Well, it would if the company were to sell it to you on those terms. They could also sell it to you as a public domain item (although you probably wouldn't buy it). As I said before, not every right or transaction automatically involves copyright and copyright alone.
The bottom line is that neither the GPL nor EULA's give third parties the maximum rights they could get through public domain or the BSD license. To me that is much more important then the somewhat artificial argument about adding or subtracting rights.
"Incorrect. It depends simply on copyright law. The GPL takes away NO FREEDOMS that are given by default by copyright law. Instead, it adds to them."
Again, copyright law may be at the core of the GPL but it's not relevent to everything. If code is given to the public domain, copyright is irrelevent. Thus the maximum rights an author can give you to his code is through releasing it in the public domain. Chosing the GPL means you wish to restrict rights relative to the rights you could grant through the public domain.
"Incorrect. EULA's don't generally give you a right to distribute source or binary. If you know of one that does, give me a holler."
My bad. I should have said "people don't have the automatic right to distribute source or use/distribute binary".
You have no right to use a copyrighted program without permission. The EULA gives you that right in exchange for money.
"In fact, the GPL is unlike most other EULAs in that it _adds_ rights rather than takes them away."
Whether licenses add rights or take them away depends on your perspective.
Certainly licensing software under the GPL is more restrictive than releasing it in the public domain just as releasing binary code with a typical EULA is more restrictive than allowing people to copy it freely.
On the other hand, people don't have the automatic right to distribute source or binary, so you could say that both the GPL and an EULA add rights.
"It only "sounds familiar" until you know the facts of the entirely justifable and legal retaliation against the government of Iraq two years ago."
One can only "know the facts" if there are facts to know. Please feel free to tell us what these facts are.
Keep in mind though, that I didn't express an opinion on whether the Vietnam War was justified or legal, I just said that Presidents had lied about it and that the government attempted to hide the truth. That's what sounds familiar.
The US government has a long history of hiding information and even classified documents aren't always classified to protect the country.
A lot of classified documents are classified to avoid embarrassing the military or the current administration. The most famous example was the so-called "Pentagon Papers" which were a secret history of the Vietnam War. They proved that several Presidents had lied about the war (sound familiar?).
"This, of course, is the whole premise of the Internet -- the power of everyone using the same protocols and standards."
Yes, but it's interesting to note than none of the core technologies used for the Internet were standard-first technologies. That is, they were implemented and tested before they were made into standards (one could argue that some Internet technologies still aren't based on standards since the implementations are based on available source code rather than a document).
1) Darth killed Luke's father, no Darth IS Luke's father, no Darth is C3PO's father, no Obi-Wan is Luke's father (hey, it's only fair: Anakin was being seduced by the Dark Side) 2) Han shot first, no Greedo shot fist, no Episode IV shot first.
"It is almost always better to agree on a standard before beginning implementation. Any inconsistencies and ambiguities are much easier to reconcile when everyone is at least on the same page."
I disagree. Only after an implementation is created and evaluated can you determine the value of the technology.
"They (the BBC) should spell it out, so that the general public actually gets notified officially, and thus make it a well known issue amongs non-IT literate people."
Yeah, so that Joe Sixpack will read about when he turns off the game on ESPN to do his daily check of the BBC website.
"Freedom is digital: either you are as free as you can be, or you aren't. There is nothing inbetween."
A guess you mean freedom is bivalent. Digital allows a range of values. In any case, if you really believe that there's no such thing as degrees of freedom, then we really don't have enough common ground to continue this discussion.
Certainly not me. According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary the definition of destiny includes: "something to which a person or thing is destined". There's no mention of anthropomorphism.
"It's not "sanctimonious crap". It's something people genuinely believe."
People genuinely believe in a lot of things. Often people believe the exact opposite of other people. Thus belief alone is not sufficient to determine truth.
"As a consequence of this, closed source software -- which seeks to deny these rights -- must be evil, since it seeks directly to oppose a fundamental freedom"
Apparently your definition of freedom doesn't include the freedom to create something and keep the details to oneself.
In fact in an earlier post talking about closed source software you said: "which I happen to think is a crime against humanity in and of itself"
This is a slap in the face to the victims of real crimes against humanity. Not all mass-murders qualify for crimes against humanity, but apparently closed source software developers do. The stupidity of your comment should be obvious even to you.
"Wow, thats like saying that a charity is only for self-interest and does nothing to benefit other humans."
