attempts or if there are loopholes that should be fixed.
BTW, I hadn't seen the GPL quiz before. I took it cold and missed 1 question (LGPL and reverse engineering). Despite getting all the others correct, I still disagree with one of them (# 6, regarding fulfilling the written offer by providing the source for download - "but not everyone has access to the internet" is no more valid than "but not everyone has a CD-ROM drive" - if I'm on the ISS, mailing me a CD-ROM isn't going to do me much good).
Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code.
The form of the written offer is not specified by the GPL. "The information" could well be required to determine what source you are entitled to. I'm pretty sure I've seen an opinion from the FSF that the written offer is only valid for people who have received a copy of that written offer (or, as they put it "the information you received as to the offer"), so it would seem legitimate to require confirmation that you have said information, such as a password, or maybe an MD5 hash of the binary that the source corresponds to.
Most of the rest of the message that you had problems with was exploring the logical consequence of claiming that a restriction such as terminating a subscription for exercising your rights under the GPL is not a violation of the GPL. In other words, I don't think that any of those things are allowable, but if the termination is allowable (under some nebulous "that's not a restriction since you can still redistribute under the GPL" idea), then those other restrictions I hypothesized would seem to be similar.
I do think that the "written offer" part isn't very well defined. I know that the GPL FAQ seems to think it means "mail order", but I don't see any mention of that in the GPL. The FAQ also asserts that if you distribute via anonymous FTP, you MUST provide the sources - I don't see why you can't provide a written offer on the FTP site (or as part of the downloaded binary file). There's also no requirement as to what type of media must be used to distribute the source. It ought to require that the source be distributed in the same medium as the binaries were released OR in another format acceptable to the requester.
I said Can they require you to have registered the binary program with them previously (along with that agreement earlier that you'll pay $150)? and you responded No, that would be an additional restriction. The requirement for "no additional restrictions" is on the rights of the person to whom I've distributed to. That wouldn't be a restriction on those re-distribution rights, that would be a restriction on the ability to receive the source code. They only say you can't charge more than your cost for the written copy, they don't say you can't require anything else, which was the point of my last few hypotheticals.
I'm not confused about the GPL, though there are a few points that are unclear. I've been an avid student of the GPL for at least 6 years, I've read the GPL FAQ numerous times. I've vehemently disagreed with a few of the FSF's interpretations.
The configuration screens for both products (as described in the manuals) are identical. I didn't see any difference in what they can do. The WAP products can act as repeaters, bridges or access points (repeater/bridge only with the same product), but I didn't see any such options for the WET.
So the WGA isn't running a Linux kernel inside? The user manuals for both show identical configuration and feature settings, it seems it would be a total waste to have completely different programming for each. The WET source is available for download, the WGA is not.
Others have pointed out two hardware differences I hadn't noticed: PoE and different antenna.
You can charge whatever you want for a source distribution, or a source + binary distribution. The only thing you are required to charge "at cost" for is when fulfilling the "written offer" made when making a binary-only distribution, and the only version of the source you're required to provide in that case is the version that matches the binary you received.
I'm not restricting your right to vote for someone other than Bush. I'm just going to impose a "consequence" if you don't. You're free to vote for someone else if you don't mind being shot. But you still have all your freedoms. "impose a consequence if you do X" is, indeed, a restriction on X.
A compilation copyright would seem to make sense in this case. I wouldn't think the selection of packages would be protectable in itself, though, as that's purely functional (and to the extent that together they form a whole, I'd think that the whole would then need to be licensed under the GPL as well). Cosmetic aspects, such as the layout of directories (beyond what the individual packages require), graphical elements, etc. could all be copyrighted or contribute to a compilation copyright. It might also not meet the "mere aggregation" test of the GPL. Regardless, all it really means is you can't make a verbatim copy of the CD, just as you can't necessarily make a copy of a book just because it has a Linux CD distributed with it.
No, you can't distribute the code because of the NDA, not because of the GPL. GPL clause 7 would only kick in if the NDA allowed some distribution, but not in the manner required by the GPL. Say, for example, the NDA said you could distribute the binary, but not the source. Then the GPL says you can't even distribute the binary, since the GPL requires you to distribute the source.
