"And if you combine it with GPL'd code, well, the end result isn't entirely your code anymore."
And neither is it entirely the original authors code. It is both and thus the GPL does dictate both what you can do with the code you combined with the GPL'd code and what you can do with the GPL'd code itself.
"It's nothing new in business. Most proprietary licenses are the same thing: they'll give you their code only if you give them your money in return. The GPL is the same deal, it's just that the "payment" is in kind instead of cash: I'll give you my code only if you give me your code in return."
Well, your description of the "deal" is at least correct in spirit. However, there's a big difference between paying cash and "giving up" your code. If there wasn't, RMS would never have created the GPL in the first place.
I'll echo you in saying that I don't understand why this is difficult to grasp. Or is it just difficult to admit?
Well, I think your explanation isn't complete. Unlike most licenses, the GPL does dictate what you can do with your code as well as someone else's. The fact that you are free to not to use GPL'd code doesn't negate that.
If the GPL solely concerned itself with the original author's rights, it would simply require you to redistribute the original GPL'd source code and not require you to distribute your own original source code.
People have every right to use the GPL and it is what it is, but I don't understand why people want to pretend that has nothing to do with the rights of downstream developers when clearly it does.
Well, if the X customers are willing to sign a joint contract that includes a payment amount based on X, than using the GPL is no problem. That doesn't seem likely.
The other option is that a single customer is willing to pay enough to make the project economically feasible. That doesn't seem likely either.
Most likely you don't have any real X customers but rather people who want your project for free.
Are writers of in-house tools really developers or are they really IT folks who write a little code?
Remember that shrink-wrap is only one subset of non-inhouse-code. It also includes embedded systems and public web sites. When you consider them all, I'm not sure that the vast majority are in-house developers.
Yes, the jobs are right there in the careers section of the web site and as long as tech companies want to claim there's a shortage of qualified candidates, they'll remain there unfilled.
It's hard to tell when Sun is telling the truth. It was only a few years earlier when Mcnealy was saying he had banned office suites at Sun. How can you save money replacing MS Office when you're not using it?
"Freedom for the end user -- that's all its about, nothing more and nothing less."
Are you sure? After all this is your second definition of "freedom".
Actually the main problem with RMS and his followers is not they want to use the GPL, but rather their spin machine where they try to promote the GPL by labeling everything else as non-free and evil.
But the fact is that you didn't correctly state RMS's definition of freedom. His definition of freedom is the ability to do whatever he allows you to do with what you purchase"
Actually, it's illegal in the US for a company to hire an unpaid intern if he does the same work an employee does. An unpaid intern must be in training at the company and the training must be for the benefit of the intern, not the company.
Slashdot Mirror
"And if you combine it with GPL'd code, well, the end result isn't entirely your code anymore."
And neither is it entirely the original authors code. It is both and thus the GPL does dictate both what you can do with the code you combined with the GPL'd code and what you can do with the GPL'd code itself.
"It's nothing new in business. Most proprietary licenses are the same thing: they'll give you their code only if you give them your money in return. The GPL is the same deal, it's just that the "payment" is in kind instead of cash: I'll give you my code only if you give me your code in return."
Well, your description of the "deal" is at least correct in spirit. However, there's a big difference between paying cash and "giving up" your code. If there wasn't, RMS would never have created the GPL in the first place.
I'll echo you in saying that I don't understand why this is difficult to grasp. Or is it just difficult to admit?
I can't help it if my parents named me .. oh wait.
Your potatoes analogy is just a bit too "earthy" for me to respond to.
Well, I think your explanation isn't complete. Unlike most licenses, the GPL does dictate what you can do with your code as well as someone else's. The fact that you are free to not to use GPL'd code doesn't negate that.
If the GPL solely concerned itself with the original author's rights, it would simply require you to redistribute the original GPL'd source code and not require you to distribute your own original source code.
People have every right to use the GPL and it is what it is, but I don't understand why people want to pretend that has nothing to do with the rights of downstream developers when clearly it does.
YKUTW "proprietary". IDNTIMWYTIM.
Well, if the X customers are willing to sign a joint contract that includes a payment amount based on X, than using the GPL is no problem. That doesn't seem likely.
The other option is that a single customer is willing to pay enough to make the project economically feasible. That doesn't seem likely either.
Most likely you don't have any real X customers but rather people who want your project for free.
"If it contains someone else's code under GPL, you can still make money from the modifications, but you won't make a monopoly rent from it."
You won't be able to pay your rent from it.
Are writers of in-house tools really developers or are they really IT folks who write a little code?
Remember that shrink-wrap is only one subset of non-inhouse-code. It also includes embedded systems and public web sites. When you consider them all, I'm not sure that the vast majority are in-house developers.
"I'm curious why TomTom wouldn't have done this work themselves to invalidate Microsoft's claims and avoid any sort of settlement?"
Probably because being wrong while speculating on Slashdot has no risk, but being wrong when your business is on the line does.
Yes, the jobs are right there in the careers section of the web site and as long as tech companies want to claim there's a shortage of qualified candidates, they'll remain there unfilled.
Macs?
"A big proportion of graphic designers and sound engineers use macs"
It's hard to tell when Sun is telling the truth. It was only a few years earlier when Mcnealy was saying he had banned office suites at Sun. How can you save money replacing MS Office when you're not using it?
MS Office is rarely if ever bundled with retail PCs and is usually a separate billable item if you order through Gateway or Dell.
You're knowledge of cliches is impressive, but it's customary to use them appropriately.
"Freedom for the end user -- that's all its about, nothing more and nothing less."
Are you sure? After all this is your second definition of "freedom".
Actually the main problem with RMS and his followers is not they want to use the GPL, but rather their spin machine where they try to promote the GPL by labeling everything else as non-free and evil.
But the fact is that you didn't correctly state RMS's definition of freedom. His definition of freedom is the ability to do whatever he allows you to do with what you purchase"
I really meant it mostly as a joke, but consider that punched tape and punched cards followed a standard but are mostly inaccessible today.
Sorry, the book is already obsolete.
"Correct RMS's definition of freedom is the ability to do whatever you want with what you purchase."
What if what I want to do is take a GPL'd product I've purchased, modify it, and sell it as a closed source application?
Actually, it's illegal in the US for a company to hire an unpaid intern if he does the same work an employee does. An unpaid intern must be in training at the company and the training must be for the benefit of the intern, not the company.
1. Do user support for free
2. Go on welfare (US)
3. Family still lives at mission
Many people have a much broader view of "freedom" than RMS does. That doesn't mean that they value it any less than he does.
If we finally get him the source for that printer driver will SFU?
If the undocumented formula produced much better results, I might adopt such a policy.
RMS isn't concerned about privacy or any other legitimate concern with SoS. He just cares about his idea of "freedom".