can be pulled with GPLv2. DastardlyCorp takes GPL software and modifies it such that it can accept plugins, and BadCorp releases closed-source plugins for it. No keys whatsoever are involved. Why nobody seems to do that?
Consider a hardware-based JVM. A JVM class loader won't load unsafe code.
Now, what's "safe"? Since there are many class loaders around, "safe" can mean different things. For one loader, it means that the code must obey type safety. For another one, it means that the code must obey DRM. And indeed, DRM could be conceivably implemented in terms of type safety (people can do crazy things with types).
See? It looks like no one can distribute any Java code under GPLv3. Good job, RMS!
I don't think your script by itself would be a "derivative work under copyright law" (Section 0); after all, you can call Sun's 'ls' (or perhaps 'dir', he-he) from a script and nobody in his right mind will make a hiss about it. Your script doesn't become a derivative of 'dir' just because it calls 'dir'. No way! If it was the case, no one could script no non-free program whatsoever.
Your script MAY be considered a derivative work if you include "the program" along with it. If you're afraid, just don't. Tell people to download GNU tools from FSF, or provide a separate CD/download/whatever. Though it would be nice if GPLv3 permitted such verbatim inclusion of "the program" into larger works. It would be only logical: after all, the whole mess is about source availability, but to call ls from a script you don't need any source at all. Perhaps somebody should tell FSF about it.
If you mean the second paragraph of section 1, I think the intention is to force you to provide, say, makefiles, config files for things like sendmail, and such. Those are "scripts" too. They're strictly needed to build and run the program which is otherwise useless; note the word "needed" in the license. In your example, the vendor's script is not needed to run GNU ls and so can stay closed-source.
I had to fix things like this in other people's C code to compile it with a C++ compiler. Believe me, it's trivial compared to what I had to do to compile other's people C++ code with a different C++ compiler.
You're asking wrong questions. You're asking: "here's a list of them shiny tools; what can I do with them?" You should be asking: "here's a list of things I want to do with images; how do I do them?"
If you want to edit photos, the first item of any answer would be "get Photoshop". No ifs, ands, or buts. Then learn to use it. You probably want to buy Professional Photoshop: The Classic Guide to Color Correction by Dan Margulis.
If you want to draw stuff, there's probably a different answer.
You will notice that there are several requirements in LGPL, and some of them include words like "reverse engineering" and "prominent notice" and "a copy of this License".
1. Pretty much every country's law. 2. If you distribute somebody else's stuff without the copyright holder's permission, you are in violation of the law, ergo, liable. Your relationships with your subcontractors is between you and them. 3. If you cease the distribution as soon as you know about the violation, you might still be liable for actual damages (e.g. if the copyright holder sells his stuff and his sales suffer because of you). A court probably won't award ridiculous punitive sums like $100,000 per copy, only the money actually lost by the rightholder. In case of LAME actual damages are most likely zero, but it's up to the court to decide.
The law says you can't distribute stuff without a proper license. If you do, you're liable, no matter where you've got the stuff and what you know about it. If Sony indeed distributed copyrighted stuff, Sony is liable -- period. Everything else is between Sony and First4Internet and I couldn't care less about it. Note that it was Sony who massively profited off the alleged violation. It would be all too convenient if only some garage shop beared all the responsibility. I don't really believe in justice bit this goes a little bit too far.
Microsoft is not Microsoft Research. Microsoft Research folks use and make free software, and in general are not ideologically bound to the parent organisation.
Slashdot Mirror
13:37 of course.
There's more to GPL than just Linux kernel. The kernel accepts closed source modules because Linus explicitly says it's OK.
BadCorp don't release kernels, they release hardware. To do that, they don't need Alan's private key, only the public one.
can be pulled with GPLv2. DastardlyCorp takes GPL software and modifies it such that it can accept plugins, and BadCorp releases closed-source plugins for it. No keys whatsoever are involved. Why nobody seems to do that?
Consider a hardware-based JVM. A JVM class loader won't load unsafe code.
