Dude... the whole *idea* behind the GPL is an ideological war. If you want "truly free programming" go pick up BSD software, and leave the GPL alone. Until you do that, the only reason you *have* the GPL is because some zealots had the stones to think it up to enforce their zealotrous ideology.
If you don't like the GPL 3.0 no one is forcing your users to use it. You gave them the choice of v1, or any later version.
The newer GPL isn't going to hurt your rights (that's impossible) rather it's on what restrictions other people have. And so long as they can get a license under the v1 of the GPL, then even if you don't like the GPL 3.0, you can just tell everyone to accept it under the GPL 1.0.
This "or a later version" is not a LIMITING clause, it's a PERMITTING clause. Saying that if a newer version of the GPL comes out, that they have every right to accept your source code under those terms (and trust me, GPL 3.0 won't make it so people can just rip off your source code.)
No, this has been covered before by either Eben Moglen or ESR (I think that's the guy). That clause "v1 or later" protects you as well as your viewers. What this means is that someone can take your code and use it with v1, or v2, or v3. Any one that they want. You don't have to force a newer version on them unless you want to. (By updating the clause to say v3 or later.)
Each version of the GPL won't take rights away from the original author (that's pretty much, literally impossible.) it just defines how the author designates that others can use it. In the case of saying "v1 or later" you let anyone use v1 of the license if they darn well so please.
The only way someone is screwed with the clause "v1 or later" is, if they're not the original author, and they want to redistribute your software, and they are unable to comply with any version later than v1.
In short, the author/copyright holder can never be "screwed" by a newer GPL license even if it does include the "or later version" part of the clause.
I'll gladly take the beer, but I don't drink caffiene, unless I'm passing out tired. Which means around one can a month. (And then only when I'm not getting enough sleep, like I have been recently.)
Usually, one can can last me a week. That's slowly drinking the whole can over a week (ew, warm soda... but I don't care), I think my head would explode if I were to drink a whole can of coke right now.
Dude... shut the hell up. I work with real programmers, where if we get something wrong it hits millions if not billions of people, and they all get mad.
We do "real programming" as much as anyone else.
Fact is, you can take whatever opinions you have about beer and caffeine, but the average person doesn't share those opinions. The average person sees nothing wrong with either caffeine or beer. This is the reason why Starbuck's makes tons of money, and why any gas station has probably about 1/4 of the beverages that it has for sale which are alcoholic.
Your small little prudish subsection of the world may not give a shit about caffeinated beer, but neither will devout Mormons, Arabs, nor dry counties all around the country. Just because you don't give a shit, doesn't mean no one else will. Especially even among even "real" programmers.
I'd be particularly amazed if they were doing everything properly. But I gotta admit, at least it looks like they're trying to respect the LGPL this time, rather than just running all over our IP rights.
In the LGPL, they have to allow you to update the library to a newer version. This means either you dynamically link into the library, or you provide the object code necessary to rebuild your application if it's statically compiled.
There was already an LGPL library in use in VX30, and they have still yet to comply with the conditions and terms of even the LGPL on that product.
The intention is to use legal basis to let their customers know that they're using software under the wrong license.
Probably a better idea would be to explain to them how they can do exactly what they got from MXS, but legally and respecting the GPL. Then let them know that they can avoid any legal repercussions by using the software legally, rather than paying a company to steal.
I think most companies if hit with the information that what they were sold is actually free, and the only thing that the people who originally wrote it is just to respect their license, use it legally, and *gasp* free (as in beer) that most companies would opt for that, especially if it had them avoid any legal details.
Basically something like, "Just to let you know, we're suing the Maui X-Stream due to their illegal inclusion of our GPL software without our permission. If we are successful, then this suit may place you in a legally vulnerable position, because you're using software that was not properly licensed, and MXS has been offering no amnesty for their users. If you want to avoid this potentially damaging situation, we can provide you free information about how to provide the exact same service you were getting from MXS, but in compliance with copyrights, and without further cost to you."
The PearPC community was well on its way towards accomplishing this, but then when they finally realized that they were going to lose, they ditched everything. With no ongoing and active infringement, it's very very difficult to move forward with anything at all.
Well, I got fed up with them on the whole CherryOS deal. The only reason I think they dropped that one is that the PearPC community was pushing so hard against them. They decided it were better for them to just drop the project than deal with us.