The Sveasoft restriction on distribution doesn't affect the GPL itself. You still have rights to distribute source and binary without restricting rights of the people to whom you distribute. Thus, clause 7 doesn't apply. Sveasoft is the one violating the GPL, not you. They are bound by the GPL (because they are distributing GPL software), and thus they are not allowed to restrict your rights under the GPL. Terminating the subscription if you distribute is such a restriction. If they put that condition into some other agreement, that would be fine, but this agreement is is specifically setting the terms of distribution of GPL software, and so must conform to what the GPL says. In other words, I think I could accept if they terminated support and access to the forums, but not if they terminate ability to access the software itself. No, the GPL doesn't require access to updated versions, but it doesn't allow you to make access to the software conditional on obeying additional restrictions or agreeing not to exercise your rights, so if you're allowing access on a subscription basis, you can't terminate it for exercising your rights under the GPL.
Otherwise, I could just sell software as if it was proprietary, and part of the license agreement is that you agree to pay me $50,000 if you exercise your rights under the GPL (such as ask for the source code or redistribute the binary). Here's the sample "written offer" required by the GPL: "You can request the source code from [... ], for a charge of $25. However, as a condition of buying this program, you agreed to also pay a penalty of $50,000 if you do so."
Correct, but if they have sold you a subscription for updates, they do have an obligation, and since they are bound by the GPL (having distributed GPL software), the terms of the subscription service must be compatible with the GPL.
A support agreement that doesn't include distribution of GPL software could indeed have penalty/termination clauses based on whether you "improperly" distributed GPL software, but that wouldn't affect the subscription service for updates.
When distributing source code with a binary distribution, you can not charge more for the source under method (a) of the GPL. You can price discriminate between "the version with the source code" and "the version with the written offer", but then you've just triggered the requirement to provide the source code at cost to anyone for a period of three years. The primary advantage of the binary + source distribution method is that you have no further obligation (under the GPL), so it doesn't make sense to do both.
In summary, either you provide the source code for no additional cost, OR you provide the source code to anyone at your cost for three years.
The GPL covers distribution. They are distributing. The GPL applies to them to the extent they try to restrict distribution by others. Imposing a cost on others to redistribute is a restriction.
They can sell a source-code CD for anything they like, as long as they don't attempt to restrict further distribution of it. They can sell "binary version + source" for anything they like, as long as there are no additional restrictions on further distribution. They can sell "binary version + written offer", as long as they honor that written offer for anyone for a period of three year, and don't charge more than cost, and don't restrict redistribution of the binary or the sources or (presumably, or it doesn't make sense) the information from the written offer on how to get the sources. Imposing a cost (such as terminating a subscription, refusing to allow you to buy another version or subscription (or charging a discriminatory price) for no other reason than you having exercised your rights is such a restriction. They are bound by the GPL by the act of distributing GPL software, thus the terms of service of the subscription must honor the GPL and allow redistribution with no penalty or other restriction.
It is a restriction on the exercise of my rights. I exercise my rights, and you impose a cost on me for exercising my rights under the GPL. You might as well say I owe you $100,000 for exercising my rights.
As for RHN, their license seems pretty clear. You can't pay them to support 1 machine and expect them to support the problems of 100 machines. You can't use your service contract "for the benefit of" anyone else. To the extent that this term would prevent you from being able to copy, modify or redistribute the code, it shouldn't apply.
How does Red Hat provide the source code for subscribers? Are the changes propagated anywhere else? What's the time frame from providing a patched version for subscribers and making the changed sources available to everyone?
I think if the FSF wants to allow such restrictions, it should include what restrictions are allowed in the GPL. For example, it may say that adding restrictions on redistribution is OK as long as it can be freely redistributed (all restrictions eliminated) after a certain amount of time.
Actually, to request the sources, you must have the information from the written offer they gave to the person to whom they didn't provide source code. That written offer could, for instance, contain a password that is required to get the source, and that password could uniquely identify the person who passed it along.