Now, what's "safe"? Since there are many class loaders around, "safe" can mean different things. For one loader, it means that the code must obey type safety. For another one, it means that the code must obey DRM. And indeed, DRM could be conceivably implemented in terms of type safety (people can do crazy things with types).
See? It looks like no one can distribute any Java code under GPLv3. Good job, RMS!
That's C98 I presume. I know nothing about it so perhaps it's true.
I don't think your script by itself would be a "derivative work under copyright law" (Section 0); after all, you can call Sun's 'ls' (or perhaps 'dir', he-he) from a script and nobody in his right mind will make a hiss about it. Your script doesn't become a derivative of 'dir' just because it calls 'dir'. No way! If it was the case, no one could script no non-free program whatsoever.
Your script MAY be considered a derivative work if you include "the program" along with it. If you're afraid, just don't. Tell people to download GNU tools from FSF, or provide a separate CD/download/whatever. Though it would be nice if GPLv3 permitted such verbatim inclusion of "the program" into larger works. It would be only logical: after all, the whole mess is about source availability, but to call ls from a script you don't need any source at all. Perhaps somebody should tell FSF about it.
Yes, they should write "Digital Rights Management (henceforth Digital Restriction Management)".
If you mean the second paragraph of section 1, I think the intention is to force you to provide, say, makefiles, config files for things like sendmail, and such. Those are "scripts" too. They're strictly needed to build and run the program which is otherwise useless; note the word "needed" in the license. In your example, the vendor's script is not needed to run GNU ls and so can stay closed-source.
I had to fix things like this in other people's C code to compile it with a C++ compiler. Believe me, it's trivial compared to what I had to do to compile other's people C++ code with a different C++ compiler.
That's trivially fixable with a few -D compiler options.
all C code is also Objective-C code
So what? All good C code is also C++ code.
Been there. It crashes all the time.
You're asking wrong questions. You're asking: "here's a list of them shiny tools; what can I do with them?" You should be asking: "here's a list of things I want to do with images; how do I do them?"
If you want to edit photos, the first item of any answer would be "get Photoshop". No ifs, ands, or buts. Then learn to use it. You probably want to buy Professional Photoshop: The Classic Guide to Color Correction by Dan Margulis.
If you want to draw stuff, there's probably a different answer.
Nobody proposed the "a gmail account per session" yet?
In the snow, uphill, both ways. You know the drill.
//GO READ THE FRIGGING LGPL!//
Good advice! Now follow it.
You will notice that there are several requirements in LGPL, and some of them include words like "reverse engineering" and "prominent notice" and "a copy of this License".
1. Pretty much every country's law.
2. If you distribute somebody else's stuff without the copyright holder's permission, you are in violation of the law, ergo, liable. Your relationships with your subcontractors is between you and them.
3. If you cease the distribution as soon as you know about the violation, you might still be liable for actual damages (e.g. if the copyright holder sells his stuff and his sales suffer because of you). A court probably won't award ridiculous punitive sums like $100,000 per copy, only the money actually lost by the rightholder. In case of LAME actual damages are most likely zero, but it's up to the court to decide.
The law says you can't distribute stuff without a proper license. If you do, you're liable, no matter where you've got the stuff and what you know about it. If Sony indeed distributed copyrighted stuff, Sony is liable -- period. Everything else is between Sony and First4Internet and I couldn't care less about it. Note that it was Sony who massively profited off the alleged violation. It would be all too convenient if only some garage shop beared all the responsibility. I don't really believe in justice bit this goes a little bit too far.
So it appears I can violate anything and everything as long as there's a subcontractor that does all the dirty work? Interesting.
If you don't distribute the source, you have to make a written offer, valid for at least 3 years, blah blah blah.
It's not really a mickokernel, as everything (including the userland) is in one big address space.
Microsoft is not Microsoft Research. Microsoft Research folks use and make free software, and in general are not ideologically bound to the parent organisation.
"This program is free software; you can redistribute it etc"
These words are not a part of GNU GPL.
Still at http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005_10_01_archiv e.html