Now with the software gone, and refunds offered to all who bought it (the whole maybe 2 people) there's almost no argument for any damages that could be received, and there's no active infringement.
Which sucks, because we could have hung these guys outright with CherryOS.
Apparently, if you buy a product that used illegally obtained software you're potentially liable. This is the same reason why all those companies started saying we'll cover you if SCO actually does prove that Linux had code improperly put in there.
I think it would be interesting if the copyright holders of the GPL projects in the VX30 software contacted Geico and let them know about their liabilities...
If we're arguing that MXS didn't write the VX30 codec, but rather lifted it from an open-source project, the first step is figuring out the orgin. How many mature, open-source codecs are out there? XviD is the only one that comes to mind...
Wow, you got it in the first try. Of course, they put a bunch of other projects into it as well, but XviD is the biggest one.
Very good points. I definitely support Windows-only free software over any other Windows-only software. But when it comes down to it, I look very meanly down upon anything that's generally incompatible just for the sake of being lazy. I've worked long and hard to make my webpage look the same on IE, FireFox, and Safari, and that's certainly more than I can say for Slashdot, because after the HTML-compliance shift, the pages generally look like shit under IE6.
Meanwhile, my page is XHTML-transitional compliant and it looks good, and correct on FireFox, IE, and Safari, and it renders at least gracefully on even older browsers, like Netscape 4.
Anyways, I think I've managed to walk too far off-topic now. You have a lot of good points. PearPC has kept it a primary point to have all OS-specific code under special build paths of the same codebase, and that functionally, the vast majority of the code should remain exactly the same in each OS. (Of course, we just throw a bitmap on the screen and call that done.)
I've seen this happen before with PHP projects and Apache...
Ah yes. I remember I wrote a web-server for one of my CS classes, and I wrote CGI/1.1 support into it, and loaded up php and my webpage. I think I had to change a few things to make it work correctly, but after that it was all good.
Well, first, if this does work in Mono, then why should they be complaining?
Clarification, why should the people complaining about it not being free enough be complaining, not why those complaining that people complaining that it isn't free enough should be complaining.
Ok, wait, that didn't solve anything:
Why should people be complain its not be free enough, if it runs well on Mono?
Well, first, if this does work in Mono, then why should they be complaining?
Of course, I mentioned in another comment on this article. People were bitching at Linux about using Bitkeeper for their source management. I mean, if Linux isn't above getting harrassed for using non-free tools, then I can't imagine that these people should receive any special treatment.
While.NET programs can be portable between Microsoft's.NET Runtime and Mono, just as software written in many languages can be portable between Windows and Linux, it's also possible to write software that only functions properly in one operating system or the other.
Yes, as evidenced to why Microsoft was forced to not have their own Java implementation in Windows anymore.
Of course, I think the Mono project is much more likely to worry about bug-for-bug compliance than MS was at the time for Java.
Good to hear that Mono is really taking off, and doing so well though.:)
When ASP.NET on Linux is up to snuff, then it's obviously fine.
But these people who are complaining are complaining that it's not free enough (as in speech) yet.
Hey, I'm happy the project is Open Source, and I accept that it's open source, but some people (and I feel a strong gravitation towards this crowd) are upset that it's not free enough *now*.
If gcc weren't free, people would be complaining about the Linux kernel targetting it. Oh wait! Let's even get to the root of that problem, because it just jogged my memory. People were complaining about Linux because it used a proprietary source management system.
How high and lofty does a project have to get before being above criticism that it's using non-free tools? Um... well, if Linux itself isn't there, I don't know how lofty a project would have to get.
Copy-Paste off TFA: ( at this point in time DotNetNuke runs on ASP.NET, a services layer which is only available for the Windows platform - a situation which the Mono project is trying to address )
They say themselves that Mono is insufficient for the task at this time. I know about Mono, and I know they're working hard to advance ASP.NET running on Linux. But at this time, ASP.NET is still unfree.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude... the whole *idea* behind the GPL is an ideological war. If you want "truly free programming" go pick up BSD software, and leave the GPL alone. Until you do that, the only reason you *have* the GPL is because some zealots had the stones to think it up to enforce their zealotrous ideology.
If you don't like the GPL 3.0 no one is forcing your users to use it. You gave them the choice of v1, or any later version.
The newer GPL isn't going to hurt your rights (that's impossible) rather it's on what restrictions other people have. And so long as they can get a license under the v1 of the GPL, then even if you don't like the GPL 3.0, you can just tell everyone to accept it under the GPL 1.0.
