"Firefly" I do not care about, and agree with the cancellation decision: I could barely watch 1/2 hour of the pilot.
Which is rather a shame, since the pilto episode they showed was really not a great episode.
Sorry. It's sounds like I'm being an apologist here, and it may turn out that you'd have hated it anyway, but judging by that episode isn't really fair.
We're quite happy not to have major movies on TV. We're not even going to nootivce their absense. The movie studios will probably lose out. I can't actually see a situation in which allowing broadcast without broadcast flag will provide a lower revenue than not allowing broadcast at all. Perhaps I simply don't understand the adance hyperdynamic accountancy calculations they use.
A heavy object would fall faster than a light object
The speed of falling for a given object was constant.
These were so obvious people thought that they were true.
Galileo tested the first hypothesisby dropping two objects off a tall tower, and the second by rolling a ball down a slope past a some bells spaced at regular intervals. Both these obvious facts were proved false.
Before the internet, large scale copyright infringment was impractical unless the person copying was making a profit. Hence there are a lot of laws on the books that are intended to deal with commercial infringement rather than file sharing. However, the record industry brings suits under these laws.
Since these laws were clearly not intended to cover not-for-profit file sharing, should the judge interpret them by the letter of the law, or consider the intent of the law?
Just shoehorn The Dark Crystal into Star Wars mythology. We've already got muppets, and a young hero on a quest. We just need a special edition with a couple of lightsaber fights.
Given the quality of a lot of the voice acting, I have to agree. But sometimes it works, and sometimes it makes a difference. Max Payne did well, and decent voice acting is a major point in graphic adventures (such as Monkey Island).
Well, Sony are one of the partners in the project.
But even if they weren't, any company that buys several million units of any product has a certain say in the matter.
I suspect they don't mind. the cell was never expected to bea proprietry trade secret. Sony use their own software to prevent people developing for thir console.
The only possible flaw with this plan is that the percentages add up to more than %100 percent, meaning that there would be an actual loss of profit, but I think the 'artist' could kick in an make up for that loss since they started this whole thing.
Absolutely. After all, they're the ones that benefit from it.
The GPL covers all associated works, not just modifications of the code and extends this requirement to the entirity of Larger works that contains in whole or in part the code.
Most commerical licences don't do this.
Many open source licences (including the MPL) require modifications to the code to be published but don't extend this requirement to the entirity of Larger works that contains in whole or in part the code.
This prevents use of other libraries.
This is the intent.
I think this causes unfair limitations. We don't accept them so don't use GPL code.
The apple licence you mentioned. The Mozilla Public Licence.
The resulting work is a derived work and as a simple result covered by copyright.
Yes, but the third party library isn't a derived work. The new product is a derived work of the GPL source, the third party library and other code.
You cannot create a derived work without permission of the author of the work you are deriving from. Whatever components you mix for creating the derived work is irrelevant, you need permission from the authors of all the original work that you use for it.
Yes, I know.
Please explain WHY it is an issue for you, you have been pretty clear that you consider it an issue (or love wasting your time discussing non-issues, which I find somewhat hard to believe), no WHY is it an issue?
Because I consider it wrong to pursue an agenda in this manner, and I consider it important that people realise that the GPL is a lot less free when compared with other source licences rather than EULAs.
No, the PL does not offer absolute freedom, it does not offer freedom that no other license offers, but what it does is offering preservation of that freedom.
A freedom that other similar licences preserve without removing the freedom to link to non-GPL code.
The GPL covers unrelated code only for as far as copyright considers it a derived work.
No it doesn't. Other libraries that we link to are not derived in any way from the GPL source.
It is not an issue for those who use the GPL, you don't use the GPL so it cannot possibly be a real issue for you.
It is an issue for me. And I don't use the GPL. There are a lot of political viewpoints and actions that I will argue against that do not affect me.
There are a few that give more freedom, there are quite a few that contain similar or more restrictive conditions (ie, the ones from Sun and Apple)
As far as I understand the Apple one, it only applies to the code and modifications made to the code. It does not apply to larger works that merely contain the code as a small portion.
So what is your problem then? I keep repeating it because it seems you don't want to take the consequences of the choices you made
1. That the GPL advocates are mistaken when they claim that the GPL offers freedoms that other licences don't.
2. That the GPL covers unrelated code. While I accept that authors have the legal right to do this if they choose, it strikes me as bad form to actively restrict use of other libraries.
Whether we use the code or not, these issues will still be there.
The freedom to use third party libraries with my code!
And your argument started out with wanting to use Linux but having found out that you can't because of the GPL, well, it seems pretty clear that your argument is not one that has anything to do with a real situation that you encountered, and everything with an anti GPL agenda.