However, I believe, as others have stated, that cutting off a subscription, or taking any other negative action against someone for the mere act of requesting sources or redistributing the source, the written offer, MD5 checksums, or the binaries is a "further restriction" that the GPL doesn't allow. "You can copy the source or the binary or the written offer, but if you do [ you lose your subscription; you have to pay me $50,000 ]" - how is that not a further restriction on redistribution?
Here's an example of how to totally blow off the GPL:
Sell for really cheap a CD with a Linux installer on it for a nice distribution. The CD is in a case that has a seal saying "this is GPL software - you may request the source code by for this product by using the information on the enclosed written offer - you agree to pay $150 for each such copy requested with the enclosed offer." When you run the installer, it connects to your server and puts up a click-through license that takes the user's name, address, credit card information and requires the user to authorize a $5 charge to install Linux, and $150 for each use of the enclosed "written offer" for the source code (and make it really clear that you don't need to get the source code, and that if you don't get the source code you won't be charged anything - that's to calm the fears of Joe Average). Require the "product activation key" that is part of the written offer. Generously allow re-installation using the same key without charging anything else.
If the user, or anyone that gets the activation key, requests the source code, you start raking in the $150 charges (so much for "only the cost of copying").
Of course, there are ways around it. Once you receive a copy of the source, you can change it, redistribute it, etc. However, there will be plenty of average people who will get suckered by this, and effectively be prevented from getting the source code or re-distributing the binary (since the binary is useless without the activation code, and letting someone else use the activation code will put you at risk for an unlimited number of $150 charges). That is presumably not what the people who own the copyright and put it under GPL had in mind.
Another loophole is what the "written offer" can require of you. It seems legitimate to require you to call a telephone number, go to a Web or FTP site, mail a letter - but in what form can they require payment? What if the telephone number you're required to call is a 900 number? Can they require you to enter a password, as I asserted earlier? Can they require you to prove Fermat's Last Theorem or factor a 4096-bit number as part of the process of getting the source? Can they require you to have registered the binary program with them previously (along with that agreement earlier that you'll pay $150)?
I don't agree, and if the FSF does think this, I'd like to see the reasoning. Saying "You can distribute this, but if you do [ something negative will happen to you ]" is a "further restriction". Terminating your rights under a subscription seems no different in principle from saying "and you'll owe us $50,000 if you do distribute it.".
From the GPL:
You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
Actually, only the person(s) who hold copyright on the GPL code you uploaded can force you to release the source code (and, actually, they can't force you to release the source code, though the consequences of not releasing it may be more than you want to deal with). If you're the sole author of the code, no one can force you to do anything with it (although if you didn't want to release the source code, why did you pretend to put it under the GPL?).
Assuming you're not the sole author, you were required to either upload the source, or include a written offer to provide the source to ANY THIRD PARTY; assuming download.com would qualify as non-commercial redistribution, then they redistribute your offer (technically, "the information [they] received as to the offer".
Note that this does not apply if someone modifies the program. In that case, they're responsible for providing the source code (as modified), not you. You're only responsible for providing the source code for the version you released.
If they're required to distribute under GPL (because it includes code they didn't write themselves that was already under the GPL), then either they had to give you the source code to you, or they had to provide you with a written offer to give to any third party the source code at a later date (within three years) at no more than the actual cost of making a copy.
You can redistribute the binary if you either provide the source yourself, provide your own written offer, or provide the info on how to get the source code from the person who gave you the written offer. If you didn't receive a written offer from them because they gave you the source code and you no longer have it, you can't make copies of and distribute the binary. If they didn't give you source code and didn't provide you with a written offer, they are in violation of the GPL.
I don't understand your objection regarding undistributed GPL programs. If it is undistributed, how did you get a copy of it, along with source code or a written offer?
From the GPL, regarding binary distributions:
a. Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b. Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c. Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Isn't an investment simply an assumption of risk? Shorting a stock isn't any different from borrowing some money from the bank and buying a stock. You're still the one at risk, and you have to pay interest on the money you borrowed.
If you are holding a long position in 100 shares of a company when things start looking bad, you can short 50 shares, hence halving your losses, but also your eventual profits in the short term.