I didn't realize that donations to charity typically include a license agreement. There's a reason why you can't deduct "free" software development from your income taxes: it isn't charity.
"Of course using a GPL license does protect one right of the author: the right to ensure that the software, as an evolving system, will remain freely accesible and usable."
The GPL, like any other license, can't ensure that the software will evolve or be usable or even accessible but it can prevent the code from being incorporated into closed source code.
Thanks for making my point. The GPL will only succeed to the extent that people respect the "IP" behind it. Now, I don't want you to be confused or "hung up" by the term "IP" as it's used here. Since we are talking about the GPL, everybody understands that we're not talking about software patents. Likewise when we talk about "IP" with respect to music, we aren't talking about software patents either. Is that clear enough?
"However, someone might read it and think the GPL is inconsistent with copyright law, or that you either support both the GPL and the RIAA or neither."
Well, anyone who would conclude that my statement implied that the GPL was inconsistent with copyright law is not a very careful reader. As for the second intrepretation, that's fairly close to what I was saying. In other words, if you wish people to respect your rights under the GPL, you should respect their rights with respect to licensing other material. Obviously, if we only abide by licenses we personally agree with, then licenses in general would be worthless.
"Believe in IP" is rather meaningless to say (you could be talking about anything)"
Gee and just a few paragraphs ago you said "IP is essentially both trademark, copyright and patents at the same time." I only count 3 things. Are you confused?
Apparently you want to shift the discussion from consistency of position on authors rights to a technical discussion on what "IP" really means. Nobody (including you) has any confusion about what I meant by "IP" in the context of the discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
"The sale gives you that right."
Well, it would if the company were to sell it to you on those terms. They could also sell it to you as a public domain item (although you probably wouldn't buy it). As I said before, not every right or transaction automatically involves copyright and copyright alone.
The bottom line is that neither the GPL nor EULA's give third parties the maximum rights they could get through public domain or the BSD license. To me that is much more important then the somewhat artificial argument about adding or subtracting rights.
"Incorrect. It depends simply on copyright law. The GPL takes away NO FREEDOMS that are given by default by copyright law. Instead, it adds to them."
Again, copyright law may be at the core of the GPL but it's not relevent to everything. If code is given to the public domain, copyright is irrelevent. Thus the maximum rights an author can give you to his code is through releasing it in the public domain. Chosing the GPL means you wish to restrict rights relative to the rights you could grant through the public domain.
"Incorrect. EULA's don't generally give you a right to distribute source or binary. If you know of one that does, give me a holler."
My bad. I should have said "people don't have the automatic right to distribute source or use/distribute binary".
You have no right to use a copyrighted program without permission. The EULA gives you that right in exchange for money.
"In fact, the GPL is unlike most other EULAs in that it _adds_ rights rather than takes them away."
Whether licenses add rights or take them away depends on your perspective.
Certainly licensing software under the GPL is more restrictive than releasing it in the public domain just as releasing binary code with a typical EULA is more restrictive than allowing people to copy it freely.
On the other hand, people don't have the automatic right to distribute source or binary, so you could say that both the GPL and an EULA add rights.
"It only "sounds familiar" until you know the facts of the entirely justifable and legal retaliation against the government of Iraq two years ago."
One can only "know the facts" if there are facts to know. Please feel free to tell us what these facts are.
Keep in mind though, that I didn't express an opinion on whether the Vietnam War was justified or legal, I just said that Presidents had lied about it and that the government attempted to hide the truth. That's what sounds familiar.
The US government has a long history of hiding information and even classified documents aren't always classified to protect the country.
A lot of classified documents are classified to avoid embarrassing the military or the current administration. The most famous example was the so-called "Pentagon Papers" which were a secret history of the Vietnam War. They proved that several Presidents had lied about the war (sound familiar?).
"This is the stupidest response I've ever heard."
Wow, I wish I attended MIT so I could create such a well-reasoned and logical argument as the one you made above.
I thought typing contact names on the keypad was hard, but typing long path names is going to be murder.
"This, of course, is the whole premise of the Internet -- the power of everyone using the same protocols and standards."
Yes, but it's interesting to note than none of the core technologies used for the Internet were standard-first technologies. That is, they were implemented and tested before they were made into standards (one could argue that some Internet technologies still aren't based on standards since the implementations are based on available source code rather than a document).
Are you suggesting that these disciplines can improve the world solely through pronouncements on public policy?