No it didn't. It started off by pointing out that the GPL is less free than many source licences, and is unusual in that it is deliberately incompatible.
Again, if you don't like it, don't use it. There is NO need whatsoever to try to make the GPL people aware of your issue, they are aware of it, and it exists on purpose.
Yes. They deliberately created licencing incompatibilities. This is why we don't use it. I'm just pointing out that if they really want their code to be used then they'll use a different licence. This they have an agenda to push, we'll simply ignore them.
Why do you kjeep parrotting the "if you don't like it don't use it" mantra? We don't like it, so we don't use it.
Again, you are not informed well (besides seemingly unable to grasp that the people who believe strongly in the GPL do not even want to solve your problem, it is YOUR problem, not theirs)
It's a problem they deliberately created. Thanks guys. Why did they create this problem? To prevent me from using non GPLed code? If so then any claims that it doesn't take away freedoms are untrue.
Now for something else, if you are talking about libraries, those are often written by a small number of people, who may even be organiyed in a company or other organisation. You may find that in many cases you can get this exact same library with a different license from that group, just that you will have to pay a price still.
Yes. If you take the other licence, they're not under the GPL anymore are they?
The point is that it is quite possible to integrate a binary only component in an otherwise GPLed system, unlike what you have been claiming so far.
It's possible to incorporate a non-GPLed module in Linux, because Linus says it is. The GPL is not clear on this matter. Neither is copyright law.
Then don't pay the price and get something more suitable.
Yes. That's what we do. I merely point out that people could choose another licence that allows the use of third party code under a different licence. The ramifications of using the GPL means that you create potential conflicts.
You seem to really have trouble with that eh?
No. You seem to be missing the point. In this case, my point is that the GPL terms bar the use of unrelated libraries.
wrt the kernel modules, nvidia is one exanple. Go look at what Linksysdoes with their routers and the modules for the broadcom ethernet switch and wireless hardware, there are many more examples.
What do they do? Looks like they use some software under the GPL. So what's the point? More kernel modules under Linux? Fair enough. If we ever want to release a closed source driver for Linux then we'll keep that in mind.
We have an application. Lets say an animation utility.
We use a prorietry Codec for output. This is a library we link to at compile time.
We see some GPL code. Lets say a scripting language. We see how it would be useful.
We embed the scripting language into our application. We release the source for the application. We don't release the source for the codec because we don't have the source. We are in violation of the GPL. Shame really. Our application could have been quite useful if the codec was replaced by a free one. Just needs an open source codec.
We lose out on the scripting language.
The community loses out on a fairly handy scriptable animation tool.
This is just a hypothetical example since I'm not sure how you could make a profit from open sourcing this, or why you'd want to use a GPL'ed scripting language, but I hope it illustrates the point.
But it seems that all the GPL advocates can consider us doing is taking a complete GPL application and making small changes to it. It doesn't seem to occur to any of you that we have a complete application that we might want to add GPL components to.
You might say that it infringes on your freedom to take e.g. my code, package it with YourCorp brand and sell it. I get 0, you get everything.
We have that right. Red Hat makes a pretty succesful business from it. That's not the problem. It infringes on my right to use linbraries that are not GPL licenced.
The point which you are arguing is to prevent thefts such as those which I just described. Therefore it is not correct for you to just take a GPL application and modify certain pieces of it and then call it your own. The GPL applies to derivative works. This I think is your biggest problem here.
We don't want to do this. Nothing of the sort. We want to take a GPL application and incorporate it into a much larger application. An application that we are perfectly happy to open source, but it links to closed source libraries which we do not have the right to distribute the source for.
Or write your own stuff with your own time and sweat and blood, and release it with a license which grants me the freedoms you want from GPL code.
You can get whatever freedoms you ask for with our software if you buy our hardware. This is limitted to our own software, and does not include third party libraries that are included.
I don't want you to start using GPL code if it doesn't suit you. But please stop pretending that you want something different, that the license is at fault, when there is nothing wrong with the license, you would just like to use it in a way against the very spirit and purpose of the license; you would like to be a vulture eating away the fruits of labor and contribute nothing - you would become a parasitic entity.
The licences demands that unrelated libraries are also tied into the obligations. The nature of the licence is that I am barred from using other third party code. I believe this is deliberate. I consider this to show the GPL authors overvalue their creations. The price is too high. I often complain about high prices. Sometimes people listen and lower them.
I don't think this is a flaw in the licence, since this appears to be the purpose. I disagree with the philosophy behind it.