That doesn't make any sense. If you have 100 shares, why would you borrow 50 more shares so you can sell it, only to have to buy them back later. Why wouldn't you just sell 50 shares of your own, then you don't have to pay interest on the borrowed shares.
Linksys sells a "Wireless Gaming Adapter" and a "Wireless Ethernet Bridge". They are basically identical, other than the form factor. I suppose the "Gaming Adapter" might run a little hotter, and might fail more often if left on continuously, but I bet the main reason they think they can get away with the $100 price differential ($179 for the WET, $79 currently for the WGA at Best Buy) is that people will think that connecting their workstation to the office wireless network with a "Gaming Adapter" would be wrong somehow.
Of course, the really dumb part of their pricing is that the wireless routers they sell are even cheaper and have a lot more hardware. 1 Ethernet port for the WAN side, 4 more switched ports on the LAN side - yet the things are cheaper even than a router that is basically identical except it doesn't have any wireless at all (I saw an 802.11g router at Best Buy for $60 after a $10 rebate - the 802.11b models are even cheaper, around $35-40 now).
67 tons of plutonium is a cube about 5 feet on a side (though I'd guess you wouldn't want to store it that way...). Not much volume in itself, but how dispersed does it have to be?
4 million liters is a lot, though, a cube 52 feet on a side, or 35 truckloads of 10 ft x 10 ft x 40 ft. (30-52 tanker cars full, with capacity of 20,000-34,500 gallons).
Additionally, how do they pronounce "boot"? Maybe that's part of the problem with understanding how Americans hear it?
I know I've heard Canadians (sorry, no idea where in Canada they were from) say "about" in a noticeably different way. Of course, with the South Park exaggeration in mind, it made it sound a lot funnier than it would have otherwise.
You don't need to keep a complete log of how the original image became the published version. You only need the original image so you have something to check to see (subjectively) if their was distortion in the final product. That can be done simply by looking at the two, without any details of how part of it was lightened, a little red eye removed, cropped and rotated, etc. The original shows "the truth".
You can put the private key in a tamper-evident chip - the chip must still be intact for it to be used as evidence; the public key should also be signed by the manufacturer.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, "the information". Just guessing that they have it and asking for it doesn't seem to be sufficient, at least based on the two references in the GPL FAQ that I gave you. In other words, the "written offer" could be "send mail to P.O. Box 6125 and ask for offer #23, include a check for $9.95 made out to "GPL Source Code Offer #23" and indicate request ID is 0x12AB3354."
I said The GPL does say that access to the source when downloading a binary must be "the same place" and "equivalent access". You're right, I left off that I was referring to a 3a distribution only, if you reject the FAQ's notion that you can't do 3b distribution via FTP.
Regarding 3a, what I meant was that if I sell you a binary release on CD for $20, can I also charge you an additional $20 for the source CD (which you can decline if you wish)? What if the source is on 20 CDs, can I charge you $400 for the source? Can I provide the binary on CD and the source on (lots of) floppy disks? The FAQ says you can charge a fee for downloading, why wouldn't that apply to charging a fee for physical media? For the downloading, what it sounds like is that I can charge $x per megabyte, and as long as I provide the same access (same charge per megabyte) to the source, it counts as a distribution under 3a. So I just inflate the size of the source distribution by including all sorts of junk (Linksys tarball for WRT54G is 179 MB, compared to 3 MB for the image). That's why I question the "for the same fee" wording in the FAQ.
If I can charge you a different amount for "binary + source" than "binary (but I offered you source and you didn't want it)", and both fall under 3a (thus no written offer, no obligation to provide source in the future), then that seems to defeat the purpose. I definitely agree that you can charge one price for "binary + source" and another for "binary + written offer", and the price you charge for either is arbitrary (except for the fulfillment of the written offer). My question is if you can charge for the source required by 3a separately from the charge for the binary, it seems to me that if you do that you haven't "provide the source code with the binary distribution", and thus if they don't take you up on it, that's a 3b distribution and now they (and anyone else) can get the source from you at cost. Note that's distinctly different from the download situation where providing the source "in the same place" and "equivalent access" counts as having distributed the source even if they chose not to get a copy of the source.
