BSD licenses can be extended with proprietary additions.
The problem with BSD is that it allows people to extend a body of code in a way that makes that body of code less free as a whole- it's called embrace extend extinguish. They take free software and hijack it with proprietary protocols and manipulation of standards processes for their own gain.
If the market could be trusted to prefer free software on its own the BSD license wouldn't matter. Since people don't demand free software largely because they don't understand what's at stake, it's important for governments not to leave the playing field slanted in favor of corporations who make non-free software. That's what releasing BSD licensed software does.
XML is argued to be a data exchange format, not a data storage format. This article about Linux being a dynamic project has a similarity with treason. It is interesting how liberals now consider the dynamic nature to be the core of interest, instead of the actual tangible aspects. Why do they hate America?
Someone moderated the parent a troll, but I don't see why this is a trollish question- can it work without Mono? Lots of programs are written in several languages, but depend on one for their core functionality. The question isn't "is it all written in Mono", it's "can it work without mono."
I think the real question is, can you use its main functionality without Mono/.NET? I'm sure someone else knows the answer to this, I don't. If the answer is yes, your point is valid. If it's no, your point is misleading and the commentary was fully justified.
Actually, if IBM and Microsoft got into a patent battle, no one would be safe. There are so many intertwining patents, copyrights, trade secrets, etc. that a battle between the two 800 pound gorillas of the tech industry would actually cause people to actually think about what good our current idea ownership system is doing for us.
The defense people offer now is "they're all defensive patents." Well duh. That's because people can use them offensively, and I mean that in both senses of the word.
The entire Free Software movement belies your claims about human nature. Perhaps corporate nature might have a harder time adjusting, but eventually even they'll see the light.
The Gnu/Linux thing is a little irritating though, I agree. But then, the FSF doesn't ask for much. Perhaps they should sell indulgences, where you donate some money to the FSF and they sell you the right to call it whatever you like:)
Actually, the copyright notice does say exactly that. You can't work on any competing system.
The trouble is that this now seems to include describing the functionality of bitkeeper, as opposed to actually reimplementing it. It is because these steps were separated that we have affordable commodity pc hardware today, else IBM's BIOS copyright would have stopped Compaq dead in its tracks some 20 years ago and slashdot posts would be waiting 2 hours for their batch job to run on the Cray.
Yes, they run you as root by default and they've got other problems, but Lindows actually seems to want to be on Compusa shelves, and is more likely to be useful to Compusa's customers.
Redhat was just there because they thought they had to be, not because it was making them any money. Linux won't die from the Compusa shelves if Mr. Robertson moves fast.
McVoy's answer to the proprietariness problem has always been "there's no equivalent free program - if you want one write your own, but we're not GPL'ing bitkeeper." (Note, I'm paraphrasing)
The problem here is that he's saying not only can you not use the bitkeeper code, and not only can you not work on a competing project, but you can't even publish information about what bitkeeper does (i.e., reverse engineer the protocols). This is not "don't use our code", it's Don't mess with our file-format lockin.
Let me repeat that. He's saying "Don't mess with our file format lock-in."
That's what's wrong with Microsoft Word, that's what's wrong with proprietary software in general. He's crossed the line from not sharing with his competitors to actively trying to thwart them from competing with him at all by locking his customers into his secret format. Not sharing is grudgingly acceptable to most; secret file format lock-in is immoral.
Grin... To stretch the analogy, suppose someone claimed that the common cold wasn't viral because you could avoid it by wearing a mask
What if they said it wasn't viral because it uses a little bit of benign copyright application to protect a body of code against truly malignant, embrace-extend-extinguish style copyright application? That sounds much more like a *vaccine* than a virus to me.
What you're saying is like scaring the bejesus out of a little kid who just got a polio vaccine by telling them they just got some polio virus shot into them. Even if technically true, it's highly misleading because you didn't give them the virus, you gave them the vaccine.
And to preempt the "but programmers aren't little kids" argument, they are like little kids in their understanding of copyright law. FUD is real folks.
This is an interesting topic, but the way the submitter phrases it is 100% pure flamebait.
The GPL (and to a lesser extent the LGPL) is a vaccine for the body of free code (a little bit of benign IP law to save us from the ravages of truly malignant IP law), not a disease you catch accidentally.
I think "view source/view xml" might be equivalent/more appropriate. You can do this by firing up your text editor now, since the OO files are just xml files, but putting the feature into the app as a view option would be awesome (assuming it's not already there somewhere- I'm looking forward to trying this as soon as my admin can come around to install it here.)
I admit this is the first time I've heard this argument, and I'm tempted by it.
However, reverse engineering is difficult and expensive because of the strictures of copyright law. Clean room processes and documentation would no longer be necessary.
However, an arms race would probably develop between software companies wanting to keep their modifications of GPL software secret and developers of disassembler/debugger software. This is a problem, albeit much less of a problem than the fear of felony prosecution we have today.