Hmm yes... that is why I can use a machine with nvidia video hardware, running Linux with a non GPLed nvidia kernel module for example.
Yes, but what's that got to do with anything? The reason they can do this is that Linus believes that this is not a part of the work. The existence of closed source modules have created controversy.
It's possible that we could link to a closed source library if we modify the open source application to accept loadable modules. Or perhaps not. Quite frankly we don't want to go anywhere near that minefield.
If you don't own the patent then well, that is not going to work, but in that case you may find that the GPL is not unique, it is a consequence of using a patented algorithm.
I don't know of any other licence that prevents us from using unrelated patented algorithms. Certainly none of the ones covering software we use.
You seem to still not understand that this is all about choices. If you make choices incompatible with the GPL then that is your problem, not that of the GPL.
But the GPL is especially written to force people to make this choice. Many other licences do not have this problem, except when it comes to the GPL. They are aware of other licences and philosophies. They accomodate them as much as possible. The GPL effectively says that if I want to use this code, it must be licenced under the GPL. The other licence does not say if I use GPLed code, it must be licenced under a different licence. It makes no demands of other code at all, apart from as a direct result of the licence of the other code.
You are free to do whatever you want, but if you are going to distribute what you built using a GPLed work then you have to comply with the GPL in many cases. You have a choice to use something else.
Yes. I have this choice with every licence. I don't see where I'm getting all this freedom you're providing me with. I already had the freedom before I touched the GPL code.
I know what we can and can't do with GPLed code. I have no issue with that. we simply don't use it. What I have an issue with is that it dictates what we must do with other code, and then its advocates (and the licence itself) claims to provide freedoms. As a source code licence, it's no more free than most other source code licences. In some ways it's less so.
Slashdot Mirror
"Firefly" I do not care about, and agree with the cancellation decision: I could barely watch 1/2 hour of the pilot.
Which is rather a shame, since the pilto episode they showed was really not a great episode.
Sorry. It's sounds like I'm being an apologist here, and it may turn out that you'd have hated it anyway, but judging by that episode isn't really fair.
I don't think it is just you.
We're quite happy not to have major movies on TV. We're not even going to nootivce their absense. The movie studios will probably lose out. I can't actually see a situation in which allowing broadcast without broadcast flag will provide a lower revenue than not allowing broadcast at all. Perhaps I simply don't understand the adance hyperdynamic accountancy calculations they use.
Everyone assumed that:
- A heavy object would fall faster than a light object
- The speed of falling for a given object was constant.
These were so obvious people thought that they were true.Galileo tested the first hypothesisby dropping two objects off a tall tower, and the second by rolling a ball down a slope past a some bells spaced at regular intervals. Both these obvious facts were proved false.
Well, it depends.
Before the internet, large scale copyright infringment was impractical unless the person copying was making a profit. Hence there are a lot of laws on the books that are intended to deal with commercial infringement rather than file sharing. However, the record industry brings suits under these laws.
Since these laws were clearly not intended to cover not-for-profit file sharing, should the judge interpret them by the letter of the law, or consider the intent of the law?
I'm taking notes here. There's lots of good stuff to really get under people's skin:)
Just shoehorn The Dark Crystal into Star Wars mythology. We've already got muppets, and a young hero on a quest. We just need a special edition with a couple of lightsaber fights.
Given the quality of a lot of the voice acting, I have to agree. But sometimes it works, and sometimes it makes a difference. Max Payne did well, and decent voice acting is a major point in graphic adventures (such as Monkey Island).
I mean, if you have relfective nano structures, then surely it's obvbious that you're going to use them for a multi-level optical disc.
Shame nobody ever patented the concept of a "plurality". They could get royalties for every patent ever.
True. I mapped the rear side button to the middle button for that reason. Their other mice don't have this problem.
Well, Sony are one of the partners in the project.
But even if they weren't, any company that buys several million units of any product has a certain say in the matter.
I suspect they don't mind. the cell was never expected to bea proprietry trade secret. Sony use their own software to prevent people developing for thir console.
The only possible flaw with this plan is that the percentages add up to more than %100 percent, meaning that there would be an actual loss of profit, but I think the 'artist' could kick in an make up for that loss since they started this whole thing.
Absolutely. After all, they're the ones that benefit from it.
Unless you found some very fast new way of factoring primes, that'd take a very long time to crack
I have. The factors of a prime, are the prime, and 1.
(And I know what you meant. I just couldn't resist)
If I replace GPL with MPL in the above statement, nothing changes except that everywhere where it says GPL now, it will say MPL.
The MPL only covers modifications to MPL code. Not a complete work. Under the GPL, I must supply source for B and C, whereas under the MPL, I do not.