WET54gv2 appears to be using a uClinux kernel, on an ARM processor. Released source is for firmware version 2.07, 2.10 image still shows it is uClinux, but source isn't available online.
I don't have a Windows machine, so I can't look at the WET54g firmware (distributed only as a .exe), version 2.06. WET54gs doesn't have downloadable firmware yet. WGA doesn't, either.
Regarding who can execute the "written offer", from the GPL FAQ (also see this later question) seems to clearly indicate that you must have a copy of the written offer (or at least, "the information you received as to the offer"). Yes, 3c applies, not 3b. 3b applies to the party creating the written offer. 3c is what defines what additional parties receive as to a written offer, and thus defines the maximum requirement for being able to receive the sources (from the original 3b party). I'm just explaining why I worded it as "the information you received as to the offer" as opposed to "the written offer" - you may not have the written offer if you weren't the original recipient under 3b.
Again from the GPL FAQ, the mail order interpretation (you must, if requested, provide the requested source on physical media posted through the mail) seems at odds with the actual language of the GPL which merely requires the source to be provided on "customary media". Like, 500 floppy disks (and I get to charge you for the labor to copy all those disks). Or, how about punch cards or paper tape, traditional AND customary!
The GPL does say that access to the source when downloading a binary must be "the same place" and "equivalent access", but the FAQ says that putting in a link to another web/ftp site is either probably or definitely OK (latter link is also the one that claims that you can't distribute under 3b via anonymous FTP). However, I had always interpreted the 3a rule as not allowing an additional charge for the source code, while the interpretation seems to be that you can not charge more for the source than you did for the binary (based on size? A 1MB binary and 125MB source (including entire tool chain, compiler, library sources, etc) could make the cost for the source prohibitive. Or do they mean that if you charged $20 for the binary, you can't charge more than $20 for the sources, even if the sources take up 100 times as much space).
I'm looking at this from the viewpoint of someone trying to sell GPL software as if it was proprietary, making it as inconvenient and expensive for the average person to download the sources and pass them on, and attempt to prevent copying and redistribution of the binary as well, and see if the GPL properly blocks such attempts or if there are loopholes that should be fixed.
BTW, I hadn't seen the GPL quiz before. I took it cold and missed 1 question (LGPL and reverse engineering). Despite getting all the others correct, I still disagree with one of them (# 6, regarding fulfilling the written offer by providing the source for download - "but not everyone has access to the internet" is no more valid than "but not everyone has a CD-ROM drive" - if I'm on the ISS, mailing me a CD-ROM isn't going to do me much good).
Why, from the GPL itself. 3 c:
The form of the written offer is not specified by the GPL. "The information" could well be required to determine what source you are entitled to. I'm pretty sure I've seen an opinion from the FSF that the written offer is only valid for people who have received a copy of that written offer (or, as they put it "the information you received as to the offer"), so it would seem legitimate to require confirmation that you have said information, such as a password, or maybe an MD5 hash of the binary that the source corresponds to.Most of the rest of the message that you had problems with was exploring the logical consequence of claiming that a restriction such as terminating a subscription for exercising your rights under the GPL is not a violation of the GPL. In other words, I don't think that any of those things are allowable, but if the termination is allowable (under some nebulous "that's not a restriction since you can still redistribute under the GPL" idea), then those other restrictions I hypothesized would seem to be similar.
I do think that the "written offer" part isn't very well defined. I know that the GPL FAQ seems to think it means "mail order", but I don't see any mention of that in the GPL. The FAQ also asserts that if you distribute via anonymous FTP, you MUST provide the sources - I don't see why you can't provide a written offer on the FTP site (or as part of the downloaded binary file). There's also no requirement as to what type of media must be used to distribute the source. It ought to require that the source be distributed in the same medium as the binaries were released OR in another format acceptable to the requester.
I said Can they require you to have registered the binary program with them previously (along with that agreement earlier that you'll pay $150)? and you responded No, that would be an additional restriction. The requirement for "no additional restrictions" is on the rights of the person to whom I've distributed to. That wouldn't be a restriction on those re-distribution rights, that would be a restriction on the ability to receive the source code. They only say you can't charge more than your cost for the written copy, they don't say you can't require anything else, which was the point of my last few hypotheticals.