This "or a later version" is not a LIMITING clause, it's a PERMITTING clause. Saying that if a newer version of the GPL comes out, that they have every right to accept your source code under those terms (and trust me, GPL 3.0 won't make it so people can just rip off your source code.)
No, this has been covered before by either Eben Moglen or ESR (I think that's the guy). That clause "v1 or later" protects you as well as your viewers. What this means is that someone can take your code and use it with v1, or v2, or v3. Any one that they want. You don't have to force a newer version on them unless you want to. (By updating the clause to say v3 or later.)
Each version of the GPL won't take rights away from the original author (that's pretty much, literally impossible.) it just defines how the author designates that others can use it. In the case of saying "v1 or later" you let anyone use v1 of the license if they darn well so please.
The only way someone is screwed with the clause "v1 or later" is, if they're not the original author, and they want to redistribute your software, and they are unable to comply with any version later than v1.
In short, the author/copyright holder can never be "screwed" by a newer GPL license even if it does include the "or later version" part of the clause.
I'll gladly take the beer, but I don't drink caffiene, unless I'm passing out tired. Which means around one can a month. (And then only when I'm not getting enough sleep, like I have been recently.)
Usually, one can can last me a week. That's slowly drinking the whole can over a week (ew, warm soda... but I don't care), I think my head would explode if I were to drink a whole can of coke right now.
Dude... shut the hell up. I work with real programmers, where if we get something wrong it hits millions if not billions of people, and they all get mad.
We do "real programming" as much as anyone else.
Fact is, you can take whatever opinions you have about beer and caffeine, but the average person doesn't share those opinions. The average person sees nothing wrong with either caffeine or beer. This is the reason why Starbuck's makes tons of money, and why any gas station has probably about 1/4 of the beverages that it has for sale which are alcoholic.
Your small little prudish subsection of the world may not give a shit about caffeinated beer, but neither will devout Mormons, Arabs, nor dry counties all around the country. Just because you don't give a shit, doesn't mean no one else will. Especially even among even "real" programmers.
WTF kind of programmers are you around? When I tell people that I avoid caffiene, they look at me like I'm crazy.
I'd be particularly amazed if they were doing everything properly. But I gotta admit, at least it looks like they're trying to respect the LGPL this time, rather than just running all over our IP rights.
... their software appears to be nothing more than a shell script.
This generally describes all of the software that they've released. Only they illegally redistribute binaries of GPL projects also.
It's not a scavenger hunt if it's always in the same place.
Saying that you're having a scavenger hunt for GPL software in MXS code is like saying that there's a scavenger hunt for drunks at a bar.
In the LGPL, they have to allow you to update the library to a newer version. This means either you dynamically link into the library, or you provide the object code necessary to rebuild your application if it's statically compiled.
There was already an LGPL library in use in VX30, and they have still yet to comply with the conditions and terms of even the LGPL on that product.
The intention is to use legal basis to let their customers know that they're using software under the wrong license.
Probably a better idea would be to explain to them how they can do exactly what they got from MXS, but legally and respecting the GPL. Then let them know that they can avoid any legal repercussions by using the software legally, rather than paying a company to steal.
I think most companies if hit with the information that what they were sold is actually free, and the only thing that the people who originally wrote it is just to respect their license, use it legally, and *gasp* free (as in beer) that most companies would opt for that, especially if it had them avoid any legal details.
Basically something like, "Just to let you know, we're suing the Maui X-Stream due to their illegal inclusion of our GPL software without our permission. If we are successful, then this suit may place you in a legally vulnerable position, because you're using software that was not properly licensed, and MXS has been offering no amnesty for their users. If you want to avoid this potentially damaging situation, we can provide you free information about how to provide the exact same service you were getting from MXS, but in compliance with copyrights, and without further cost to you."
It's sarcasm.
Go read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm and learn, kid.
When will someone put a stop to that?
The PearPC community was well on its way towards accomplishing this, but then when they finally realized that they were going to lose, they ditched everything. With no ongoing and active infringement, it's very very difficult to move forward with anything at all.
Well, I got fed up with them on the whole CherryOS deal. The only reason I think they dropped that one is that the PearPC community was pushing so hard against them. They decided it were better for them to just drop the project than deal with us.