I am anti GPL.
The GPL covers all associated works, not just modifications of the code and extends this requirement to the entirity of Larger works that contains in whole or in part the code.
Most commerical licences don't do this.
Many open source licences (including the MPL) require modifications to the code to be published but don't extend this requirement to the entirity of Larger works that contains in whole or in part the code.
This prevents use of other libraries.
This is the intent.
I think this causes unfair limitations. We don't accept them so don't use GPL code.
Name any.
The apple licence you mentioned. The Mozilla Public Licence.
The resulting work is a derived work and as a simple result covered by copyright.
Yes, but the third party library isn't a derived work. The new product is a derived work of the GPL source, the third party library and other code.
You cannot create a derived work without permission of the author of the work you are deriving from. Whatever components you mix for creating the derived work is irrelevant, you need permission from the authors of all the original work that you use for it.
Yes, I know.
Please explain WHY it is an issue for you, you have been pretty clear that you consider it an issue (or love wasting your time discussing non-issues, which I find somewhat hard to believe), no WHY is it an issue?
Because I consider it wrong to pursue an agenda in this manner, and I consider it important that people realise that the GPL is a lot less free when compared with other source licences rather than EULAs.
No, the PL does not offer absolute freedom, it does not offer freedom that no other license offers, but what it does is offering preservation of that freedom.
A freedom that other similar licences preserve without removing the freedom to link to non-GPL code.
The GPL covers unrelated code only for as far as copyright considers it a derived work.
No it doesn't. Other libraries that we link to are not derived in any way from the GPL source.
It is not an issue for those who use the GPL, you don't use the GPL so it cannot possibly be a real issue for you.
It is an issue for me. And I don't use the GPL. There are a lot of political viewpoints and actions that I will argue against that do not affect me.
There are a few that give more freedom, there are quite a few that contain similar or more restrictive conditions (ie, the ones from Sun and Apple)
As far as I understand the Apple one, it only applies to the code and modifications made to the code. It does not apply to larger works that merely contain the code as a small portion.
So what is your problem then? I keep repeating it because it seems you don't want to take the consequences of the choices you made
1. That the GPL advocates are mistaken when they claim that the GPL offers freedoms that other licences don't.
2. That the GPL covers unrelated code. While I accept that authors have the legal right to do this if they choose, it strikes me as bad form to actively restrict use of other libraries.
Whether we use the code or not, these issues will still be there.
So what freedom does it take away?
The freedom to use third party libraries with my code!
And your argument started out with wanting to use Linux but having found out that you can't because of the GPL, well, it seems pretty clear that your argument is not one that has anything to do with a real situation that you encountered, and everything with an anti GPL agenda.
No it didn't. It started off by pointing out that the GPL is less free than many source licences, and is unusual in that it is deliberately incompatible.
Again, if you don't like it, don't use it. There is NO need whatsoever to try to make the GPL people aware of your issue, they are aware of it, and it exists on purpose.
Yes. They deliberately created licencing incompatibilities. This is why we don't use it. I'm just pointing out that if they really want their code to be used then they'll use a different licence. This they have an agenda to push, we'll simply ignore them.
Why do you kjeep parrotting the "if you don't like it don't use it" mantra? We don't like it, so we don't use it.
Again, you are not informed well (besides seemingly unable to grasp that the people who believe strongly in the GPL do not even want to solve your problem, it is YOUR problem, not theirs)
It's a problem they deliberately created. Thanks guys. Why did they create this problem? To prevent me from using non GPLed code? If so then any claims that it doesn't take away freedoms are untrue.
Now for something else, if you are talking about libraries, those are often written by a small number of people, who may even be organiyed in a company or other organisation. You may find that in many cases you can get this exact same library with a different license from that group, just that you will have to pay a price still.
Yes. If you take the other licence, they're not under the GPL anymore are they?
The point is that it is quite possible to integrate a binary only component in an otherwise GPLed system, unlike what you have been claiming so far.
It's possible to incorporate a non-GPLed module in Linux, because Linus says it is. The GPL is not clear on this matter. Neither is copyright law.
Then don't pay the price and get something more suitable.
Yes. That's what we do. I merely point out that people could choose another licence that allows the use of third party code under a different licence. The ramifications of using the GPL means that you create potential conflicts.
You seem to really have trouble with that eh?
No. You seem to be missing the point. In this case, my point is that the GPL terms bar the use of unrelated libraries.
wrt the kernel modules, nvidia is one exanple. Go look at what Linksysdoes with their routers and the modules for the broadcom ethernet switch and wireless hardware, there are many more examples.