I'm not confused about the GPL, though there are a few points that are unclear. I've been an avid student of the GPL for at least 6 years, I've read the GPL FAQ numerous times. I've vehemently disagreed with a few of the FSF's interpretations.
The configuration screens for both products (as described in the manuals) are identical. I didn't see any difference in what they can do. The WAP products can act as repeaters, bridges or access points (repeater/bridge only with the same product), but I didn't see any such options for the WET.
So the WGA isn't running a Linux kernel inside? The user manuals for both show identical configuration and feature settings, it seems it would be a total waste to have completely different programming for each. The WET source is available for download, the WGA is not.
Others have pointed out two hardware differences I hadn't noticed: PoE and different antenna.
Thanks for the detailed info.
You can charge whatever you want for a source distribution, or a source + binary distribution. The only thing you are required to charge "at cost" for is when fulfilling the "written offer" made when making a binary-only distribution, and the only version of the source you're required to provide in that case is the version that matches the binary you received.
I'm not restricting your right to vote for someone other than Bush. I'm just going to impose a "consequence" if you don't. You're free to vote for someone else if you don't mind being shot. But you still have all your freedoms. "impose a consequence if you do X" is, indeed, a restriction on X.
A compilation copyright would seem to make sense in this case. I wouldn't think the selection of packages would be protectable in itself, though, as that's purely functional (and to the extent that together they form a whole, I'd think that the whole would then need to be licensed under the GPL as well). Cosmetic aspects, such as the layout of directories (beyond what the individual packages require), graphical elements, etc. could all be copyrighted or contribute to a compilation copyright. It might also not meet the "mere aggregation" test of the GPL. Regardless, all it really means is you can't make a verbatim copy of the CD, just as you can't necessarily make a copy of a book just because it has a Linux CD distributed with it.
No, you can't distribute the code because of the NDA, not because of the GPL. GPL clause 7 would only kick in if the NDA allowed some distribution, but not in the manner required by the GPL. Say, for example, the NDA said you could distribute the binary, but not the source. Then the GPL says you can't even distribute the binary, since the GPL requires you to distribute the source.
The Sveasoft restriction on distribution doesn't affect the GPL itself. You still have rights to distribute source and binary without restricting rights of the people to whom you distribute. Thus, clause 7 doesn't apply. Sveasoft is the one violating the GPL, not you. They are bound by the GPL (because they are distributing GPL software), and thus they are not allowed to restrict your rights under the GPL. Terminating the subscription if you distribute is such a restriction. If they put that condition into some other agreement, that would be fine, but this agreement is is specifically setting the terms of distribution of GPL software, and so must conform to what the GPL says. In other words, I think I could accept if they terminated support and access to the forums, but not if they terminate ability to access the software itself. No, the GPL doesn't require access to updated versions, but it doesn't allow you to make access to the software conditional on obeying additional restrictions or agreeing not to exercise your rights, so if you're allowing access on a subscription basis, you can't terminate it for exercising your rights under the GPL.
Otherwise, I could just sell software as if it was proprietary, and part of the license agreement is that you agree to pay me $50,000 if you exercise your rights under the GPL (such as ask for the source code or redistribute the binary). Here's the sample "written offer" required by the GPL: "You can request the source code from [ ... ], for a charge of $25. However, as a condition of buying this program, you agreed to also pay a penalty of $50,000 if you do so."
Correct, but if they have sold you a subscription for updates, they do have an obligation, and since they are bound by the GPL (having distributed GPL software), the terms of the subscription service must be compatible with the GPL.
A support agreement that doesn't include distribution of GPL software could indeed have penalty/termination clauses based on whether you "improperly" distributed GPL software, but that wouldn't affect the subscription service for updates.
When distributing source code with a binary distribution, you can not charge more for the source under method (a) of the GPL. You can price discriminate between "the version with the source code" and "the version with the written offer", but then you've just triggered the requirement to provide the source code at cost to anyone for a period of three years. The primary advantage of the binary + source distribution method is that you have no further obligation (under the GPL), so it doesn't make sense to do both.