1) Darth killed Luke's father, no Darth IS Luke's father, no Darth is C3PO's father, no Obi-Wan is Luke's father (hey, it's only fair: Anakin was being seduced by the Dark Side)
2) Han shot first, no Greedo shot fist, no Episode IV shot first.
"his fans are going to make sure he delivers, even if it involves necromancy."
Actually, I wish somebody else would deliver them. I wonder if Lucas's agreement with the studio prohibits sequels or remakes after his death?
"MIT has always been influential in areas of policy, especially as it relates to technology, science, linguistics, media, etc."
Always? MIT was founded in 1861. Feel free to provide us with examples of MIT's contribution to public policy in the 19th century.
"It is almost always better to agree on a standard before beginning implementation. Any inconsistencies and ambiguities are much easier to reconcile when everyone is at least on the same page."
I disagree. Only after an implementation is created and evaluated can you determine the value of the technology.
"In the case of web technologies, standards should always come before."
I was with you until you said that. I see no reason why web technoligies are a special case.
Remember when MIT was all about mathematics, science and engineering rather than a international public policy think-tank?
Oh well, there's still Caltech and Harvey Mudd.
No, and I don't get the joke.
"They (the BBC) should spell it out, so that the general public actually gets notified officially, and thus make it a well known issue amongs non-IT literate people."
Yeah, so that Joe Sixpack will read about when he turns off the game on ESPN to do his daily check of the BBC website.
Now you can get to "No's" when you ask for mission-critical hardware or software.
I think the fundamental problem is that standards should primarily codify existing practice, not invent a lot of new stuff.
"Freedom is digital: either you are as free as you can be, or you aren't. There is nothing inbetween."
A guess you mean freedom is bivalent. Digital allows a range of values. In any case, if you really believe that there's no such thing as degrees of freedom, then we really don't have enough common ground to continue this discussion.
Good luck with your unique perspective.
"Now who's anthropomorphising?"
Certainly not me. According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary the definition of destiny includes: "something to which a person or thing is destined". There's no mention of anthropomorphism.
"It's not "sanctimonious crap". It's something people genuinely believe."
People genuinely believe in a lot of things. Often people believe the exact opposite of other people. Thus belief alone is not sufficient to determine truth.
"As a consequence of this, closed source software -- which seeks to deny these rights -- must be evil, since it seeks directly to oppose a fundamental freedom"
Apparently your definition of freedom doesn't include the freedom to create something and keep the details to oneself.
In fact in an earlier post talking about closed source software you said: "which I happen to think is a crime against humanity in and of itself"
This is a slap in the face to the victims of real crimes against humanity. Not all mass-murders qualify for crimes against humanity, but apparently closed source software developers do. The stupidity of your comment should be obvious even to you.
"Wow, thats like saying that a charity is only for self-interest and does nothing to benefit other humans."
I didn't realize that donations to charity typically include a license agreement. There's a reason why you can't deduct "free" software development from your income taxes: it isn't charity.
"Of course using a GPL license does protect one right of the author: the right to ensure that the software, as an evolving system, will remain freely accesible and usable."
The GPL, like any other license, can't ensure that the software will evolve or be usable or even accessible but it can prevent the code from being incorporated into closed source code.
I was counting items in his list, not making one of my own.
"Of course you need copyright to enforce the GPL"
Thanks for making my point. The GPL will only succeed to the extent that people respect the "IP" behind it. Now, I don't want you to be confused or "hung up" by the term "IP" as it's used here. Since we are talking about the GPL, everybody understands that we're not talking about software patents. Likewise when we talk about "IP" with respect to music, we aren't talking about software patents either. Is that clear enough?
"However, someone might read it and think the GPL is inconsistent with copyright law, or that you either support both the GPL and the RIAA or neither."
Well, anyone who would conclude that my statement implied that the GPL was inconsistent with copyright law is not a very careful reader. As for the second intrepretation, that's fairly close to what I was saying. In other words, if you wish people to respect your rights under the GPL, you should respect their rights with respect to licensing other material. Obviously, if we only abide by licenses we personally agree with, then licenses in general would be worthless.
"Believe in IP" is rather meaningless to say (you could be talking about anything)"
Gee and just a few paragraphs ago you said "IP is essentially both trademark, copyright and patents at the same time." I only count 3 things. Are you confused?
Apparently you want to shift the discussion from consistency of position on authors rights to a technical discussion on what "IP" really means. Nobody (including you) has any confusion about what I meant by "IP" in the context of the discussion.