What do they do? Looks like they use some software under the GPL. So what's the point? More kernel modules under Linux? Fair enough. If we ever want to release a closed source driver for Linux then we'll keep that in mind.
We have an application. Lets say an animation utility.
We use a prorietry Codec for output. This is a library we link to at compile time.
We see some GPL code. Lets say a scripting language. We see how it would be useful.
We embed the scripting language into our application. We release the source for the application. We don't release the source for the codec because we don't have the source. We are in violation of the GPL. Shame really. Our application could have been quite useful if the codec was replaced by a free one. Just needs an open source codec.
We lose out on the scripting language.
The community loses out on a fairly handy scriptable animation tool.
This is just a hypothetical example since I'm not sure how you could make a profit from open sourcing this, or why you'd want to use a GPL'ed scripting language, but I hope it illustrates the point.
But it seems that all the GPL advocates can consider us doing is taking a complete GPL application and making small changes to it. It doesn't seem to occur to any of you that we have a complete application that we might want to add GPL components to.
You might say that it infringes on your freedom to take e.g. my code, package it with YourCorp brand and sell it. I get 0, you get everything.
We have that right. Red Hat makes a pretty succesful business from it. That's not the problem. It infringes on my right to use linbraries that are not GPL licenced.
The point which you are arguing is to prevent thefts such as those which I just described. Therefore it is not correct for you to just take a GPL application and modify certain pieces of it and then call it your own. The GPL applies to derivative works. This I think is your biggest problem here.
We don't want to do this. Nothing of the sort. We want to take a GPL application and incorporate it into a much larger application. An application that we are perfectly happy to open source, but it links to closed source libraries which we do not have the right to distribute the source for.
Or write your own stuff with your own time and sweat and blood, and release it with a license which grants me the freedoms you want from GPL code.
You can get whatever freedoms you ask for with our software if you buy our hardware. This is limitted to our own software, and does not include third party libraries that are included.
I don't want you to start using GPL code if it doesn't suit you. But please stop pretending that you want something different, that the license is at fault, when there is nothing wrong with the license, you would just like to use it in a way against the very spirit and purpose of the license; you would like to be a vulture eating away the fruits of labor and contribute nothing - you would become a parasitic entity.
The licences demands that unrelated libraries are also tied into the obligations. The nature of the licence is that I am barred from using other third party code. I believe this is deliberate. I consider this to show the GPL authors overvalue their creations. The price is too high. I often complain about high prices. Sometimes people listen and lower them.
I don't think this is a flaw in the licence, since this appears to be the purpose. I disagree with the philosophy behind it.
No but I had the right to give you the apple until I covered it in caramel.
I still have the right to give you an apple, but I no longer have the right to give you the specific apple I covered in caramel.
The problem here is your usage of the term "lose". You haven't lost anything.
Yes I have! I lost the right to give you the apple I just covered in caramel.
Hmm yes... that is why I can use a machine with nvidia video hardware, running Linux with a non GPLed nvidia kernel module for example.
Yes, but what's that got to do with anything? The reason they can do this is that Linus believes that this is not a part of the work. The existence of closed source modules have created controversy.
It's possible that we could link to a closed source library if we modify the open source application to accept loadable modules. Or perhaps not. Quite frankly we don't want to go anywhere near that minefield.
If you don't own the patent then well, that is not going to work, but in that case you may find that the GPL is not unique, it is a consequence of using a patented algorithm.
I don't know of any other licence that prevents us from using unrelated patented algorithms. Certainly none of the ones covering software we use.
You seem to still not understand that this is all about choices. If you make choices incompatible with the GPL then that is your problem, not that of the GPL.
But the GPL is especially written to force people to make this choice. Many other licences do not have this problem, except when it comes to the GPL. They are aware of other licences and philosophies. They accomodate them as much as possible. The GPL effectively says that if I want to use this code, it must be licenced under the GPL. The other licence does not say if I use GPLed code, it must be licenced under a different licence. It makes no demands of other code at all, apart from as a direct result of the licence of the other code.
You are free to do whatever you want, but if you are going to distribute what you built using a GPLed work then you have to comply with the GPL in many cases. You have a choice to use something else.
Yes. I have this choice with every licence. I don't see where I'm getting all this freedom you're providing me with. I already had the freedom before I touched the GPL code.
I know what we can and can't do with GPLed code. I have no issue with that. we simply don't use it. What I have an issue with is that it dictates what we must do with other code, and then its advocates (and the licence itself) claims to provide freedoms. As a source code licence, it's no more free than most other source code licences. In some ways it's less so.