In summary, either you provide the source code for no additional cost, OR you provide the source code to anyone at your cost for three years.
The GPL covers distribution. They are distributing. The GPL applies to them to the extent they try to restrict distribution by others. Imposing a cost on others to redistribute is a restriction.
They can sell a source-code CD for anything they like, as long as they don't attempt to restrict further distribution of it. They can sell "binary version + source" for anything they like, as long as there are no additional restrictions on further distribution. They can sell "binary version + written offer", as long as they honor that written offer for anyone for a period of three year, and don't charge more than cost, and don't restrict redistribution of the binary or the sources or (presumably, or it doesn't make sense) the information from the written offer on how to get the sources. Imposing a cost (such as terminating a subscription, refusing to allow you to buy another version or subscription (or charging a discriminatory price) for no other reason than you having exercised your rights is such a restriction. They are bound by the GPL by the act of distributing GPL software, thus the terms of service of the subscription must honor the GPL and allow redistribution with no penalty or other restriction.
It is a restriction on the exercise of my rights. I exercise my rights, and you impose a cost on me for exercising my rights under the GPL. You might as well say I owe you $100,000 for exercising my rights.
As for RHN, their license seems pretty clear. You can't pay them to support 1 machine and expect them to support the problems of 100 machines. You can't use your service contract "for the benefit of" anyone else. To the extent that this term would prevent you from being able to copy, modify or redistribute the code, it shouldn't apply.
How does Red Hat provide the source code for subscribers? Are the changes propagated anywhere else? What's the time frame from providing a patched version for subscribers and making the changed sources available to everyone?
I think if the FSF wants to allow such restrictions, it should include what restrictions are allowed in the GPL. For example, it may say that adding restrictions on redistribution is OK as long as it can be freely redistributed (all restrictions eliminated) after a certain amount of time.
Actually, to request the sources, you must have the information from the written offer they gave to the person to whom they didn't provide source code. That written offer could, for instance, contain a password that is required to get the source, and that password could uniquely identify the person who passed it along.
However, I believe, as others have stated, that cutting off a subscription, or taking any other negative action against someone for the mere act of requesting sources or redistributing the source, the written offer, MD5 checksums, or the binaries is a "further restriction" that the GPL doesn't allow. "You can copy the source or the binary or the written offer, but if you do [ you lose your subscription; you have to pay me $50,000 ]" - how is that not a further restriction on redistribution?
Here's an example of how to totally blow off the GPL:
Sell for really cheap a CD with a Linux installer on it for a nice distribution. The CD is in a case that has a seal saying "this is GPL software - you may request the source code by for this product by using the information on the enclosed written offer - you agree to pay $150 for each such copy requested with the enclosed offer." When you run the installer, it connects to your server and puts up a click-through license that takes the user's name, address, credit card information and requires the user to authorize a $5 charge to install Linux, and $150 for each use of the enclosed "written offer" for the source code (and make it really clear that you don't need to get the source code, and that if you don't get the source code you won't be charged anything - that's to calm the fears of Joe Average). Require the "product activation key" that is part of the written offer. Generously allow re-installation using the same key without charging anything else.
If the user, or anyone that gets the activation key, requests the source code, you start raking in the $150 charges (so much for "only the cost of copying").
Of course, there are ways around it. Once you receive a copy of the source, you can change it, redistribute it, etc. However, there will be plenty of average people who will get suckered by this, and effectively be prevented from getting the source code or re-distributing the binary (since the binary is useless without the activation code, and letting someone else use the activation code will put you at risk for an unlimited number of $150 charges). That is presumably not what the people who own the copyright and put it under GPL had in mind.
Another loophole is what the "written offer" can require of you. It seems legitimate to require you to call a telephone number, go to a Web or FTP site, mail a letter - but in what form can they require payment? What if the telephone number you're required to call is a 900 number? Can they require you to enter a password, as I asserted earlier? Can they require you to prove Fermat's Last Theorem or factor a 4096-bit number as part of the process of getting the source? Can they require you to have registered the binary program with them previously (along with that agreement earlier that you'll pay $150)?