You're basically right, we couldn't twist anyone's arm to give us source without the GPL. But there are two problems with this:
1. If a firm can obfuscate the code sufficiently that you can't reverse engineer it, there's nothing to stop them from obfuscating it so you can't tell it uses GPL software anyway, so there's no way to enforce the GPL anyway.
2. The need for the GPL stems from the ability of people to "own" certain programs. Once copyright vanishes, the need for this defensive mechanism largely disappears- we can roll our own solutions without fear of prosecution; we can probably do so without even having access to the source if we are allowed to hack the binary files.
Finally, if we in fact were in a world where we would consider abolishing copyright law, we might pass a law that requires source code to software to be published without using copyright law to enforce it. That is, the GPL uses copyright law to enforce its requirement that source be distributed, but there's no reason that needs to be so.
You've given me something to think about, but I'm still not convinced. I think you're splitting hairs.
How many more times must we hear this stupid meme?
on
Open Source Law
·
· Score: 1
Slashbots are always quick to condemm copyright law and seldom realize that it is because of copyright law that things like Linux and BSD are able to be what they are.
This statement is highly misleading. It's like saying if it weren't for tyrants we wouldn't have revolutions. Well, f'ing duh! If we didn't have tyrants revolutions wouldn't be necessary!
Copyright law is used by the GPL to protect itself from... drumroll please... copyright law. The parent poster fails to understand this recursive nature of this defense mechanism.
There are no individual inventors tinkering in their garages without corporate sponsorship anymore, except maybe Dean Kamen.
The vast majority of patents are held by coroporations. The inventions of individual inventors are owned by corporations because of an employment agreement or are sold to a corporation for a pittance for fear that the corporation will win any legal battle owing to their superior financial resources, regardless of the merit of their claims.
Individual inventors already are out of business. Make patents non-transferrable and make ip agreements that assign ownership invention to corporations illegal and they'll be back in business.
Slashdot Mirror
Seventh Defense
SCO's claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and unclean hands.
I think the unclean hands part is the "they made new victims by continuing to distribute the software under the GPL" argument.
BSD licenses can be extended with proprietary additions.
The problem with BSD is that it allows people to extend a body of code in a way that makes that body of code less free as a whole- it's called embrace extend extinguish. They take free software and hijack it with proprietary protocols and manipulation of standards processes for their own gain.
If the market could be trusted to prefer free software on its own the BSD license wouldn't matter. Since people don't demand free software largely because they don't understand what's at stake, it's important for governments not to leave the playing field slanted in favor of corporations who make non-free software. That's what releasing BSD licensed software does.
There's another precedent for this, it's called the LIBRARY perhaps the RIAA has heard of it...
I think what you meant to say was:
XML is argued to be a data exchange format, not a data storage format. This article about Linux being a dynamic project has a similarity with treason. It is interesting how liberals now consider the dynamic nature to be the core of interest, instead of the actual tangible aspects. Why do they hate America?
It just has to be good enough to keep consumer behavior in check.
This is kind of like Larry Lessig's point too- if information wants to be free, it doesn't want it all that badly.
Someone moderated the parent a troll, but I don't see why this is a trollish question- can it work without Mono? Lots of programs are written in several languages, but depend on one for their core functionality. The question isn't "is it all written in Mono", it's "can it work without mono."
I think the real question is, can you use its main functionality without Mono/.NET? I'm sure someone else knows the answer to this, I don't. If the answer is yes, your point is valid. If it's no, your point is misleading and the commentary was fully justified.
Actually, if IBM and Microsoft got into a patent battle, no one would be safe. There are so many intertwining patents, copyrights, trade secrets, etc. that a battle between the two 800 pound gorillas of the tech industry would actually cause people to actually think about what good our current idea ownership system is doing for us.
The defense people offer now is "they're all defensive patents." Well duh. That's because people can use them offensively, and I mean that in both senses of the word.
clicking refresh to constantly reload slashdot feels workish
As Dilbert says:
"Quick, get a picture while my forearm is still pumped!"
The entire Free Software movement belies your claims about human nature. Perhaps corporate nature might have a harder time adjusting, but eventually even they'll see the light.
:)
The Gnu/Linux thing is a little irritating though, I agree. But then, the FSF doesn't ask for much. Perhaps they should sell indulgences, where you donate some money to the FSF and they sell you the right to call it whatever you like
Actually, the copyright notice does say exactly that. You can't work on any competing system.
The trouble is that this now seems to include describing the functionality of bitkeeper, as opposed to actually reimplementing it. It is because these steps were separated that we have affordable commodity pc hardware today, else IBM's BIOS copyright would have stopped Compaq dead in its tracks some 20 years ago and slashdot posts would be waiting 2 hours for their batch job to run on the Cray.
Yes, they run you as root by default and they've got other problems, but Lindows actually seems to want to be on Compusa shelves, and is more likely to be useful to Compusa's customers.