Now with the software gone, and refunds offered to all who bought it (the whole maybe 2 people) there's almost no argument for any damages that could be received, and there's no active infringement.
Which sucks, because we could have hung these guys outright with CherryOS.
Apparently, if you buy a product that used illegally obtained software you're potentially liable. This is the same reason why all those companies started saying we'll cover you if SCO actually does prove that Linux had code improperly put in there.
I think it would be interesting if the copyright holders of the GPL projects in the VX30 software contacted Geico and let them know about their liabilities...
So, they appear to be following the Microsoft/Sony/RealPlayer business model.
No no no... these companies don't usually steal GPL software, make few changes to it, then release it as their own under a different brand name.
If they do anything, they steal ideas, and write their own, not just rip off Free source code.
If we're arguing that MXS didn't write the VX30 codec, but rather lifted it from an open-source project, the first step is figuring out the orgin. How many mature, open-source codecs are out there? XviD is the only one that comes to mind...
Wow, you got it in the first try. Of course, they put a bunch of other projects into it as well, but XviD is the biggest one.
Boils at 20K, Freezes at 14K? Pff... Gimme Helium that only freezes at absolute zero, HOOWAH! That's a real gas!
Very good points. I definitely support Windows-only free software over any other Windows-only software. But when it comes down to it, I look very meanly down upon anything that's generally incompatible just for the sake of being lazy. I've worked long and hard to make my webpage look the same on IE, FireFox, and Safari, and that's certainly more than I can say for Slashdot, because after the HTML-compliance shift, the pages generally look like shit under IE6.
Meanwhile, my page is XHTML-transitional compliant and it looks good, and correct on FireFox, IE, and Safari, and it renders at least gracefully on even older browsers, like Netscape 4.
Anyways, I think I've managed to walk too far off-topic now. You have a lot of good points. PearPC has kept it a primary point to have all OS-specific code under special build paths of the same codebase, and that functionally, the vast majority of the code should remain exactly the same in each OS. (Of course, we just throw a bitmap on the screen and call that done.)
I've seen this happen before with PHP projects and Apache...
Ah yes. I remember I wrote a web-server for one of my CS classes, and I wrote CGI/1.1 support into it, and loaded up php and my webpage. I think I had to change a few things to make it work correctly, but after that it was all good.
The next person that tells me how great IE is, I am going to punch in the teeth.
Dude, IE is great! </blatantly-asking-for-it>
Well, first, if this does work in Mono, then why should they be complaining?
Clarification, why should the people complaining about it not being free enough be complaining, not why those complaining that people complaining that it isn't free enough should be complaining.
Ok, wait, that didn't solve anything:
Why should people be complain its not be free enough, if it runs well on Mono?
Well, first, if this does work in Mono, then why should they be complaining?
.NET programs can be portable between Microsoft's .NET Runtime and Mono, just as software written in many languages can be portable between Windows and Linux, it's also possible to write software that only functions properly in one operating system or the other.
:)
Of course, I mentioned in another comment on this article. People were bitching at Linux about using Bitkeeper for their source management. I mean, if Linux isn't above getting harrassed for using non-free tools, then I can't imagine that these people should receive any special treatment.
While
Yes, as evidenced to why Microsoft was forced to not have their own Java implementation in Windows anymore.
Of course, I think the Mono project is much more likely to worry about bug-for-bug compliance than MS was at the time for Java.
Good to hear that Mono is really taking off, and doing so well though.
When ASP.NET on Linux is up to snuff, then it's obviously fine.
But these people who are complaining are complaining that it's not free enough (as in speech) yet.
Hey, I'm happy the project is Open Source, and I accept that it's open source, but some people (and I feel a strong gravitation towards this crowd) are upset that it's not free enough *now*.
If gcc weren't free, people would be complaining about the Linux kernel targetting it. Oh wait! Let's even get to the root of that problem, because it just jogged my memory. People were complaining about Linux because it used a proprietary source management system.
How high and lofty does a project have to get before being above criticism that it's using non-free tools? Um... well, if Linux itself isn't there, I don't know how lofty a project would have to get.
Copy-Paste off TFA: ( at this point in time DotNetNuke runs on ASP.NET, a services layer which is only available for the Windows platform - a situation which the Mono project is trying to address )
They say themselves that Mono is insufficient for the task at this time. I know about Mono, and I know they're working hard to advance ASP.NET running on Linux. But at this time, ASP.NET is still unfree.