I don't agree, and if the FSF does think this, I'd like to see the reasoning. Saying "You can distribute this, but if you do [ something negative will happen to you ]" is a "further restriction". Terminating your rights under a subscription seems no different in principle from saying "and you'll owe us $50,000 if you do distribute it.".
Actually, only the person(s) who hold copyright on the GPL code you uploaded can force you to release the source code (and, actually, they can't force you to release the source code, though the consequences of not releasing it may be more than you want to deal with). If you're the sole author of the code, no one can force you to do anything with it (although if you didn't want to release the source code, why did you pretend to put it under the GPL?).
Assuming you're not the sole author, you were required to either upload the source, or include a written offer to provide the source to ANY THIRD PARTY; assuming download.com would qualify as non-commercial redistribution, then they redistribute your offer (technically, "the information [they] received as to the offer".
Note that this does not apply if someone modifies the program. In that case, they're responsible for providing the source code (as modified), not you. You're only responsible for providing the source code for the version you released.
If they're required to distribute under GPL (because it includes code they didn't write themselves that was already under the GPL), then either they had to give you the source code to you, or they had to provide you with a written offer to give to any third party the source code at a later date (within three years) at no more than the actual cost of making a copy.
You can redistribute the binary if you either provide the source yourself, provide your own written offer, or provide the info on how to get the source code from the person who gave you the written offer. If you didn't receive a written offer from them because they gave you the source code and you no longer have it, you can't make copies of and distribute the binary. If they didn't give you source code and didn't provide you with a written offer, they are in violation of the GPL.
I don't understand your objection regarding undistributed GPL programs. If it is undistributed, how did you get a copy of it, along with source code or a written offer?
Isn't an investment simply an assumption of risk? Shorting a stock isn't any different from borrowing some money from the bank and buying a stock. You're still the one at risk, and you have to pay interest on the money you borrowed.
That doesn't make any sense. If you have 100 shares, why would you borrow 50 more shares so you can sell it, only to have to buy them back later. Why wouldn't you just sell 50 shares of your own, then you don't have to pay interest on the borrowed shares.
Linksys sells a "Wireless Gaming Adapter" and a "Wireless Ethernet Bridge". They are basically identical, other than the form factor. I suppose the "Gaming Adapter" might run a little hotter, and might fail more often if left on continuously, but I bet the main reason they think they can get away with the $100 price differential ($179 for the WET, $79 currently for the WGA at Best Buy) is that people will think that connecting their workstation to the office wireless network with a "Gaming Adapter" would be wrong somehow.
Of course, the really dumb part of their pricing is that the wireless routers they sell are even cheaper and have a lot more hardware. 1 Ethernet port for the WAN side, 4 more switched ports on the LAN side - yet the things are cheaper even than a router that is basically identical except it doesn't have any wireless at all (I saw an 802.11g router at Best Buy for $60 after a $10 rebate - the 802.11b models are even cheaper, around $35-40 now).
67 tons of plutonium is a cube about 5 feet on a side (though I'd guess you wouldn't want to store it that way ...). Not much volume in itself, but how dispersed does it have to be?
4 million liters is a lot, though, a cube 52 feet on a side, or 35 truckloads of 10 ft x 10 ft x 40 ft. (30-52 tanker cars full, with capacity of 20,000-34,500 gallons).
Additionally, how do they pronounce "boot"? Maybe that's part of the problem with understanding how Americans hear it?
I know I've heard Canadians (sorry, no idea where in Canada they were from) say "about" in a noticeably different way. Of course, with the South Park exaggeration in mind, it made it sound a lot funnier than it would have otherwise.
You don't need to keep a complete log of how the original image became the published version. You only need the original image so you have something to check to see (subjectively) if their was distortion in the final product. That can be done simply by looking at the two, without any details of how part of it was lightened, a little red eye removed, cropped and rotated, etc. The original shows "the truth".
You can put the private key in a tamper-evident chip - the chip must still be intact for it to be used as evidence; the public key should also be signed by the manufacturer.
So if the image is real, you can get away with it by doing a little image manipulation to make the test kick out that it's been manipulated?