Redhat was just there because they thought they had to be, not because it was making them any money. Linux won't die from the Compusa shelves if Mr. Robertson moves fast.
Here's the problem:
McVoy's answer to the proprietariness problem has always been "there's no equivalent free program - if you want one write your own, but we're not GPL'ing bitkeeper." (Note, I'm paraphrasing)
The problem here is that he's saying not only can you not use the bitkeeper code, and not only can you not work on a competing project, but you can't even publish information about what bitkeeper does (i.e., reverse engineer the protocols). This is not "don't use our code", it's Don't mess with our file-format lockin.
Let me repeat that. He's saying "Don't mess with our file format lock-in."
That's what's wrong with Microsoft Word, that's what's wrong with proprietary software in general. He's crossed the line from not sharing with his competitors to actively trying to thwart them from competing with him at all by locking his customers into his secret format. Not sharing is grudgingly acceptable to most; secret file format lock-in is immoral.
A pretty good argument is that armed citizens could defend themselves against a tiranny.
Sadly this is not the case. If it was, bazookas would be legal and sidearms would not.
Btw it's "tyranny", but I feel ya.
Vaccines don't spread ... unless deliberately injected.
The simile is apt.
Grin... To stretch the analogy, suppose someone claimed that the common cold wasn't viral because you could avoid it by wearing a mask
What if they said it wasn't viral because it uses a little bit of benign copyright application to protect a body of code against truly malignant, embrace-extend-extinguish style copyright application? That sounds much more like a *vaccine* than a virus to me.
What you're saying is like scaring the bejesus out of a little kid who just got a polio vaccine by telling them they just got some polio virus shot into them. Even if technically true, it's highly misleading because you didn't give them the virus, you gave them the vaccine.
And to preempt the "but programmers aren't little kids" argument, they are like little kids in their understanding of copyright law. FUD is real folks.
This is an interesting topic, but the way the submitter phrases it is 100% pure flamebait.
The GPL (and to a lesser extent the LGPL) is a vaccine for the body of free code (a little bit of benign IP law to save us from the ravages of truly malignant IP law), not a disease you catch accidentally.
"Linux is cheaper if your time is worthless"
Windows is only $100 if your time is worthless. (Otherwise it's much, much, much more.)
I believe it's just zipped, but you'll have to check the spec.
I think "view source/view xml" might be equivalent/more appropriate. You can do this by firing up your text editor now, since the OO files are just xml files, but putting the feature into the app as a view option would be awesome (assuming it's not already there somewhere- I'm looking forward to trying this as soon as my admin can come around to install it here.)
No kidding, really. This made me grin and chuckle uncontrollably. Way to go.
how could you drive into a garage at 60 miles an hour, stop, unload, and get back out before the next truck, only four inches behind you comes in?
:)
I think in that case you'd have lots of packet collisions
I admit this is the first time I've heard this argument, and I'm tempted by it.
However, reverse engineering is difficult and expensive because of the strictures of copyright law. Clean room processes and documentation would no longer be necessary.
However, an arms race would probably develop between software companies wanting to keep their modifications of GPL software secret and developers of disassembler/debugger software. This is a problem, albeit much less of a problem than the fear of felony prosecution we have today.
You're basically right, we couldn't twist anyone's arm to give us source without the GPL. But there are two problems with this:
1. If a firm can obfuscate the code sufficiently that you can't reverse engineer it, there's nothing to stop them from obfuscating it so you can't tell it uses GPL software anyway, so there's no way to enforce the GPL anyway.
2. The need for the GPL stems from the ability of people to "own" certain programs. Once copyright vanishes, the need for this defensive mechanism largely disappears- we can roll our own solutions without fear of prosecution; we can probably do so without even having access to the source if we are allowed to hack the binary files.
Finally, if we in fact were in a world where we would consider abolishing copyright law, we might pass a law that requires source code to software to be published without using copyright law to enforce it. That is, the GPL uses copyright law to enforce its requirement that source be distributed, but there's no reason that needs to be so.
You've given me something to think about, but I'm still not convinced. I think you're splitting hairs.
Slashbots are always quick to condemm copyright law and seldom realize that it is because of copyright law that things like Linux and BSD are able to be what they are.
This statement is highly misleading. It's like saying if it weren't for tyrants we wouldn't have revolutions. Well, f'ing duh! If we didn't have tyrants revolutions wouldn't be necessary!
Copyright law is used by the GPL to protect itself from... drumroll please... copyright law. The parent poster fails to understand this recursive nature of this defense mechanism.
There are no individual inventors tinkering in their garages without corporate sponsorship anymore, except maybe Dean Kamen.
The vast majority of patents are held by coroporations. The inventions of individual inventors are owned by corporations because of an employment agreement or are sold to a corporation for a pittance for fear that the corporation will win any legal battle owing to their superior financial resources, regardless of the merit of their claims.
Individual inventors already are out of business. Make patents non-transferrable and make ip agreements that assign ownership invention to corporations illegal and they'll be back in business.